No wonder he lost

So, Politico has a relatively inane article about Obama's celebrity status, and how it's gone from a perceived minus (the "Celebrity" ad, though frankly I think it made no difference at all, and merely gave the commentariat something to squawk about) to a plus.

“Does this trivialize the presidency?” asks Democratic strategist Peter Fenn. “At times, yes. Why is it important to know the back and forth of what kind of tuna fish sandwich the president-elect ordered? On the other hand, does this often humanize a leader? The answer to that, of course, is sure it does.”

For my part, I think it's useless to decry the blurring of celebrity coverage and political coverage. Our society is what it is, and sniffing indignantly about the paps publishing pictures of Obama's torso is a great way of telegraphing one's irrelevance. But the following quote caught my eye:

Mark McKinnon, former communications strategist to McCain and President George W. Bush, says Obama is enjoying the benefits of being “a celebritician or a polebrity.”

I beg your pardon? "Celebritician"? "Polebrity"? Admittedly, blogging under the heading "bleakonomy," one has to be a little attentive to one's glass house, but that is one lame attempt at coining a new term. "Celebrition" sounds like the person who cuts and colors Michelle's hair, and "polebrity" like an obscure physics term.

This coming from a communications strategist for McCain? Things become ever clearer.