In the wake of the president’s beer summit with Professor Henry Louis Gates and Sergeant James Crowley, much is being made of the brew choices involved. A short but thoughtful Wall Street Journal article uses the occasion as an opportunity to reflect on the drinking habits of past presidents, and does its best to explain the rationale behind Obama’s mind-blowingly bad choice of Belgian-owned Bud Light:
“When Mr. Obama reached for his econo-brew, he was nodding not only to the everyman choice, but also to the modern requirement that a president drink domestic. (Never mind that Bud is now owned by a Belgian conglomerate, it is still brewed in the U.S. of A. and has all the red, white and blue bona fides necessary for admittance to the White House.)”
To which some might reply: “Seriously, Mr. President? What’s wrong with Sam Adams?”
The piece does give Obama credit for at least giving the stuff a bit of a spotlight, in contrast to some of his predecessors. The worst offender, of course: Woodrow Wilson, who actually signed a law shutting down the nation’s breweries.
How many Red State voters drink Sam Adams? Serious question. Bud is mass-produced and consumed by the masses. Who can afford … Bud. Who have been drinking Bud for years.
I am relieved people aren’t making a big deal about Pres. Obama imbibing. I was worried that we’d gotten so used to having a president on the wagon people would somehow be concerned about an adult man with what I hear is a stressful job (ya think?) having a drink. Glad to see the public hasn’t lost *that* much common sense! :-)
I’m glad no fuss was made about such very moderate drinking. Don’t actually think Obama is a beer drinker – believe his tastes run to Italian cuisine and a moderate amount of wine (a beer, wine or other pot belly looks dreadful on skinny people).
Working-class voters know Obama can afford better beer – I don’t understand your populism about that Mawter (though alas our PM Harper seems to have imported it in attacking an opponent for drinking cappuccino – as many working-class people of Italian origin from Canada to Argentina do). I haven’t had Sam Adams yet, though it is imported here in Québec now – I’m not much of a beer drinker either.
Doesn’t “mass-produced” in terms of foodstuffs imply “chemical-laden”? There is a slight price difference between such stuff and craft beers here, but it isn’t very much, and few people with a job couldn’t afford a couple of decent beers.
Is mass produced beer chemical-laden? Who knows, there are no ingredients on the label!
I actually don’t think mass produced, unflavored beer has any chemicals; maybe a dash of preservative but I doubt it. It is the brewing process and ingredients (mostly rice) that cause the poor flavor.
I think Obama was trying to keep in tune with his constituency, a generation of consumers of flavorless, mass-produced dreck.