A New Milestone in Presidential Qualifications: Necessity of a “First Pooch”

Gabriella Hoffman Gabriella Hoffman 7 Comments


Tradition has long held that qualifications for President of the United States be explicitly spelled out through Article II of the Constitution. They entail that the President: serve a four-year term (maximum of two) with a vice president serving the same allotted term(s), must be at least 35-years-old, must be a naturalized citizen for at least 14 years, be the Commander–in–Chief of the armed forces, deliver a State of the Union address, etc. Yet, as the last year transpired, a new qualification surfaced and seemed unavoidable to acknowledge: necessity of a “First Dog.” Maybe this is part of that wonderful change we so heartily believed in, like that of the fundamental change that is to come? This current president is not frankly a proponent of the Constitution, our “Law of the Land,” deeming it as a document that, “…didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…is a charter of negative liberties.” So, putting forth this necessity of a “First Doggie” would be acceptable in this man’s eyes as he sees it appropriate to change, and eventually rid of, the Constitution for good.

Now, this provision to Article II would require that the chosen dog have an elitist pedigree, only of the highest breeding lineage would be acceptable. As major newspapers and media outlets crafted the ideal story of Bo’s “adoption” into the Obama family, there obviously was room for some controversy. An April 12th, 2009 Washington Post article written about the doggie’s illustrious debut documented it as, “a handsome little guy. Well suited for formal occasions at the White House, he’s got tuxedo-black fur, with a white chest, white paws and a rakish white goatee.” Of course, having a dog with the appropriate fur color and pattern provides for a successful gala, and at this rate, will provide for successful press conferences. Claiming that he was the candidate for the common man, candidate Obama should have opted for a shelter dog or one with a “secondhand” origin. The HSUS purports that a dog like the Obama’s was one of “many surrendered by their owners…,” albeit the fact that it was a gift by the late Ted Kennedy, a man of the highest liberal caliber infamous for having the grandest things in life. So no common dog for the Obama…quite demonstrative of the true elitists at play.

If you can think about anything positive or thoughtful that this current President has accomplished, although his track record of ruining the nation far exceeds such, choosing the “First Pooch” had to be his most telling “accomplishment.” Like any American, I love these cuddly, furry creatures and am not a “heartless conservative heathen without appreciation for animals.” Why do progressives always paint us as heartless? At least we conservatives have humility when it comes to choosing a dog, and do not have to be elitist or “breedist” when it comes to selecting a canine. Americans can agree that dogs are important in our lives, yet the action of choosing the “First Pooch” absorbed too much limelight and frankly, too much press. Aside from this, picking a suitable dog had to be important since it took six very tiring months for the Obama’s to select the perfect hypoallergenic doggie for daughter Malia suffers from allergies (my goodness!). Clearly, “America fell in love” with Bo Obama, the new furry addition to the White House, and felt inclined to dedicate their time to knowing everything about this dog to forget about the woes surrounding problems like the 787-billion-dollar stimulus and the increased sphere of government involvement in our lives. Yet, evading the nation’s problems with this beautiful fairy tale of the “perfect,” if not best, “First Dog” cannot compensate for the destruction of the United States.

The Progressives paint any American as keen to know about every parameter of Bo Obama’s happenings, favorite Kibble, clothing preferences, and the like. What is rather odd is that leftist newspapers and columnists have the audacity to write from the perspective of the First Pooch, as New York Times Op-Ed contributor Ben Greenman did about the “First One-Hundred (Dog) Days.” Talk about the left’s slobbering love affair with anything relating to the Obama’s, above all a dog and its perspective on life in the White House for crying out loud! But the New York Times and other proponents of the Left need to spruce up their readership as their more successful counterparts like the Wall Street Journal dominate, so writing a piece like this is an attempt to sell papers and climb the ranks of journalistic prominence (although there is a questionable certainty about the lack thereof in respect to the N.Y. Times).

Nevertheless, as Obama continues to reign over the United States, matters like Bo Obama’s take on diplomatic affairs and domestic policies will be presented by major news media outlets as “readily-important issues” at this rate. Animal life is more regarded than human life in this day and age, so why not the possibility of a dog overseeing affairs that are best left to (human) professionals? Remember that man’s best friend might have a soft spot in the heart of any American, but it cannot clearly suffice as the most important issue in our lives.



Comments 7

  1. If this isn’t proof of the justification for adding a young, aspiring journalist to the blogpen, I don’t know what is!

  2. Foolish, foolish, foolish. Don’t you think that Ben Greenman’s piece in the New York Times was satirical? Maybe this piece is, too. It is hysterical in every sense of the word.

  3. Apparently, some are not sure of satire when they see it. Gabriella is not among them. In actuality, this strikes the right balance between amusing and serious. If one can’t see the tragic humor of a “public” so caught up in the insignificant, while ignoring the things that will impact their lives and those of their children for years to come, maybe he is the foolish example.

  4. Who is Thor? My point is that the entire tone of the Times piece acknowledged that the obsession with the dog was silly. It was as much a commentary on leadership and the hunger for irrelevant details as it was an attempt to elevate the dog. I don’t trust this blog, though, because it seems written in ignorance and agenda. It seems hamstrung by small ideas that masquerade as big ones. In truth, I only pity it, and you, and Thor, because what are all of you other than blips in some kind of endless bitstream where every half-baked idea and every half-wit scribe gets to fantasize that there’s anything to the platform on which he or she stands.

  5. “…where every half-baked idea and every half-wit scribe gets to fantasize that there’s anything to the platform on which he or she stands.” Indeed. Who is Thor? http://sdrostra.com/?p=49

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.