Obviously, the could see that polling numbers on the “ birther” issue were starting to turn negative on . Obviously, Obama himself was persuaded that Donald Trump was drawing blood as Trump railed against Obama’ s credibility. Obviously, the Obama re- election campaign machinery was worried that the controversy over the birth certificate was opening up larger questions about Obama’ s trustworthiness- - and thus jeopardizing the 44th president’ s re- election chances.

Those might seem like harsh judgments on Obama- - and, also, high praise for the politico- media punch of Trump. But let’ s ask: If the Obamans were not feeling severe pressure, why would the President choose personally to wrap himself in the birther story, by stepping into the White House press briefing room on Wednesday morning to deliver the message that he does, in fact, have a genuine birth certificate?

And why would the White House step on one of the best stories it has had in months, the implicit endorsement of Obama by Gen. ? The news that Defense Secretary is retiring, to be replaced by current CIA director , is no big deal; Panetta is a longtime Democratic warhorse, regarded more as a loyalist than as a military expert.

But Petraeus is a big deal. The four- star general- - the hero of the surge, the most visible military man over the last decade of the global war on terror- - is retiring from the Army to become a civilian appointee in the Obama administration, replacing Panetta at the CIA.

In other words, in purely political terms, Petraeus is a huge “ get” for Obama. Some thought that Petraeus would be running for president by now, as a Republican. Or at least that he would be keeping his options open, as he continued to lead the fight against Muslim extremism.

By staying in the military under Obama, Petraeus was, of course, loyally serving the Commander- in- Chief, but now that dynamic has changed. There’ s a huge difference between staying in uniform under C- in- C Obama and taking on a whole new job as an adviser to him at the CIA; one of the CIA director’ s duties is personally to brief the president on a near- daily basis about national security issues. So Petraeus has, in effect, endorsed Obama’ s leadership, and he will do so for every day that he serves in the CIA post. Moreover, having accepted the CIA appointment, Petraeus will now have to go through Senate confirmation hearings, in which questions will arise about whether or not he has supported, and will support, various Obama policies. It’ s inconceivable that Petraeus won’ t be confirmed, but if Petraeus seeks to be part of the Obama team, he will have to answer Senatorial questions about people and policy.

And not only will he have to praise, effusively, President Obama, but also Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, and other present and future Obama colleagues. In addition, he will have be supportive of Obama policies concerning , , and other warzones and hotspots.

In other words, Petraeus- to- CIA is a great storyline for Obama.

His 2012 re- electioneers can say, “ Folks, America’ s greatest living general has signed on with Team Obama: Why would you want to risk changing leaders in the next presidential election? But instead, the White House goofed. It trampled all over that story- - and got a much different story: Instead of “ Petraeus Boosts Obama, ” it was “ Obama vs. Trump. ” Indeed, since it was Obama reacting to Trump’ s taunts, we can say that Trump won the round.

Whatever one wants to say about the merits of the birther story, “ Bragging aside, it does make Trump look like he is driving the agenda and forced the White House to react. ” Indeed.

In the game of politics, either you are moving the ball, or the other guy is moving the ball. And Trump was doing the moving.

So score one for The Donald. Now Trump is on to new inquiries, such as Obama’ s school transcripts. In fairness to Trump, he has a great many bones to pick with the President, from Libya to oil prices to China, but these personal issues are the red meat that activists- - and reporters- - thrive on. In 1996, Kenneth T. Walsh, a veteran White House reporter, entitled " Feeding the Beast: The White House Versus the Press. " The point of the book was that the White House media operation had to “ feed the beast” that is, keep reporters happy by feeding them news.

That was 15 years ago; today, the few hundred reporters who get paid to cover the White House have been joined by many millions of cable- news watchers, e- mailers, bloggers, and tweeters, all salivating for more, more, more. So expect more curiosity about every aspect of Obama’ s life in the months to come. Having gotten their inch, Obama critics will now want their mile. One might think that Obama would seek to squelch all these diggers and critics with a display of seriousness. You know, say, summon the , or speak on “ grand strategy” to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The diggers would still dig, of course, and the critics would still criticize, but Obama would be demonstrating that he is a serious man, doing serious things on behalf of the national interest. Yet instead of heavy, Obama went fluffy- - he sought comfort in the television studio of .

In the White House on Wednesday, the president said, “ I’ ve got better stuff to do” than deal with the birth certificate issue- - even as, of course, he was dealing with it.

And immediately after that, he and the First Lady flew to Chicago where they chuckled over the “ silliness” of the birther issue. And then it was off to New York City, for a fundraiser, where the President again joked about birtherism.

Is this a good strategy for Obama? To keep the story alive- - even as he tries to laugh it off? Probably not, for two reasons. First, as we have seen, every time Obama reacts to Trump, he is feeding Trump, and all the Trump wannabes. And second, the more engaged he seems to be about political gossip, the more disengaged he seems to be about real issues facing America. - - that was the headline in Thursday’ s Wall Street Journal.

And if that economic slowdown continues, in a couple of years, Obama will have plenty of time to battle Trump, or to go on Oprah- - because he will no longer be distracted by his duties at the White House.

James P.

Pinkerton is a Fox News contributor and panelist on Fox News Channel' s " Fox News Watch. " Watch him this weekend Saturday at 2: 30 p. m. ET.

Germany' s finance minister on Saturday added to a chorus of calls for France' s Christine Lagarde to become a new leader of the International Monetary Fund. Germany' s finance minister on Saturday added to a chorus of calls for France' s Christine Lagarde to become a new leader of the International Monetary Fund. Lagarde has emerged as a front- runner to replace Dominique Strauss- Kahn, also of France, who resigned this week to face charges in New York that he tried to rape a hotel maid. He denies the charges. Germany' s Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said Lagarde would give Europe its best chance to again lead the fund.

Chancellor Angela Merkel called her a " distinguished" and " very experienced" personality. " Europe would have the best chance to secure the post again with Christine Lagarde, if she decides to run, " Schaeuble told the German weekly Bild am Sonntag. He was quoted as saying that Lagarde was " outstandingly qualified" and " extremely respected and appreciated in the entire financial world. " Schaeuble and Merkel said that it is crucial that all Europeans now rally behind a candidate. Merkel on Saturday stopped short of formally endorsi. . .

The fires searing parts of the American West are an eerie echo of the past, a frightening reminder of a once terrible danger that had been held largely at bay for decades. The number of large wildfires has been rising for roughly the past 25 years, and they are lasting longer amid fire seasons that also last longer. Is it global warming?

Experts won' t say that, pointing instead to a variety of factors ranging from local weather to insect infestations to more people living and camping out in the woods. The Arizona fire, with almost half a million acres destroyed, makes it one of the largest since statehood in 1912. A related blaze is under way in New Mexico, another fire has forced people to evacuate parts of Colorado, and the has issued " red flag" warnings - - indicating conditions favorable to wildfires - - for parts of Texas, Florida and . So far this year, 31, 650 wildfires have burned more than 4 million acres of land - - more than twice the area of Delaware - - according to the National Interagency Coordination Center.

That' s up from 27, 077 fires at the same time a year ago, which burned about a third as much acreage as this year. The number of large fires began to grow in the mid- 1980s, according to research by Anthony L.

Westerling of the University of California, Merced.

His paper published in the journal Science in 2006 documented the number, size and frequency of fires. The fires in Yellowstone Park in 1988 seemed to inaugurate this new era of major wildfires in the West. These blazes lasted more than three months and burned 1.

5 million acres of forest. Despite the investment of millions of dollars and deployment of 25, 000 firefighters, they were only extinguished when snow began to fall in mid- September, Steven W. Running of the University of Montana said in a commentary on Westerling' s study. The increase in large wildfires could be seen as a return to the situation a century earlier, when they were more common. The last of those big fires occurred during the drought in the 1930s, noted Stephen J.

Pyne of Arizona State University, author of " Year of the Fires: The Story of the Great Fires of 1910. " After that, a combination of fire- control efforts and social changes resulted in fewer fires. Now, over the last few decades, there has been an increase, although not every year, said Pyne. " The question is why. " The U. Forest Service and U. Geological Survey studied fires of more than 1, 000 acres and found that from 1984 to 1999 an average of 2. 2 million acres nationally burned each year.

From 2000 to 2008, the acreage destroyed annually rose to 6. 4 million acres. " What we can' t do is definitively tie this to any specific driving factor like climate variability, " said Matt Rollins, who monitors wildfires for the Geological Survey.

That' s because fire is a highly complex ecosystem process affected by local, short- term weather patterns, regional climate trends, vegetation and other elements like storm damage, insects and pathogens, along with human activities, Rollins explained. Thomas W. Swetnam of the University of Arizona said frequent and extensive fires were common before 1900, and tree ring records show they occurred at the same times in many areas of the West. " What' s different about this ( Arizona) fire is the severity, the intensity of the heat and the amount of trees that are killed, " he said. It' s at least partly because the lack of frequent surface fires allowed fuel like brush and leaves to accumulate over the years. Add high temperatures and windy conditions and the scene is set for a devastating fire.

In the middle of the 1900s, " Smokey Bear and the government Park Service and Forest Service made it their mission to put all fires out, " Swetnam said, and that " disrupted the natural fire regime. " Surface fires were the natural way to remove the kind of growth that' s been building up for a century, he said. Overgrazing, logging and fire prevention have created a lot more stuff to burn, added Pyne. Global warming has also been predicted to result in more wildfires by producing more hot, dry conditions.

But " we don' t even need to involve global warming, " in this case, Pyne said. It' s hot at this time of year, and " all you need is couple of weeks of really dry weather. " In recent decades, the policy of attacking every fire changed and officials began trying to allow natural fires to flare up again, Pyne said. " That was the goal.

We knew we could not continue to exclude fire; it was self- defeating. " In remote areas especially, fires have been allowed more room, he said, but the problem comes when that policy is taken over by sloppy campers, arsonists and lightning. Changes in land use have also added to the problem, Pyne said. Cities and suburbs have expanded into fire- prone areas and new wilderness areas provide plenty of places for fires to concentrate. Over a century ago, massive and deadly forest fires plagued America. The deadliest wildfire in American history killed an estimated 2, 200 people and destroyed more than 2, 400 square miles of forest around Peshtigo, Wis.

But that blaze gets little attention because it occurred on the same day in 1871 as the " Great Chicago Fire, " which killed 300 people a couple hundred miles to the south.