This is causing an uproar:

I report. You decide whether it is, as the Obama campaign noted, “tasteless and offensive” or whether those Obama folks aren’t awfully thin-skinned.

Hey! Even Andrew Sullivan agrees with me:

I thought it was quite funny myself. This was obviously intended ironically, and it’s not exactly Parade magazine.

Yesterday, the NYT’s Jim Rutenberg wrote a nice, straightforward description of campaign ‘08 as it stands in mid-July [e.a.]:

Every presidential election year, the nominees of the major parties vow to run cordial campaigns only to behave otherwise when the battle finally joins.

This campaign, though, had held out more promise than most previous election cycles to be something different, with two candidates whose pledges to change “politics as usual” have been central to their political identities. Mr. Obama has regularly inveighed against “all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington”; Mr. McCain, whose bus and plane are streaked with the words “Straight Talk,” has talked about running “a respectful campaign,” what he has called “an argument among friends.”

But roughly a month into the general election campaign, the Obama and McCain campaigns are already locked in a minute-by-minute fight, trading advertisement for advertisement, sound bite for sound bite, press release for press release — and, yes, insulting name for insulting name — with rhetoric that can be as harsh and misleading as that of any previous campaign.

At play, beyond real policy differences over major issues like taxes and Iraq, is a fierce competition to win the moment in a hypercharged news environment driven not only by cable and the evening newscasts but also by the scores of Web sites that now cover politics by the minute with screaming headlines attached to the smallest developments.

This description seems to suggest that the new media has somehow changed politics. But Rutenberg takes back the suggestion a few paragraphs later:

The tone of the discourse seems to carry risks for two men who in part became their parties’ presumptive nominees by speaking against partisan bickering, said Matthew Dowd, a former strategist for Mr. Bush. …[T]he campaigns blame each other for setting a combative tone that makes turning down the volume the equivalent of unilateral disarmament. … The force behind some of the harder-charging rhetoric may be no different than what prompted allies of John Quincy Adams to run searing attack pamphlets against Andrew Jackson nearly 200 years ago: It works.

Yeah, I suppose it does, on some level. Works to what end, though?
To a win for your political party?
Well, rah rah rah.

The dramatic rescue of Ingrid Betancourt also exposed an interesting mind-set in Europe, as The Economist notes:

How dare the Colombians rescue Ingrid Betancourt?

THAT, more or less seems to be the reaction from slabs of the European press, notably in the Francophone world, to the astonishing military operation that rescued Ms Betancourt and 14 other hostages from the FARC guerrillas in Colombia.

The grudging reactions come from left and right in France, where successive governments had pushed the Colombian government hard to accept demands made by the FARC, and negotiate the release of Ms Betancourt, a politician from a small ecological party with dual Colombian and French nationality. French leaders, including Nicolas Sarkozy, had also put much faith in the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, as a negotiator with the FARC. Instead, in the end, it was the Colombian army under the tough right-wing president, Álvaro Uribe, that rescued the hostages in a daring undercover operation.

Not that this didn’t stop Sarkozy from claiming as much credit as possible, to the deep annoyance of many, as The Times (London) noted last week:

The French Senate gave an emotional standing ovation to the 46-year-old politician and magazines and television were still saturated by the image of what Paris Match called “the new global icon”.

But dissent surrounding Ms Betancourt, who was freed last week from the Colombian jungle after six years in captivity, has now spread from the internet to mainstream opinion, with some saying that France has overdosed on “Ingridmania”.

“It is irritating,” said Dominique Dhombres, a television columnist for Le Monde newspaper. “It’s a beautiful story about a beautiful woman, but she has been turned into the Madonna of modern times . . . Everything else has been forgotten and it suits Sarkozy fine,” he told The Times.

Perhaps M. Sarkozy is trying to compete (in an oh so gentlemanly way) with Mme. Sarkozy, who, incredibly, is peddling her music at the moment:

Here’s your chance to listen to the new musical oeuvre from Carla Bruni. In a marketing build-up worthy of Madonna or a Stones release, Mrs Sarkozy’s record company has put Comme si de rien n’était (As if nothing happened) on the internet for free listening.

This must be the first time that the presidency of a leading nation has promoted a pop album. The Elysée Palace has been working closely with Naive records to maximise the launch of breathy love songs by the first lady. The repercussions have even gone as far as Japan, which was miffed by Bruni’s decision not to join the other spouses at this week’s G8 summit. She decided to stay in Paris to advance the release date. Today, she was on France-Inter radio doing the first of a series of promotional interviews which culminate with a long live session on TF1 television news — the most watched show — on Friday evening.

Listen: I’ve been telling you that infotainment rules. (In France, they even have a new word for it: “pipolisation***.”)This is what I mean! It’s Marketing Above All^TM

The sultry first lady of France is peddling love songs written for her husband!

Think about it!

—————
*** pipolisation is probably akin to Bush Derangement Syndrome, but, as with all things French, it is more clearly defined (specifically, as a mental illnes):

“Serge Hefez, a practicing psychiatrist, has identified a new mental illness among the French: obsessive Sarkosis, an unhealthy fascination with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy.

As I listened to my patients during consultations, many of them mentioned Sarkozy by name,” Dr. Hefez said. “He’s penetrated some of their deepest fantasies. I noticed all this passion in people speaking of him, and I thought there is something particular about this man — he’s like a reflection of us in the mirror.”

The French project themselves onto Mr. Sarkozy, too, Dr. Hefez said.

“He’s the incarnation of the postmodern man, obsessed with himself, turned toward pleasure, autonomous and narcissistic,” the psychiatrist said. “And he exhibits his joys and sorrows, all his private life, his sentimental doubts and pleasures. He represents the individualism of the society to the extreme, that it’s the individual who counts, not the society.”…

Television covers Mr. Sarkozy’s every gesture, in both homage and mockery, itself an effort to create distance from the phenomenon that it perpetuates and magnifies. It is all part of what the French have come to call the “pipolisation” of political life, a term, presumably derived from People magazine, that refers to the idolatry of celebrities and soap opera. Dr. Hefez considers the trend an example of “democracy turning against itself, as Tocqueville foresaw.”…

Eli Lake tries to reassure folks that Obama is sufficiently serious about national security by invoking Richard Clarke as a possible presidential adviser:

Both Clarke and Beers are lifelong national security bureaucrats who left the Bush administration in protest of the Iraq war. Both have offered private advice to Obama and might well hold top posts in his war cabinet. Clarke helped draft the campaign’s counterterrorism strategy, and Beers contributed ideas for his August 1, 2007 counterterrorism speech. Both also have the trust of the party’s antiwar base and have, in many ways, articulated the Democratic Party’s most substantive critique of Bush’s war on terrorism.
From some of their criticism of the Bush administration, you might think them soft-power squishes. But, during their careers, they have never expressed much hesitation about working with proxy armies with less than admirable human rights records.

I find nothing reassuring about the thought of Richard “Let’s Have Show Trials for the Neocons!” Clarke with a cabinet position in an Obama administration.