As Mollie highlighted earlier this week, the Washington Post came out with a poll recently on the presidential candidates that devolved into idiotic hypotheticals, such as "Who would you rather invite to dinner at your home?" The paper's own resident hip, young, well-educated humor editorialist Alexandra Petri made me laugh this morning with her treatment of it. She asks a series of similarly hard-hitting questions to determine the most capable leader:
●You’re a private eye, working out of a cheap office on nothing but a drawer full of bourbon. One day, trouble blows through the door. A brunette, as usual. Which candidate’s otherwise promising career as a writer has she blighted with her salacious lifestyle?
●Instead of cursing, you have to shout one of the candidate’s names whenever you’re angry. Whose do you choose?
●You’re on your honeymoon, and the car breaks down. Your husband leaves to get help, leaving you locked in the car. You hear a horrible scraping sound on the outside of the car and see one of the candidates running towards you, mouthing something you cannot understand and looking terrified. Is it Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
●Would you rather live with Mitt Romney in a world where all the other people are spiders, or live with Barack Obama in a world where you are a spider?
Considering this poll and the Pew Political Party Quiz that tells you if you are red or blue based on how strongly you agree with statements like "I never doubt the existence of God," I say we need to bring the candidates in on these psycho-political surveys. At the debates they should have to discuss "The Lady, or the Tiger?"