So what's the difference between the guy who plays the president on TV and the guy who really is the president?

Sure, they've both got teams of writers telling them what to say, and a little troop of image people making sure they don't appear on TV with a piece of toilet paper stuck to the bottom of their shoe. Some smartasses who refuse to acknowledge the electoral college will even claim that neither of them was elected. But there is a big difference--Accountability.

The real president is held responsible if something goes wrong. If everything he does turns out to be completely wrong, and he gets our army smacked around... AND we get 100 new terror attacks because of it... AND we get thrown out of the UN (oh the horror!!!)... if all that happens, George Bush will be held accountable. If Martin Sheen is wrong, he gets to go back to Malibu and enjoy his mansion and say "oh, well, guess I was wrong." He's not held liable for anything he was wrong about. If we don't go to war, and it turns out Iraq is affiliated with Al-Qaeda (is there a middle eastern country that isn't?) and another 3,000 people die in a terrorist attack, he gets to say "Wow, didn't see that coming. Everything always goes my way on the TV show. I didn't expect that I might be wrong."

There are valid points about whether or not we should go to war--and none of those points are coming from the bunch of ex-hippies paraded in front of us on the evening news who are hoping for a return to the glory days of the 60's and 70's when people gave a rats ass what they had to say, but I digress. I think we need to make sure it's done for the right reasons, but in the end, the real president needs to make the call... and the guy who pretends to be the president on TV needs to shut the hell up.