If you hadn’t guessed already, I am totally unhip and uncool and proud of it.

For instance, look at this story:
President Beefcake? D.C. magazine to feature shirtless Obama on cover

In the throes of an economic crisis and two wars, does the nation want more headlines about a “Pec-tacular” “Buff Bam”?

I certainly don’t but here it is:

Jack Tapper asks,

So is the beefcake cover just an effort to sell more magazines and gin up some interest in the masthead?

Graff demurred on that question but acknowledged it was a different type of cover than the magazine usually does. He said they were trying to “capture the energy and excitement” over the Obamas in Washington and “have a little fun.”

“It’s a unique time in Washington and this photo helps capture all of the reasons why,” Graff said. “It’s not a normal way to look at a president of the United States but this is not a normal president.”

The magazine cover says “Reason #2 [to love living in Washington, DC]: Our new neighbor is hot.”

“Hot” is in the eye of the beholder, and I for one find that Mr. Obama is a regular-looking guy. Thin, average-looking. Not hot.

But this insistence of the media to portray Michelle Obama as the greatest fashion icon of the last forty years, and Barack Obama as “hot” is starting to grate. Worse yet are the articles hinting that they are the first First Couple ever to have sex. (Yes, the thought of Harry and Bess doing the deed may not be enticing, but they did have a functioning marriage.)

This I find completely inappropriate. Quaint word, inappropriate. I told you I’m totally unhip and uncool and proud of it.

I can’t help but roll my eyes at the prospect of four years of this kind of media coverage.

The media’s stance that the Obamas must be, in addition to all their official functions, rock stars is firmly helped by the Obama PR machine that brought us the European roadshow last July.

Is that the reason why we should find “the energy and excitement” of the “golden age” Obama era? A pseudo-rock star status?

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to have the Obama era examined on its policies and substance?

How about some respect for the Office of the President instead?