A liberal acquaintance supported Obama on the theory he is smarter than Bush (not running of course) and?

therefore should be President (funny how Democrats say the Democrat candidate is ALWAYS the smarter of the two, despite evidence to the contrary, as in the case of Kerry's lower than Bush's grades, and less impressive educational record [BC law school, after Yale and his privileged life!?]). But when I asked why Stephen Hawking shouldn't just be president by acclamation, without an election, based on an IQ test, he had no answer. Liberals who love this line of argument, what's your answer?