Reading today this fluffy piece in the Times about how the Obamas are going out on the town in D.C.—”These days, President Obama and his wife, Michelle, are popping up all over this city,” at basketball games, the ballet, restaurants, soup kitchens—I came across these two grafs that made me groan.
Some warn, however, that such a schedule can also carry political risks, particularly if it undermines the mystique of the presidency, the image of power and command that a president needs to enact an ambitious agenda. Americans love the idea of the common man in a position of political power. (Think Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”) But they can also lose some respect if a politician seems too familiar. (Think Jimmy Carter in his cardigan.)
“Every once in a while it’s great, but there’s a chance of overexposing yourself socially,” said Bradley A. Blakeman, a former aide to President George W. Bush. “People scratch their heads and say, “Doesn’t the president have other things to do, especially in a crisis?’ ”
Calling a Republican aide for the single critical quote in an otherwise positive story? That’s called false balance. Annoying.

Maybe you can answer the question. Why is social Washington so constantly critical of everything about the Obama family? They have nitpicked Michele's every move, from assisting at homeless shelters to wear a sleeveless dress. (I think she looks smashing in a sleeveless dress! But that's just me.) Catty and critical about the organic vegetable garden. And they criticize the First Family for going to DC's cultural and sports events. That's pretty low.
I'd blow it off to idle upper class gossip-mongers whiling away the hours, but they never criticized Laura's rather less stylish appearance, much less Bush's choice to go to baseball games.
I can't help but believe that there is a social jihad against the Obamas that's going to get even more ugly. Your thoughts?
#1 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 27 Mar 2009 at 09:59 AM