David Brooks over at the New York Times thinks Obama's presidential style has made him a great Senate majority leader. Which I guess could be a great compliment, if you're a crossing guard.
That's not a shot at Obama, because a crossing guards are technically leaders too.
The public follows crossing guards out into oncoming traffic solely on the sense of hope they provide that it's safe to cross. So they never make that call unless its safe for them to cross too.
The stop signs they carry contain a message they intend for everyone else to follow but them. If nobody wants to listen to them then they'll just get run over, and there isn't anything they can really do about it.
Basically, crossing guards are the teleprompterless, underachieving, yet more successful step-cousin of Barack Obama.
One major difference I can think of is that crossing guards have more executive experience, they assess the situation on the street, make a judgement call, and then they just go for it. They don't confer with the kids and their parents. They don't think about it for 40 days or sleep on it (whichever ends first).
If a bunch of cars pile up in the intersection they definitely don't go off and play golf to clear their head.
Does that mean a good leader has to be a dictator? No, but we are facing problems that could end America as we know it, and right now crossing guards are more decisive than the President of the United States.
For starters, I'm going to go out on a limb and say they'd probably hold that stop sign up against our debt as it approaches the limit line.
They probably don't bow to foreign cars either.
Also, for crossing guards this....
....means "stop." For Obama it means "do I need a manicure Mahmoud?"
We should start having co-presidents, one can get things done and make decisions, and the other can bask in the glow of adoration and the medias flashing cameras until epilepsy sets in.