The New York Post can be trusted to zero in on the most salacious details, so let's start there. Ooh, the headline has the words "revenge" and "flirts"! Give me the dirt, Post!

Michelle Obama gave her husband the silent treatment at one point in his campaign for president because so many women "pushed their bodies up against his, slipped phone numbers into his pockets" and whispered lewd suggestions in his ear, a new book out today claims.

Wait, that's it? The president apparently didn't even respond to the advances? In fact, he "allegedly said, 'Jesus, I wish they'd stop grabbing my ass'"? What's this silent treatment all about, then? Well, there was a rumor that Obama "had grown close to an attractive young African-American woman [working for the Obama campaign] named Vera Baker," and that Michelle got rid of her — Baker left the campaign and ended up in Martinique. After her "sudden" departure, "tongues reportedly began wagging."

I'm sorry, but we can't even confirm that tongues were wagging? This doesn't sound like much of a story.

And if it had been much of a story, what do you suppose are the chances that we'd still be living in a world where Vera Baker is not a household name? Especially since this supposed scandal happened during the campaign? I suppose there was a time when a presidential candidate might have been able to successfully conceal an extramarital dalliance, but I simply cannot believe that was possible in 2008; if there'd been a shred of evidence for anything untoward, this would have dominated the news. (And you know, if there was evidence, but the opposition somehow missed it, then regardless of my feelings about adultery, I stand in awe of the Obama machine. Awe and not a little fear.)

Other than that, the juiciest gossip in Andersen's book appears to be as follows, courtesy of CBS News:

• Michelle reportedly squelched the idea of Hillary Clinton as VP — "[S]he asked him if he really wanted to have Bill and Hillary down the hall in the White House."
• The "Yes we can!" slogan was Michelle's idea, and she pushed for it even though David Axelrod "thought it was childish and corny." (The fact that Axelrod apparently assumed "childish and corny" wouldn't appeal to the American public makes me wonder about his qualifications.)
• One time, not long after Obama started out in politics, the couple fought a lot and maybe even possibly considered splitting up. Then they didn't.

That's it! From an article headlined, "Author: Barack and Michelle Almost Split."

USA Today, on the other hand, interviewed Andersen about the book, resulting in the headline, "A glowing 'Portrait' of the Obamas' rock-solid marriage." That sounds more like it. The only eyebrow-raising part of that piece is Andersen's own interpretation of the larger meaning here: "What's odd is that our first non-white first family is really the most all-American, down-to-earth couple we've ever had in the White House." This is odd, why? Black people: They're just like us! But at least Andersen deserves credit for being realistic about what his research shows instead of trumping up vaguely scandalous-sounding details to sell the book. "The funny thing is you write a book about the ultimate power couple, but it's really just another classic love story," he said. "They're devoted to each other. It's unique. They're one of a kind."

And they're celebrating their 17th wedding anniversary on October 3rd. Man, what a disappointment!

Michelle Obama's Revenge For Flirts [NY Post]
Author: Barack And Michelle Almost Split [CBS News]
A Glowing 'Portrait' Of The Obamas' Rock-Solid Marriage. [USA Today]

People are within their rights to want to know when I'm getting married - because I'm, you know, engaged. Most people regard our engagement as a signal that in a year or so, we'd have a wedding; it denoted a timeline, goals, and endpoints. For me and Slim, it meant that we'd decided we wanted to get married - some day. Since our engagement, over a year ago, several couples I know have successfully gotten engaged and married. We are starting to look like slackers, which is in fact totally accurate.

But by any standard, we're in no "position" to marry. It's generally understood that before you make it legal, you should have an adult life in place: financial stability, career, ideally a few dollars in the bank. Given that we have approximately none of these things, marriage hasn't seemed realistic. But lately, we've been having a lot of "screw it, let's go to City Hall" moments. The reason for this is twofold: we've realized we are never going to be adults, and we want to get married.

In an article in the latest Texas Monthly, Rena Behar recalls that
Mark Regnerus made serious waves last year when he suggested that people should just go ahead and get married. What seemed like a retrograde return to mid-century form to much of the feminist blogosphere was, he says now, misinterpreted: he merely wanted to suggest we remove the stigma from those who do choose to marry young. While this is a sticky issue - and no one's objections were conjured out of thin air - there was something to be said for the argument that there is no "right time," and that a list of requirements has become one of the inarguables of "enlightened" modern life almost without our knowledge.

It's true: whereas even a generation ago a youthful, impecunious marriage could feel romantic and bohemian (as contrasted with the trousseau-ready child-brides of an earlier era) nowadays we tacitly consider it the purview of hicks and zealots. The literal child-brides of the FLDS do little to combat this notion; those married undergrads I knew in college were largely regarded as curiosities. Even those friends of mine who married pre-25 were cause for comment - and, it's true, most of them had parents who'd married younger than mine or came from communities where this wasn't such a big deal. At 28, I'd be an old maid in plenty of homes, but south of 30 is still considered young amongst my parents' friends - not least because it's assumed one will have completed grad school and established a career by the time the wedding rolls around. Plenty of people live together, of course, and it's assumed that they'll marry - but when the time is right.

There are many sound reasons for this, obviously. In a perfect world, I'd have my ducks in a row - not least because it means I could actually afford a wedding. But at the same time, I'm starting to bridle at the notion that you need to be a fully developed adult before making such a personal decision - because I have no problem growing up a little more with someone else. Even if it means there are some growing pains on the way.

The Young and the Restless [Texas Monthly]

It will not surprise you to find out that the optimal area, marked with the letter A — is when the bride is between 23 and 29 and the groom is between 25 and 34. But not to worry! If you're slightly older, you may fall in the L section: "Good prospect, although they waited too long."


Britney Spears was 23 and Kevin Federline was 26 when they wed, putting them right in the A for "ideal" zone! Meanwhile, Tom Cruise was 44 when he married 27 year old "Kate" Holmes, landing the couple in the area marked K: "May succeed if otherwise unusually well matched." Eva Longoria, 32, tied the knot with Tony Parker, 25, and occupies the T zone: "May succeed if otherwise adapted." Catherine Zeta-Jones married Michael Douglas when she was 31 and he was 56 and we think that's a K, "May succeed." The ages only go as high as 50, so Kevin Costner and Larry King are literally off the charts!

In any case, you probably knew this already but it's worth repeating: If you're a woman over 33, you're fucked. Guys have until they're 38. Happy trails!

YOUR CHANCES FOR HAPPINESS
Here is the key: A—Ideal. B—Not so ideal; if in doubt wait year or two. C—Risky; wait a few years. D—Very dangerous; both far too young. E—Exceedingly dangerous; wait. F—Divorce probable. G—A little less hazardous than F. H—Girl far too young; foolhardy unless otherwise excellently suited. I—Good chance if otherwise well mated. J—Suffering and divorce likely. K—May succeed if otherwise unusually well matched. L—Good prospect, although they waited too long. M—Fair chance. N—Hardly a chance. O—Both far too young; wait at least four years. P—Man too young; wait year or two. Q—Good chance. R—Very slim chance. S—Slim chance. T—May succeed if otherwise adapted. U—Age difference too great; almost hopeless. V—A little less hopeless than U. In every case, white area is safest; dark, most hazardous

Chart Tells When To Marry [Modern Mechanix]