Amazing logic from one of the greatest minds in Hollywood

In what may be the silliest post I’ve written in some time, I’m going to try to make sense of Sean Penn’s recent political analysis, delivered at the Cannes Film Festival:

At a press conference beforehand, the actor, an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, offered his views on the Democratic nomination race.
Asked if he would be joining other Hollywood A-listers in pledging support for Obama, Penn gave him a less than ringing endorsement and warned that he has an awful lot to live up to.
“I don’t have a candidate I’m supporting and I’m certainly interested and excited by the hope that Barack Obama is inspiring,” he said, but went on to accuse him of a “phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional” voting record.

Oddly enough, I agree. Obama’s gun control record is inhuman (for violating the natural right to self defense) as well as unconstitutional (for violating the Second Amendment).
Except I’m having a little trouble with the rest:

“I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn’t become a greater man than he will ever be,” Penn said. “This is the most important election, certainly in my lifetime, and maybe ever.”

if he doesn’t become a greater man than he will ever be?
Isn’t that a logical impossibility?
UPDATE: My thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link!