Entries Tagged 'campaign '08' ↓

Anyone who ventures to interpret the mood of the country is wading into roiling waters. Still, I note for “progressive” Dems that—Americans are allergic to “income redistribution” as a means of fixing the economy.

Gallup:

When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today’s consumer, Americans overwhelmingly — by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

As the numbers indicate, the sentiment crosses party lines:

Americans’ lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

There’s even more bad news for “progressives”: about half of all Americans think that the government is already interfering too much in the economy:

A separate question finds Americans more likely to believe government is doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses (50%) as opposed to saying government should do more to solve the country’s problems (43%). This broad question is not directed specifically at the economy, but reinforces the general idea that many Americans are leery of too much direct government intervention in fixing the country’s problems.

This philosophical issue appears to divide Americans by both political party and income groups. Republicans think the government is currently doing too much, by 72% to 24%; independents are split, with 47% saying the government is doing too much and 44% saying it is not doing enough; and Democrats say the government needs to do more by 58% to 36%.

Actually, this isn’t only bad news for certain Democratic politicians (namely, “good government” types); it should also send a signal to the MSM, which relentlessly peddles the line that we Americans are perpetually the victims of bad government, unprincipled politicians, nefarious conspirators who secretly serve the interests of a foreign power, oil barons, crony capitalists, etc. That message is getting tiresome, and besides—the people aren’t buying it.

Dennis Jacobe, who wrote up the results of the Gallup report, concludes with only a hint of optimism for “progressives”:

In sum, free-market advocates can take considerable solace in Americans’ overwhelming belief that the government should not focus on redistributing income and wealth, but on improving the overall economy. And, to a lesser degree, Americans also believe government continues to do too much — not too little — to solve the nation’s problems. On the other hand, the economic turbulence of 2008 could end up getting government into significant new income and wealth redistribution programs unless the Treasury and the Federal Reserve act soon to stabilize and reduce today’s unmanageable food and energy price increases.

In other words, just as “another 9/11 would be ‘good’ ” for John McCain’’s presidential prospects, Jacobe says that the roiling markets could be “good” for Obama’s presidential prospects (and thus for “progressives”). That’s what he says, without spelling it out.

However, take note: Lawrence Kudlow, if I read him correctly, seems to agree that the government should do something. :

On the day after an unusually important Fed policy meeting both gold and stocks severely rebuked the central bank’s decision to take no action in support of the weak dollar or to curb rapidly growing inflation.

Gold spiked $30, a clear message that Bernanke & Co. won’t stop inflation. Stocks plunged over 200 points, an equally clear message that the Fed’s cheap-dollar inflation is damaging economic growth.

These market warnings are two sides of the same coin. Inflation, which is caused by excess dollar creation, is the cruelest tax of all. It is a tax on consumer and family purchasing power. It is a tax on corporate profits. It is a tax on the value of stocks, homes, and other assets.

Crucially, the capital-gains tax — the most important levy on all wealth-creating assets — is un-indexed for inflation. Hence, long before Barack Obama or Congress can legislatively raise the capital-gains tax rate, rising inflation is increasing the effective tax rate on real capital gains. That’s an economy-wide problem.

So, no, we’re not a nation of commies. We like the free enterprise and free market system. But under the pressure of economic turmoil—which may endure for a sustained period—some of us will feel compelled to push for our government to do something.

What would Obama do (with or without excessive turbulence)? Paul Krugman (who was once a vocal Obama skeptic) still doesn’t know:

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts they may have undertaken at the Bush administration’s behest.

The candidate’s defenders argue that he’s just being pragmatic — that he needs to do whatever it takes to win, and win big, so that he has the power to effect major change. But critics argue that by engaging in the same “triangulation and poll-driven politics” he denounced during the primary, Mr. Obama actually hurts his election prospects, because voters prefer candidates who take firm stands.

In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist, after all.

One thing is clear: for Democrats, winning this election should be the easy part. Everything is going their way: sky-high gas prices, a weak economy and a deeply unpopular president. The real question is whether they will take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to change the country’s direction. And that’s mainly up to Mr. Obama.

Um, no. It’s up to voters, who will decide if they’re willing to go with a “change” candidate who doesn’t clearly spell out what he wants to change and how it will affect them.

And the Republicans seem to have settled on their line of attack, and it has nothing to do with Americans’ feelings about the role of government in fixing the economy. Instead, it’s that staple of old politics [e.a.].

Sen. John McCain’s allies have seized on a new and aggressive line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama, casting the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee as an opportunistic and self-obsessed politician who will do and say anything to get elected.

I guess Obama is not exactly believable as the Messiah anymore. Not only that. We still don’t know who he is, apart from being a star—someone upon whom we can project our own fantasies.

Jennifer Rubin expresses it a little differently, but she gets to the heart of the matter:

It is remarkable that now two savvy guys like Krugman and Brooks can’t figure out what Obama is. And neither seems to be playing coy to make a rhetorical point — they really don’t know.

But maybe that’s no accident. Obama has told us there is no there, there. In his book he wrote: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” So perhaps searching for Obama’s “core” is a fool’s errand. He is glib and clever and seized upon a clever formulation (Agent of Change) to attract young and idealistic people longing for meaning. But perhaps that is all there is.

We don’t know how he will act under pressure and in real circumstances demanding definitive action because he has never developed, stuck with and acted upon a fixed set of principles. So voters will have to figure out for themselves which polar opposite vision of Obama is the real one. The fact that both could be in contention is startling and sobering.

Feh—not that sobering. Obama is no Manchurian Candidate. He is a pragmatist (though so far only in the service of his own political career, and not in the service of any principle or platform or policy prescription), and he has supreme confidence in his own judgment (and in his temperament). He’s just trying to be all things to all people.

Will it work?

Who the hell knows?

I think all feelings of panic (on both sides of the aisle) are misplaced.

Here’s the WaPo with a surprisingly gritty piece analyzing Obama and detailing his changing positions. This stood out as particularly insightful [e.a.]:

Obama has shown himself to be not so much a “post-partisan” politician as a “post-polarizing” politician, projecting moderation in an era of political warfare, said Ross Baker, a political scientist and congressional scholar at Rutgers University. McCain, on the other hand, is the party scold — “sort of tilting at windmills” and putting a “guilt trip on the rest of us because we know he’s right,” said former Senate majority leader Trent Lott.

Plus there’s this, indicating that by “change you can believe in” the Obama camp meant change seen from a certain perspective:

“After eight years of ideology driving decision making, is pragmatism reform? Yes, it is,” said an Obama adviser in Chicago.

Oh dear, his image sure has taken some hits lately.

There is a sickness afoot in the land when a popular non-political blogger makes note of a politician’s lowering of his own standards and his commenters attack him for speaking his mind.

Jeff Jarvis:

Whenever you want to show how soft big media are on Barack Obama, refer back to Howard Kurtz’ column on their coverage of the candidate’s hypocritical flip-flop on campaign financing. Chapter and verse.

Some comments [e.a.]:

Just drop it. It’s clear you were a Clinton supporter, but if you want a Democrat in the White House in 2009, the political reality is that attacking Obama is the same supporting McCain.

Jeff, would you consider some even handed-ness in your political posts ? It makes your position on press bias seem fairly hypocritical.

Jeff replies:

I am likely to be an Obama voter but that doesn’t mean I can’t hold him to high standards. I am not a member of his cult so I can disagree with him. It’s allowed out here. No, I won’t drop it.

Commenter:

Jeff, you’re entitled to “hold Obama to high standards,” just like the rest of us. And I realize, in a post like this, you’re trying to expose the inherent bias of the media, not bash Obama. But that’s what you’re indirectly doing.

I realize you’re trying to change the media, but please don’t (conciously or unconciously) swiftboat Obama in the process.

Commenter Steve:

So, if I support Senator Obama, I am a cultist?

Jeff responds:

No, Steve, but I’m being told I can’t criticize him and hold him to high standards. That’s a cultist talking.

Last word (not on Jeff’s blog but here on mine, where I’m the editor) goes to this commenter from Jeff’s blog:

Obama supporters panic whenever a story appears to question, criticize, or point out the hypocrisies of their candidate.

Indeed! and get a load of this attack, published at the HuffPo, on Jon Stewart for—gasp!—making fun of the Obama Messiah. Joseph Palermo builds his case by accusing Stewart of having been complicit in selling the war in Iraq to the American people:

Slamming the UN weapons inspectors as ineffectual twits dominated right-wing talk radio at the time and The Daily Show was in effect regurgitating the talking points of those who wanted to bring the country to war. Dissing the UN’s efforts on Comedy Central inadvertently helped make the case for war. It is kind of like when Dick Cheney pointed to the New York Times to buttress his warmongering saying: “Hey, even the liberals agree with us!”

Then Palermo goes on to warn Stewart to watch his mouth when he’s making fun of Obama:

When Jon Stewart seeks “balance” for his targets of satire he can end up reinforcing the false impressions that the Bush Republicans want people to have. It’s unfortunate because political humor is a powerful force that can sway some of those “low information” voters the pundits have been flogging lately.

So too was the case last night when Jon Stewart ran a bit about Barack Obama’s decision to eschew public financing. The Daily Show seized the issue as an opportunity to display “balance” and to poke fun at the Obama campaign. But not only did the bit fall flat it played right into the Republican line, which is full of half-truths and outright lies about Obama’s decision.

During the primaries, Keith Olbermann attacked Stewart just for mentioning Obama’s middle name.

Here’s what I think: this attempt by hyper-partisan ideological enforcers to shut down the debate among Democrats about Barack Obama will backfire. Badly.

Intimidating people who are on your own side (Jarvis and Stewart are both Democrats, from what I can tell) is never a good idea, especially here in America, where, as Jeff said, we don’t—and won’t—shut up.

Undoubtedly, those trying to shut down the debate are the product (or the masters) of our elite universities, where diversity is god but where diversity of opinion is unwelcome.

Those often kindly teachers, however, do have a sense of urgent mission. Even if we put them on truth-serum, the academics who dominate the humanities and social sciences on our campuses today would state that K-12 education essentially has been one long celebration of America and the West, as if our students were intimately familiar with the Federalist Papers and had never heard of slavery or empire. Having convinced themselves that the students whom they inherit have been immersed in American and Western traditions without critical perspective—they do believe that—contemporary academics see themselves as having merely four brief years in which to demystify students, and somehow to get them to look up from their Madison and Hamilton long enough to gaze upon the darker side of American and Western life. In their view, our K-12 students know all about Aristotle, John Milton and Adam Smith, have studied for twelve years how America created bounty and integrated score after score of millions of immigrants, but have never heard of the Great Depression or segregation.

Academics, in their own minds, face an almost insoluble problem of time. How, in only four years, can they disabuse students of the notion that the capital, risk, productivity and military sacrifice of others have contributed to human dignity and to the prospects of a decent society? How can they make them understand, with only four years to do so, that capitalism and individual- ism have created cultures that are cruel, inefficient, racist, sexist and homophobic, with oppressive caste systems, mental and behavioral? How, in such a brief period, can they enlighten “minorities,” including women (the majority of students), about the “internalization” of their oppression (today’s equivalent of false consciousness)? How, in only eight semesters, might they use the classroom, curriculum and university in loco parentis to create a radical leadership among what they see as the victim groups of our society, and to make the heirs of successful families uneasy in the moral right of their possessions and opportunities? Given those constraints, why in the world should they complicate their awesome task by hiring anyone who disagrees with them?

Disagreement is at the foundation of human existence, and American democracy is successful (among other reasons) because it takes this fundamental fact of human nature into account.

Plus: If Barack Obama cannot stomach, answer, and withstand criticisms from his own side, he is unlikely to be able to withstand criticism, or attacks, from his political opponents.

How many examples do you need? Jennifer Rubin’s got ‘em for ya:

McCain communications director Steve Schmidt is weaving a theme through Jerusalem, trade, taxes, and a few other top issues.

It is not quite the flip-flop charge leveled at Kerry — that was an issue of resoluteness. This is out and out fraud, the McCain people claim. He either lied when he snatched the nomination from Hillary Clinton as he ran left and promised a new era of idealism, or he’s lying now as a born again moderate. I suspect this is a theme that will not disappear anytime soon.

Not if Obama’s fans have anything to say about it, because there is a category of political moves that are considered evil when conservatives and Republicans do them, but now they have become Obamanable^TM (i.e., admirable because the Messiah is doing them).

I referred to Obama as reptilian here, and I have long advocated for Dems to take a more reptilian approach—an honest one—here.

I don’t mind Obama’s methods, though they probably won’t sit well with idealists. What makes me uncomfortable is that I don’t know whose interests he will try to serve and who he’ll throw under the bus. His past behavior is not a reliable guide.

Today—as opposed to 18 months ago, when Obama was launched as the Messiah—pretty much everybody who matters agrees that Barack Obama is (as I’ve been saying for a while) the coolest Machiavellian dude in the presidential race.

David Brooks launched the debate by positing a “Fast Eddie” Obama (as a peer of “Slick Willie” Clinton).

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

Ann Althouse digs deep into Obama’s dissembling and sees a positive sign. Note her response to one of her readers:

mporcius said…”Ann likes that Obama has betrayed a pledge about or changed his mind about campaign financing because Ann doesn’t want to give up on the war effort in Iraq. Ann wants to believe that Obama will change his mind about Iraq (or that he has been lying the whole time) and when Obama pulls something like this, Ann is encouraged.”

[Althouse answers:]That’s basically the answer. In fact, I think Obama may be a better bet than McCain on Iraq.

My number 1 concern about Obama is that he won’t check the Democratic Congress. But I’m not confident that McCain will either.

Look, you can’t trust either man completely. You can’t trust anyone running for President. Remember when George Bush assured us that he opposed nation building?

Jonah Goldberg pokes the biggest hole in Brooks’s and Althouse’s “theory.” He points out that being a great in-fighter and ruthless politician does not make you adept at handling foreign policy:

But it’s worth noting that being cutthroat and savvy in electoral politics doesn’t necessarily translate into being cutthroat and savvy, never mind wise, in power. George W. Bush — we’ve been told — was ruthless in getting elected. When in power, he discovered Putin’s soul. (Bush’s dad, who did what it took to crush Dukakis, is a better example of Brooks’ fast-eddie thesis). Ted Kennedy is arguably the most ruthless politician in America, that hardly means he’d be a great foreign policy president. In fact, I would argue that despite Kennedy’s toughminded political cynicism, he’s still naive about foreign policy. If Brooks is right about Obama’s campaign smarts, my guess is that Obama would still be naive about foreign policy. All his throw-’em-under-the-truck maneuvering is likely rationalized by his desire to “do good” once elected. And that do-goodery is not (necessarily) any less naive simply because he’s doing whatever bad he deems necessary to do good.

Andrew Sullivan, who for months on end tore down the Clinton’s for their “Rovian” tactics, is now a fan of these underhanded tactics when they’re carried out by his American idol Obama, and especially when Obama bests the Clintons by doing them.

As for me: I admire Obama’s political skills—and indeed I’ve advocated for Democrats to get just as tough and ruthless as the Republicans are wont to be. But I just don’t trust him, because I don’t know one thing that he stands for and stands firm on. And I’ve been saying the same thing, like a broken record, ever since I started writing about Obama—and his “narrator.”

Why does a candidate for president of the United States need a “narrator” unless he is spinning tales? Some months ago, I wrote:

[The novelist Richard] Russo gets at the issue: the media’s storytelling reduces everything and everyone to a binary choice—Spitzer is either All Evil or All Saint, take your pick.

A similar dynamic is at play in the Reverend Wright scandal. Obama’s problem is that there isn’t a simple story line that can explain his 20-year affiliation with Wright and allow Obama at the same time to hold on to his own pacific, post-racial Magic Negro Healer image.

In order to keep believing that Obama is the Magic Negro, you’ve got to write off Wright as an inconvenient uncle. If you can’t bring yourself to believe that the bile-spewer is a harmless old fool, then you are left doubting the sincerity of the Magic Negro. He begins to look like just another cynical politician who makes alliances that will advance his career.

Either way, Obama loses (and we voters lose our illusions). And the blame can be laid directly at the feet of his “narrator,” David Axelrod, who manufactured a PRopagandaTM image of Saint Barack Obama that no human being can live up to and thus put him inside a box from which he cannot escape.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask a presidential candidate who is an unknown quantity to the American people (because he has no track record) to be clear about what, specifically, he stands for. Do you?

Glancing at Memeorandum this morning, these two entries caught my eye:

International Herald Tribune:

U.S. says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran  —  WASHINGTON: Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  —  Several American officials …

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Buck Naked Politics, Danger Room and Pat Dollard

–

Discussion:

Damozel / Buck Naked Politics:   Is Israel Gearing Up for an Attack Against Iran?

Noah Shachtman / Danger Room:   Iran Attack ‘Rehearsal’ in Israeli War Game

Drillanwr / Pat Dollard:   Israel Is Drilling … Its Military … For Someone

ABCNEWS:

EXCLUSIVE: Hezbollah Poised to Strike?  —  Officials Say “Sleeper Cells” Activated in Canada  —  Intelligence agencies in the United States and Canada are warning of mounting signs that Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is poised to mount a terror attack against “Jewish targets” somewhere outside the Middle East.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Hot Air, The Jawa Report and Counterterrorism Blog

And it underscored the importance of  this point made by Jennifer Rubin [e.a.]:

John McCain amidst the turmoil of Barack Obama’s public financing reversal is trying to make sure voters don’t forget Obama favors habeas corpus rights for Osama bin Laden. Today he put out a statement castigating his opponent for not coming clean on whether he favors executing bin Laden and what type of proceeding he would favor. …

I suspect if McCain is going to make any headway here he will have to make a major communications push, with speeches and ads, to explain why Obama’s position reveals him as unfit on national security. The media is already turning to other issues and is not inclined to spend the time to explain to the American people what parade of horribles will occur now that we have terror suspects flocking to federal courts.

The media is indeed turning to other issues, as is its wont. And we are being anesthetized—or, rather, are choosing to anesthetize ourselves—by a “news” diet that entertains us by constantly giving us new stories (rather than important news) to focus on for a while.

And if you’re Barack Obama, you take this as an opportunity to distract the media (and its easily distracted audience) with a makeover for your wife while you prattle on in an unclear and inconsistent way about national security…emphasizing punishment over crime prevention.

This didn’t get much play, did it?

Rudy Giuliani: Obama Wants USA to Be on Defense Against Terrorism

On a conference call this morning Rudy Giuliani continued his attacks on Barack Obama’s national security policy.

“I describe the difference as one being on offense and the other wanting to be on defense,” former New York City mayor and one-time GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani just said on a conference call with reporters.

It should get a lot of play, because it’s the fundamental issue of our time—how to provide national security while preserving our freedoms and our way of life (as a symbol and model for other nations to emulate).

Don’t be misled: Distractions can be useful for Mr. Obama, as they can for all politicians—including his hard-to-warm-up-to opponent.

How to use Rudy Giuliani effectively:

The McCain camp, sensing an opening, has deployed Rudy Giuliani to turn up the the heat on Barack Obama’s praise of the Supreme Court’s case granting Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights and praising the 1993 trial of the world trade center bombing as the model for handling these prisoners.

Giuliani and McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann held a conference call this morning to continue the debate. The Mayor stressed repeatedly that it was a “very, very important” debate and this emphasizes his frequently made point during his campaign that Obama is on “defense” and McCain on “offense.” He said that this is not the politics of “fear,” but the “politics of reality.” He explained that Obama’s advisors’ comments that Osama bin Laden would deserve habeas corpus rights is “startling.”

Tracking down and punishing terrorists after the fact is good, but it doesn’t protect our national security. The point is to get them before they do their dirty deeds.

Philip Klein, writing at the American Spectator, cites the 9/11 Commission’s findings on this matter:

But even allowing for the successes of law enforcement officials in bringing Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and Ramzi Yousef to justice for their role in the 1993 bombing, the 9/11 Commission Report was crystal clear about the limits of the old strategy.

“An unfortunate consequence of this superb investigative and prosecutorial effort was that it created an impression that the law enforcement system was well-equipped to cope with terrorism,” read the report.

“Neither President Clinton, his principal advisers, the Congress, nor the news media felt prompted, until later, to press the question of whether the procedures that put the Blind Sheikh and Ramzi Yousef behind bars would really protect Americans against the new virus of which these individuals were just the first symptoms.”

The prosecutions, according to the report, led to “widespread underestimation of the threat.” …

“The process was meant, by its nature, to mark for the public the events as finished — case solved, justice done,” the investigation concluded. “It was not designed to ask if the events might be harbingers of worse to come.”

More on this from the New York Sun’s Eli Lake.

Here’s what I think: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The word “Islamophobia” doesn’t appear anywhere in this item from The Politico, but that’s the implicit accusation being leveled against—are you ready?—Mr. Barack “All the World Loves Him” Obama:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The Obama campaign has apologized to the women. But The Politico notes the problem that I’ve been writing about for a while—Obama’s image as Mr. New Politics is compromised every time someone reveals the machinations behind the creation of that image [e.a.]:

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. … But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics, and to embrace all elements of America.

There’s also another little matter [e.a.]:

The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

If I weren’t so irritated by the selling of the candidate as the Messiah, I’d actually be irritated on his behalf by these … distractions.

update: In a surprising show of liberal piety, Ann Althouse asks [e.a.]:

[I] know, it’s a sensitive question: What sort of people in the background send the wrong subliminal message?

Answer: the gentlemen in this picture, for starters.

If at first you don’t succeed—and the first round of press for Michelle Obama in February (which included an interview on Larry King, profiles in the New Yorker and Vanity Fair, as well as the New York Times and the WSJ) was a resounding failure, since it was totally overshadowed by “undernews” [i.e., "gossip" about the chip on her shoulder]—try, try again:

The campaign to soften her hard edges is in full swing. Today she was on The View—and event that was live-blogged by reporters for the New York Times—and today her struggle to build a better media image for herself is also analyzed in a front-page puff piece (er, I mean “report”) in the NYT.

Whatevs. She’s the wife of a presidential nominee, and might well become First Lady. We all need to get used to her, at the very least …

Question of the day: Can someone be both overexposed and unknown? (Answer: no. She is known [and overexposed] in a way the campaign doesn’t want her to be known, so they’re trying to rebrand her.)

Bonus question: Has the Obama campaign read Matthew Baum’s research about “soft news” being a good place to reach “low information voters”? (I’ve written about this here and here.) It sure seems like it, since this relaunch of Michelle includes primarily the “soft news”—and I use the word “news” advisedly—outlets (like The View and US magazine).

Final question of the day: Doesn’t anyone else wonder where the Obamas’ number-one champion

has been lurking since her candidate’s triumph? I detect the (invisible) hand—or at least the method—of Oprah behind the Oprahfication of Michelle.

In case you thought I was being frivolous when I wrote about Obama’s decidedly un-hip look on a bike, think again.

It turns out that Obama himself was hyper-aware of the ramifications:

Mr. Obama confessed that before putting it on for the bike ride, he wasn’t sure he wanted to wear it.
“I had an internal debate,” Mr. Obama said. “Because I knew that the A.P. was going to take a picture, and they were trying to portray it like Dukakis wearing that tank helmet. But I wanted to make sure that the children who saw that picture knew that even the Democratic nominee for president wears a helmet when he goes biking.” (The crowd applauded enthusiastically.)

But being a good role model comes with a price, though:

Then he admitted to being wounded from some critiques of his bike-riding outfit, which included sneakers, jeans and a tucked-in polo shirt.

“Now, obviously the rest of my apparel was apparently not up to snuff, because I got a hard time from all sorts of blogs,” he said, “Who said I looked like Urkel.”

Forget the shirt! That bicycle seat is way too low.

And: welcome to the wonderful world of celebrity, Mr. Obama.

You can thank your “narrator” for creating such devoted and loyal fans.

Don’t let them distract you from the issues.