Andrew Klavan is certainly one of the most astute commentators on the cant and circumstance of the left. He also, to his credit, is willing to level criticism at the nuttiness of the unhinged right. To wit, his recent post in PJM about the flap over what Michelle Obama did or did not say about the American Flag on the 10^th anniversary of 9/11:

"We should not waste this important moment on childish slanders."

"But what's really annoying about silliness of this sort is how distracting it is."

He is joined, as one might expect, by commentators on the left

"one of the dumbest flaps I've ever seen," Steve Benen at Washington Monthly

Or, from an anonymous blogger, "Kill one crackpot theory - birtherism - and [right-wingers] will breed a hundred more. And you'll never persuade them that what they believe is delusional."

At risk of joining those labeled as being afflicted with the Michelle Obama Derangement Syndrome and dismissed as a wing nut, I demur.

This issue is important.

The underlying issue, that is. And the underlying issue is whether the President and the First Lady adhere to the standard progressive view regarding America's role in world events as being exceptional - that is exceptionally bad. The Chomsky-Zinn view of America is that the American story has been one of cultural imperialism and economic exploitation. Moreover, it has been a story of propping up dictators and starting unnecessary wars. But even more importantly, are the President and First lady disguising their views - views which are coin of the realm in the halls of Ivy and which they heard ad nauseum from Reverend Wright for twenty years?

Had the First Lady made the remark, and I now believe she did not, that would have been telling evidence, adding to an existing body of evidence, that, indeed, she and the President hold to the Zinn-Chomsky view of American history in which they were marinated most of their adult life and pretend otherwise.

Is that not an issue of importance to voters?