Jezebel, the website about lady-things, has this headline up: "Your Morning Swoon: President Obama Sings 'Sweet Home Chicago.'" Here is some of the writing underneath that headline:
Last night, the President and First Lady hosted an all-star blues concert at the White House. There were a lot of famous musicians there—BB King, Buddy Guy, Mick Jagger, and more—but one man outshone them all: Barack Obama. At the end of the concert, the group started playing "Sweet Home Chicago" and roped the Prez into singing a few lines. His voice was *smooth as ever*, but the best part is the sly smile he gives as he's singing.
That "smooth as ever" hyperlink takes us to a Jezebel headline "Damn, President Obama Is Hot When He Sings Al Green."
Here is President Swoonworthy in action, taking the mic from Michael Jagger.
There are worse things than an American president enjoying a bunch of Blues greats at the White House and taking a bar or two. For instance, this is a LOT worse:
And I can even forgive the Jezebel swoon more than, say, Lucy Steigerwald can; those who revere the vocal stylings of Dennis Wilson probably shouldn't throw stones. But where the leg-tingle starts to chafe (don't stop me, I'm rolling here!) is when I have to read it in the context of allegedly high-quality journalism. As in this passage, from the lead comment in the current issue of The New Yorker:
Obama believes that gross inequality damages our society, and he has forcefully criticized the deceitful banking practices that nearly destroyed the economy and pushed the homes of more than eleven million people underwater. He has been careful not to demonize the rich, but he intends to allow their Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule this year, which should go a long way toward reducing the deficit and at least a little way toward mitigating the rush toward a society of plutocrats and paupers.
Hey Dorothy Wickenden! Why don't you crawl out of the president's brain, and crawl back into his public statements and deeds, which contradict your omniscience! Like this, from April 2009:
[A]lthough there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of to banks—one of my most frequent questions in the letters that I get from constituents is, "Where's my bailout?"—and I understand the sentiment. It makes sense intuitively, and morally it makes sense, but the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in $8 or $10 of loans to families and businesses. So that's a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth. That's why we have to fix the banks.
The president may (or may not) "believe" this or that, and "forcefully criticize" the other, but his actions, like those of his crappy predecessor (only moreso), directly resulted in the plutocratic bad guys getting first in line for bailout money, because (from the presidential P.O.V.) they were both too big to fail and too multiplier-y to not receive transfer payments from the comparatively poor. Also, intending to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in the election year of 2012 has precisely as much bearing on what will actually happen this year as my intention that Albert Brooks win Best Supporting Actor. Oh, and before you go using Warren Buffett as the star witness for the prosecution against well-connected plutocrats (as Wickenden does elsewhere in her little campaign document), you really need to read this great Reason piece by Peter Schweizer.