Liberals must have a special fascination with hypocrisy since they engage in it so much. Recently, first lady Michelle Obama ordered a typical fast-food meal: burger, fries, chocolate shake, and diet Coke. No big deal. Americans order menu items like this multiple times over.

As the Philly Daily News observes, though, it must be a big deal:

SOME DAY, right-wing ideologues are going to choke on their hatred of Michelle Obama.

The latest line of attack against the first lady was facilitated by the Washington Post, which breathlessly reported a week ago that she had ordered a hamburger, french fries, a chocolate shake and a Diet Coke at a D.C. restaurant: 1,700 calories, the report calculated (then later corrected its estimate to 1,500.) The investigative reporter was not able to learn whether the first lady actually ate the whole thing or maybe shared it, but what's the difference?

The editorialists are right on one count: it should be no big deal for the first lady to order a meal like this. Just like it should be no big deal for any other American to order a meal like this.

The reality, though, is that it is a big deal. Ms. Obama is on a very visible crusade to, as the article tells us, get "children to eat what's good for them." After all, this used to be "a staple of responsible parenting," the article quips.

Right on both accounts. The difference? The really big difference? First lady Obama is not merely "educating" us about the negative impact of poor eating habits; she is seeking to impose dietary restrictions upon ordinary Americans, since we cannot be trusted to make regime-approved decisions on our own, through the coercive power of federal government. She has already succeeded in the arena of public schools:

The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, a $4.5 billion measure, provides more free school meals to the pool, and gives the government more power to decide what foods can offered in those meals, as well as in school vending machines and fundraisers during school hours.

Recognize the difference yet? As one of those responsible parents, I did make my children "eat what's good for them." But I didn't go around making everyone else's children "eat what's good for them." Ms. Obama, her husband, and a caving Congress do. And liberals like the Philly Daily News applaud them.

So... when the anti-fast food first lady buys a typical fast food meal, it is a big deal. It is a failure to act as she demands everyone to act. It is visible hypocrisy.

But here is what makes this OK to those living in the land of left-believe: obviously, the lure of something like burgers and fries is too overwhelming for even someone with the devotion, zeal, and spunk of the first lady. If she cannot help but to succumb to the allure of fast food, then none of us are safe. So government must save us by driving those evil businesses out of business (setting aside that last May McDonald's was the number one hiring company in America). Had fast food items already been obliterated from restaurant menus, then our brave, crusading first lady would not have fallen prey to this terrible temptation.

To those living in the land of left-believe, hypocrisy is embraced as just another reason for them to impose their "good intentions" and wishful thinking onto us all through their coercive, draconian legislation.