I mentioned Scott Adams’ blog…

…a while back and one of the things I believe I mentioned is that he looks at events with a unique perspective.  I’ve heard rumors for years that Hillary likes her cocktails to the point of it bordering on a problem, but I must confess, I never seriously considered her problem through the prism of the Presidency.  Partly because I never thought this country could be stupid enough to elect her, but even without that (possibly unfounded) bias, I probably wouldn’t have looked at it from Adams’ perspective.

Candidate Risk Assessment – Scott Adams

We Moist Robots like to judge the world through filters that assume we are the standard for normal and sensible behavior. And because many of us drink – as do most of our role models – we figure it must be okay for a President to drink.

It isn’t. Because of nuclear codes and terror attacks and whatnot.

In most presidential elections, voters have a choice of one social drinker or the other social drinker. Risk-wise, that’s a tie. But this election features a candidate who is known to like her alcohol versus a candidate who has reportedly never had a drink, an illegal drug, or a cigarette. And that means alcohol can be considered in the risk assessment.

I would argue that alcohol consumption is the biggest risk differential in this election. We’re just blind to that risk because alcohol is socially acceptable.

Read the whole thing and make sure you check out the interesting collection of links that Scott has assembled at the bottom of the article.  Some you’ve seen before but not through the prism of alcohol-use.  This one in particular is worth checking out.