We expect this kind of silliness from right-wing bloggers who, blinded by Obama Derangement Syndrome, pretend they can't really think for themselves. But from the New York Times? It's disappointing.

This, from the paper's political blog yesterday [emphasis added]:

When the government set out dietary guidelines last week advising Americans to cut back on salts, fats and sugars, perhaps one critical omission was whether the recommendations applied to semi-official national holidays.

And so it is, that many of the foods served Sunday at the White House's Super Bowl party will be laden with the ingredients officials have shunned.

Ha-ha! Get it? The government just issued dietary guidelines about eating healthy, but Obama hosted a Super Bowl party and guests didn't necessarily eat healthy. Ugh.

This is connected to the right-wing's favorite running gag/freak-out about how First Lady Michelle Obama is spearheading a nationwide dietary initiative to curb run-away obesity in America, but she often eats dessert! It's just a purposefully dumb line of thinking that suggest because Michelle Obama is a nutrition advocate, that means if she eats pie she's a hypcocrite, or something.

For some reason, the Times decides to play the same game with its Super Bowl post but it makes little sense. Why? Because the recent government nutrition guidelines referenced by the Times were quite clear in terms of advice: Eat less. Period. Eat less salt, eat less fat and eat less sugar. The guidelines didn't announce that salts, fats, and sugars should be banned, or shouldn't be served to guests. So why would it even be of interest if the White House served salts, fats, and sugars at its Super Bowl party?

News flash for NYT: The White House will be serving salts, fats and sugars as long as Obama occupies the White House. And whoever is president after Obama will also erve salts, fats and sugars. That's not news.