The Oakland Post

We may need bumper lanes in White House

By Web Master
Posted: Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 at 1:23 am | Last Updated: Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 at 1:23 am Comments Print This Email This Tweet This Delicious

By TODD M. BUTKOVICH
Guest Columnist

Last week, the world of American politics was shocked by the latest
tragedy to befall a presidential candidate when we found out, to our
horror, that Barack Obama really, really sucks at bowling.

At a campaign rally held at a Pennsylvania bowling alley, Senator Obama finished with a score of 37.

To put this in perspective, that’s like an SAT score somewhere between
not putting your name down and quitting three questions in because you
saw a raccoon outside.

Now, the last time I went bowling was 11 months ago — and that was
after a three year absence from the game — and I was still was able to
rein in a triple-digit score.

(Note: I refuse to refer to bowling as a “sport” on the grounds that
there are senior citizens’ leagues, and anything with a senior
citizens’ league cannot in good conscience be called a sport.)

Since this revelation came out, people haven’t been speaking so fondly
of Obama, as if he is yet another man brought down from potential
greatness by bowling.

Of course, I’m not saying Obama shouldn’t become president because he
needs the assistance of bumpers they put in at kids’ parties — there
are plenty of other reasons he shouldn’t be president, some of them not
related to the seven-ten split whatsoever.

But still . . . 37?

So does this really matter in the long run?

As a certified history major, I can definitively state that, yes, it
does. Failing at recreational contests has ruined the careers of many
past presidential candidates.

Consider 1984, when a humiliated Walter Mondale went on to carry only
one state in the

Electoral College after being defeated by Ronald
Reagan in a break-dancing competition.

Or the 1952 election, which ended up being decided by a cutthroat game of quarters.

It’s a proud tradition dating back to 1800, when John Adams challenged
Thomas Jefferson to the most popular sport of the day — seeing who
could go the longest without getting cholera. This contest ended in a
draw and had to be settled in a sudden-death typhoid overtime.

Which brings me back to today’s elections: What arbitrary challenge should select who takes the White House in 2009?

We’re already aware that bowling isn’t a fair fight.

The thought of Hillary Clinton and John McCain challenging each other
to a match of

Twister is too vomit-inducing, and a health care debate
could ruin a good, clean game of Operation.

Perhaps the best method is by seeing who can best rock out to Def
Leppard on Guitar Hero, or the challenge of who has the hungriest
hungriest hippo (although with Bill Richardson on
Obama’s side, it’s a
little lopsided).

My vote: Risk. 

I mean, what better why to decide who should conquer the world than by
having the candidates roll dice and push plastic armies over the face
of Denmark?

It’s less costly, and doesn’t come with any of those irritating protesters.

Or we can just stick to the old-fashioned game: rock-paper-attack ad.

Until then, we’ll just have to wonder what kind of future we are headed for with a president who can only bowl a score of 37.