"In a fascinating story in this week's New York magazine, Vanessa Grigoriadis takes on the racial dynamics of the Obama marriage, and along the way offers a complex portrait of Michelle Obama,” wrote Salon.com’s Sarah Hepola, who posts at that site’s “Broadsheet.”

Fascinating, huh?

Reading Vanessa Grigoriadis’ Obama article, “Black & Blacker: The Racial Politics of the Obama marriage,” was an excursion into the banality of utter superficiality. Essentially the Obama marriage is “racialized” in the sense that he’s black, or had to become black (“Obama struggled to incorporate blackness into his life…”) while she is authentically black (“She grew up in a strong black community on the South Side of Chicago…”). It is somewhat obvious that they are a married black couple, but so what?

The description of the Obamas’ life together displays no evidence of their connections to black culture, especially now that it’s not prudent for them to join a new church before the election.

For someone like Grigoriadis, there has to be some kind of obvious marker of black culture or blackness—whatever that is in her eyes. Attending an “angry” black church like Trinity is one.

But if the Obamas don’t display any “evidence of their connections to black culture,” then why is their marriage viewed as evidence of racial politics?

What we get are assertions like this: The Obamas, who embody a drama with race as its central theme, know the score, racially speaking, even if they can’t say that they do.

In reality, Grigoriadis doesn’t offer anything new or revealing about them as a married couple. The article merely repeats the same issues or tropes about blackness, anger, Obama being all things to all people, etc. It doesn’t explore what makes them work as a married couple or how they are raising their children in any depth.

On their first date, Barack and Michelle ate ice cream from a Baskin-Robbins and went to see Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. It’s a heavily symbolic moment, so perfect that it could’ve been scripted.

Now, this is the level of insight this article offers. Michelle makes a routine observation about the character Mookie throwing a garbage can through the window of a neighborhood pizzeria, which causes a riot. However, one is hard pressed to understand why going to see this movie is “symbolic” since it was seen by millions of black couples when it came out and they probably had the same conversation.

No, this article symbolically underscores that attempts regarding dialogue or conversation about race in American is nothing more than a deceitful conceit. Most Americans are not interested in a conversation; they are mostly interested in titillation. Speaking of race in this society is like talking about sex: everyone has an opinion about it because they have either done it or are the products of it, but that doesn’t mean they know anything about it.

What most Americans are interested in is opining about race without understanding anything about the Other. For a good example of this listen to NPR’s Weekend edition (Sunday) series on race and politics.

Not having any depth of feeling for them as human beings or the ability to probe them journalistically, lazily, Grigoriadis pegs her entire story on simpleminded tropes about race and blackness (or the lack thereof). There is no sense that either Obama had any reservations about each other being “too black” or “not black enough.”

This article is just another lazy and cynical example of “race” as titillation, not as a thoughtful explanation of the American experience.