There are issues facing this great nation which outweigh even the economy and Iraq.

In at least one respect, President Barack Obama is not bringing change to Washington. Just like the Bush administration, and the Clintons, Nixons and Johnsons before that, Obama will oversee a White House unencumbered by male children. In the 80 years before the Obama administration, only the Kennedys brought a boy into the White House.

In some countries, being son-less would be considered a weakness, especially in a leader. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has two sons. So does Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, while French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has three. Even his Majesty King Letsie III, potentate of Lesotho, has a son. (See TIME's Top Ten Photos of 2008)

American voters apparently have evolved beyond such simplistic notions of what makes a good head of state, but they were not ever thus. In the 19th century, the occupants of the White House had herds of boys. The Lincolns had four. The Grants had three sons and a daughter. The Hayeses had seven sons and a daughter. The Garfields had seven kids, five of them sons. Not all of these male heirs lived in the White House - many died young, or were too old to be living with their parents - but several did.

So why no modern manlings in the east wing? I have a theory, born of careful historical analysis and solipsism: It's impossible to be elected to the White House if you have young sons, because that would mean you have to campaign with them.

Please go ahead and read the rest here, especially if you're the mother of boys. I would finish reading it with you but my son has locked the cat in the pantry.

hat tip: Trish

Labels: Political Humor, Political Observation