Dick Polman (a liberal Democrat who writes for the Philadelphia Inquirer) thinks President Obama's war on Fox news is both foolish as well as "tactically stupid" and he explains why:

1. Going after Fox serves only to elevate Fox, making it appear that Fox is on an equal footing with the White House. Every president gets unfavorable press coverage; lashing out at the press generally makes a president looks small. In this instance, Fox winds up looking bigger. There's no need for Obama to do that, because he's the one with the biggest megaphone. His last speech to Congress drew 32 million TV viewers, according to the Nielsens. His last appearance on CBS' 60 Minutes drew 10 million viewers. Glenn Beck, on Fox, typically gets 2.2 million; Sean Hannity, 2.1 million. Why go to war with Fox, which only boosts its profile and plays right into the hands of Fox chief Roger Ailes - the ex-Nixon aide who thrives on this kind of pugilism?

2. Speaking of Nixon, the attacks on Fox merely serve to make Obama look Nixonesque. Which is hardly Obama's preferred image. Back in '69, Nixon sent forth his vice president, Spiro Agnew, to wage frontal war against CBS and the other "nattering nabobs of negativism," and it made that president look petty and vindictive. In fact, if George W. Bush had waged the same kind of frontal war against MSNBC, the odds are high that much of the Washington commentariat would have accused him of trying to intimidate the press and despoiling the First Amendment. They would have assailed him as petty and vindictive. Is Obama less so? Or is he getting a pass from most pundits simply because his chosen target is Fox?

3. The war on Fox is an unnecessary public distraction. Obama has a lot on his plate already, most of it very substantive - Afghanistan, health care, the economy, climate change, stuff like that - and his smartest play is to keep his eye on the ball...rather than try and make a big fuss out of an old story about how Fox is conservative.

As to whether the war on Fox is an "unnecessary public distraction," I think it is most likely a public distraction, but whether it's unnecessary depends on who needs the distraction, and why. Axelrod, Dunn and company obviously think it's a necessary distraction or else they wouldn't have started the war.

But distraction from what?

Several distractions ago, I remarked on the sheer number of distractions at that point:

A distraction here, a distraction there, and pretty soon this will become a distraction administration.

I have to say, it's certainly the most distracting distraction I've seen since the last distraction.

MORE: Polman is not the only Democrat who is worried.

In Congress, the White House attacks worry moderate Democrats. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

AND MORE: Also via Glenn Reynolds, Jennifer Rubin says something too rich for me to ignore:

the administration is doing the impossible -- offending the mainstream press and forcing some of Fox's toughest critics to ride to its defense. Nice work, fellas.

"If Fox News was running for office, it would have to list President Obama as an in-kind contributor."

This couldn't be another one of those publicity stunts, could it?

I know it sounds fantastic, but the evidence is accumulating.