I've talked to a few folks about this lately, but there's something I don't exactly understand about the current tone of the presidential election.McCain started it, talking about how Obama is a celebrity. You may remember his ad and the subsequent rebuttal by Paris Hilton.
Now, if my former colleague and his current colleagues are to be believed, the Obama campaign was a little worried pre-speech about Obama's celebrity, too.
Wait, why?
This is America.
We love celebrities.
You may remember Ronald Reagan, for example. Or, like, Arnold Schwarzenegger (both elected by the great state of California, where one eighth of Americans live). Jesse Ventura. Sonny Bono. Gopher. Cooter.
Celebrities rule.
As I was discussing this with a friend (who proudly subscribes to People magazine), she reminded me that the whole idea was "to show lack of substance." And she's right, but.
But we love lack of substance. Love, love, love it. See most of the people mentioned above.
We like popular.
I mean, by definition, since that is what popular means.
So — what's the drawback to Obama being a "celebrity?"
I am sure there's something here I'm not getting.
4 comments:
I think McCain meant that Obama is merely a celebrity, i.e., a person who is famous primarily for being famous. Certainly he was implying that Obama lacks depth and substance. (And then he went and named Sarah Palin his running mate, so the whole thing is kind of comical.)
OK Webbo - You seem to be on a "substance" kick here with your last two posts. I'll bite.
I think the best thing one can really say about Kid Rock's "All Summer Long" is that he has been cleverly derivative of two of the great populist party riffs of our era. I guess for some, it might make for a nice nostalgia trip about going to parties where crappy (and I mean that in the best sense of the word) garage bands played "Sweet Home Alabama" and substituted the name of their summer camp/highschool/whatever in the chorus... What doesn't work for me, though, is that every time I hear it I'm disappointed that it's not Warren Zevon and I don't get to howl along with the chorus in my car... It begs the unsettling question of why the catchiest thing on the radio this summer remains a couple of riffs that were written in 1974/75. Surely we can do better.
Back to McCain/Obama - I think it's pretty clear to anyone who has followed the party platforms for the last few elections that the best thing we can say about McCain's platform is that his policy proposals, perhaps with the exception of immigration & campaign finance reform, are at least heavily derivative of W's before him. Some say the same about the O-man and the Clintons before him...
I guess part of what's interesting here is that McCain and the right seem to be decrying Obama's celebrity only in so much as he has more of it than they do. They've certainly treated it as an asset in the cases of Ventura, Arnie, W, etc. Especially with the idea that the Governor, President, etc is a figurehead whose lack of experience with policy can be covered by a solid cabinet of "experts" in foreign relations, finance, etc. Suddenly we need a person of substance?
Well, we do. We always do. We could have used some more substance on the radio this summer and all we got was Kid Rock. Let's hope whatever happens after this election we get something more satisfying.
-Willy T
OK Willy T-
One more thought on the substance of the Kid Rock song.
Not only is it 2008, and the catchiest thing on the radio is two riffs from 1974/75, but the song is about 1989. Even if we can't do better now, couldn't we have done better in that 15-year window? I am not sure anything from the mid-70s even counts as "of our era."
Oh, and Mike.
Yes. Merely a celebrity.
We love mere celebrities. No awkward thinking about stuff involved.
I know I sound like an ass and a snob, so I should be totally honest: I love mere celebrities myself. I do think Obama has substance, really, I do. But I liked him well before I was so sure.
Post a Comment