You really can't make this kind of comedy gold up.
The Washington Post has come out with a ringing endorsement of President Obama.
See "Washington Post endorsement: Four more years for President Obama."
And it's a hoot.
You know something's a little strained when the first sentence in the paper's resounding editorial seal of approval is this:
"Much of the 2012 presidential campaign has dwelt on the past, but ..."
So the boys there are immediately going to ask that you ignore everything that's happened over the last four years and focus instead on Obama's promises for the future.
Presumably his promises of hope and ... whatever that other empty, unfulfilled promise from long ago was.
And that's exactly what they attempt to do.
But talk about bizarre.
Here's one of the two - and only two - questions that the editorial staff asked itself before it chose Barry Obama to lead us into the future:
"[M]ost urgently, who is likelier to put the government on a more sound financial footing."
Did they really want to go there?
Shouldn't they have stuck with Sandra Fluke or something?
Somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary ...
"President Barack Obama is better positioned to be that navigator than is his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney."
"That navigator," known to most of us as the Francesco Schettino of the American ship of state, is prepared to stop spending us into oblivion?
Well, if you ignore all reality, if you completely ignore his past, if you turn a blind eye to the realities of 2012, if you pay attention only to his promises of sweetness and light, then ... by God ... he's the man!
If only ...
But then there's the real world.
Four more years of Obama and we're screwed.