According to a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press, two-thirds of Americans believe that President-elect Barack Obama should get a “Labradoodle” mix as opposed to a Portuguese water dog. Meanwhile, a recent issue of Women’s Health magazine promises readers that Michelle Obama will reveal her “sexy secrets” for a successful marriage. In an earlier age, one may have asked why the public is concerned with the intimate lives of those who should be mediating the conflict in Gaza and alleviating what may be the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign arose out of obscurity. A generation earlier, no observer of the political scene would have expected someone so inexperienced and unfamiliar to the electorate to have been elected President. Yet this was the most expensive, most watched and arguably most successful presidential campaign in American history. Young people who attended his rallies showed the same enthusiasm their parents would have exhibited at a Motley Crue concert. The emphasis certainly was more on theatrics than on ideological exchange.

Anyone seeking political power, be it Ross Perot, Lenin or a candidate for the seventh grade class treasurer, has promised “change.” In any competitive struggle for power, those in the running have always assured their supporters to believe in their success, because “yes, they can.” Perhaps no other campaign slogans in American history have been so unoriginal and ambiguous. Of course, George H.W. Bush’s “Read my lips- no more new taxes” and Bill Clinton’s “It’s the economy, stupid” were not sophisticated slogans. Yet they indicated what their authors would change. By contrast, Obama’s views were relatively unknown until the Presidential debates when he was forced to reveal them.

Nonetheless, Obama’s inauguration is being called a “historic day.” We should leave that judgment to future historians, not to today’s media. Whether Obama will be a successful leader or an embarrassing blemish is yet to be seen. It is therefore likely that “Obamamania” is aroused by the irrelevant factors such as those mentioned above. For now, there is no evidence to suggest whether Obama’s presidency will be historic or not.

America is also not the only society affected by this disturbing media trend. In France, for instance, Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency has certainly been eventful. For instance, Sarkozy’s criticism of Ireland for rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, which proposes further European integration, in a referendum could have sparked a heated discussion about the limits of national sovereignty in the European Union. Yet the French press is far more interested in the fact that Sarkozy left his wife for Carla Bruni, a much younger supermodel.

Therefore, media coverage of the most trivial aspects of Barack Obama’s life is not an anomaly. Rather, all societies dominated by quickly evolving technology have seen this tabloidization of politics and marginalization of meaningful issues. Although we live in an age of rapid information, the quality of that information is rapidly declining and society’s interest in economic, social and security issues is subordinated to Barack’s canine tastes and Michelle’s recommended lovemaking positions.