Pet Peeves: Comparisons

Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias, who are pretty sharp as far as pundits go, asking the burning question on everyones' minds:

"Matt[Yglesias] wonders whether Obama is a new Jimmy Carter or a new Ronald Reagan. I think that's actually the wrong comparison to fear: The question is whether he's a new first term Bill Clinton."

I think an EVER BETTER question is whether Obama is an 8th term James Polk or a negative 3rd term Chester A Arthur! And does that make McCain a 21st century Rutherford B. Hayes or a 20,000 BC Millard Fillmore?

Now when do I get my TEN THOUSAND internet smarty pants dollars?

Why is there this need among even talented pundits to frame absolutely everything in terms of either 20th century events that happened as they were growing up, or even worse World War II( see: President Bush declaring that speaking to Iran is exactly the same as British PM Chamberlain giving the Sudetenland to Hitler!!!!???!?)

Is it remotely possible that someone or something can just be what it is and not just another shitty remake?