The title of a recently released Yahoo! article poses an interesting question: "What if BUSH had done that?" Comments are again, all over the board.

The list of things that Obama reportedly did not get into trouble for and Bush did include (among other things):

• "A four-hour stop in New Orleans on his way to a $3 million fundraiser".
• "Snubbing the Dalai Lama". "Snubbing" is an emotionally charged word. THIS ARTICLE MUST HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY A REPUBLICAN.
• "Signing off on a secret deal with drugmakers". This is Bush, not Obama. Obama doesn't do this kind of thing. He is a lawyer unlike Bush, who is a businessman who was accused of allowing State Department officials to have sex with oil executives during his tenure. Obama is GENERALLY on the side of consumers and hard-working class families.
• "Freezing out a TV network". Bush doesn't have enough charisma for TV.
• "Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf too". Again, this must have been written by Republicans. Which president doesn't play or hasn't played golf? THIS IS THE LATEST EXAMPLE OF POLITICS.

According to Ed Gillespie, a former adviser to Bush, "We have a joke about it. We're going to start a web-site: IfBushHadDoneThat.com. THE WATCHDOGS ARE CURLED UP AROUND HIS FEET, SLEEPING SOUNDLY", perhaps implying that they weren't paying attention? "There are countless examples, some SILLY (and) some SERIOUS". Whatever the case may be, it reinforces the fact that an increasing number of people now regard George W. Bush as incompetent, regardless of whether his mistakes are "silly" or "serious".

Sherry Bebitch (does anyone notice the word "bitch" in this lady's name?) Jones, a professor at USC, has an even more controversial idea: "There may well be AN UNCONSCIOUS EFFORT to give Obama a bit more slack because HE IS MORE LIKEABLE (or perhaps) because HE IS THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT. That plays into it". So race is still a factor almost a year after Obama's emotional victory on November 4, 2008. Again, however, November 4, 2008 is in the past now,which means that Obama must be evaluated on his work without so much emphasis on his race and personality, although these remain important.

According to Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, "As our administration MAKES PROGRESS on the issues that WASHINGTON HAS IGNORED FOR FAR TOO LONG, we expect (that) we'll get SOME coverage of the progress that we like and SOME that we don't". Approximately, how much is "some"?

Next up is the issue of how much time Bush spent in New Orleans in comparison with Obama (Bush is accused of spending too little time there). In response to this, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this suggestion: "Don't judge anybody (including ex-president Bush) on the amount of time (that) they spent there. Judge only what this administration PROMISED IT WOULD DO, WHAT THEY'VE DONE EVERY DAY and WHAT THEY'VE CONTINUED TO WORK ON". Good suggestion. Too many people these days get bogged down with minor details that are insignificant.

According to Ari Fleischer, Bush's first press secretary between his inauguration in 2001 until July 15, 2003, "Had I said about MSNBC WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAID ABOUT FOX, the media uproar would still be going on". OK, now we should clearly see where all this is going. NBC is LIBERAL while Fox is CONSERVATIVE. "I instinctively would have known...THE MEDIA WOULD HAVE LEAPT TO THEIR FEET to defend them. I'M SHOCKED it's not happening now".

According to Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle, "If George Bush would have taken on MSNBC, what would have happened? That's one place (where) you can point to a real difference in how I'd imagine George Bush would be treated".

According to Peter Feaver, a former White House adviser for BOTH Bush (we assume this is the elder George H.W. Bush because he immediately preceded Clinton) and Clinton, "Oh the HOWLING and SCREAMING that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. PEOPLE WOULD HAVE GONE BALLISTIC". This is already "ballistic".

Gibbs responded: "This president...DOESN'T RECEIVE MONEY FROM PACs (political action committees)OR LOBBYISTS and doesn't allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers he's at, as well". This is something that we have to disagree with Obama and Gibbs on. ALL politicians receive money or other contributions from lobbyists AT SOME POINT.

According to Scott Gration, President Obama's Ambassador to Sudan, as a candidate (i.e. while Obama was a senator), he warned Bush against a "RECKLESS and CYNICAL initiative (that) would reward the regime in Khartoum that has a reputation of failing to live up to its commitments". Well, there is a saying that "Promises are meant to be broken", ESPECIALLY IN POLITICS, regardless of whether we're talking Sudan or HEALTH CARE REFORM (yes, let's bring this issue up again).

Gration goes on to say that "We've got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries - THEY REACT (positively to things such as) gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk (and) engagement". If this sounds like a PR blitz, that's because it is.

The final item of interest is the fact that Bush (allegedly) "spent seven minutes touring the Kremlin (most people would spend hours) and 25 minutes at the Great Wall (most people would climb for HOURS) before allegedly declaring "Let's go home".

What about Obama, who made only brief stops in Germany and France as president after he was treated something like a rock star when he visited during the time he was a candidate? "THERE ARE ONLY 24 HOURS IN THE DAY (even for President Obama). And so THERE'S NOTHING TO ANY OF THAT SPECULATION beyond us trying to fit in what we can on such a short trip", but remember, US presidents have Air Force I.

Whew. So what was the point of that? There was ABSOLUTELY NO POINT TO THIS REPORT/ARTICLE. It is simply a snapshot of what POLITICIANS do every day. It is simply the staff of the incumbent president and the staff of his predecessor GOING AFTER EACH OTHER.