Comparing Obama's Performance in Office with that of a Sack of Hammers
Many people consider leadership to be important to a presidency, and a sack of hammers would have absolutely no interest in this role. It would never consider rousing the American people to action or trying to enact social change; instead it would just sit out of the way and let everyone do their own thing.
Barack Obama has at least tried to be a leader. He's given numerous speeches -- something a sack of hammers would never do -- and attempted to inspire people at times. The end results haven't been great, and mainly people are just annoyed when he interrupts their TV shows, but at least he's trying.
JUDGMENT: Obama does somewhat better than a sack of hammers at being a leader.
Obama has tried to improve relations with other nations with mixed results. Some of our closest allies, such as the British, have felt snubbed at times, and despite Obama's outreach to Muslims, America's popularity in the Middle East has dropped. Also, Obama has done odd things like bow to foreign sovereigns, which has undermined America's image of authority.
A sack of hammers would be extremely aloof toward foreign leaders. This might seem negative at times, but one of the best ways to assert dominance is to ignore others. In this way, many foreign leaders would probably come to respect -- and perhaps slightly fear -- the sack of hammers and its mysterious, unreadable attitude.
It seems unlikely that a sack of hammers would receive a Nobel Peace Prize like Obama, but who in the world knows how those people think?
JUDGMENT: Obama is slightly worse than a sack of hammers in the area foreign relations.
The debt has been a huge problem for the country for some time. In fact, to even consider balancing the budget we will need drastic cuts to many entitlements. Obviously, a sack of hammers is averse to doing anything labeled "drastic" and would have just left spending at its current level. This seems bad, but it's much better than President Obama, who has only added to the annual deficit while in charge. With a sack of hammers, it is unlikely that by now spending would have increased to the level that caused our credit downgrade with S&P.
Also, long term, the sack of hammers’ strategy would have forced a balanced budget, as it would never considering raising the debt ceiling. This would have forced many budget cuts before the debt limit was ever reached.
JUDGMENT: Obama does immensely worse than a sack of hammers in the area of the national debt.
Taking all these areas into consideration, it's pretty easy to see that a sack of hammers would be a much better president than Obama. This isn't to say that Obama is dumber than a sack of hammers -- a ridiculous assertion -- it's just to say that he's much worse at being a president than one.
Of course, this is all hypothetical, as you'll never find a sack of hammers with the fire in the belly necessary to both run for president and win. Perhaps that's a problem in our system of democracy that someone like a sack of hammers, who would be an above average to great president, could never be elected.
Interestingly, the place where a sack of hammers would excel the most would be the post presidency. If you're Habitat for Humanity and want to build a bunch of houses, which would be more useful to you: another Jimmy Carter or a sack full of hammers?