Comments for Presidents to represent me

Presidents to represent me

2008-11-26T19:00:00Z

Frequent commenter Rikyrah has an interesting piece up about Obama, not as our first black president, but as our first celebrity president. Of course there was Camelot before him, but there was no US Weekly, People or TMZ--at least not as they exist today. The point is that Obama is the first president that the celeb machine is actually obsessing over:

Barack Obama is the first CELEBRITY President. I don't mean that in a bad way. I just mean it in a factual way. He's the first President of the Modern Celebrity Culture that we live in today.
To be honest, that realization frightened me. I mean, look at the magazine racks. Obama isn't just on magazines like Time and Newsweek, the Obamas, or some combination of them are on People, US, Life & Style, OK, The Star.
Look at that list.
Within days of the election, what did we hear about the WeeMichelles? Some offer from Hanna Montana?
Then there was the article in the Wall Street Journal about Malia, her dress from Election Night, how it sold out, and maybe she's going to be a trendsetter for the ' tween' set.
I turn on the tv and see Inside Edition doing a piece on Sasha's Dress - yes, SASHA, and how it's become a sellout too.

Meh, I knew it was over when I saw the tabs trading rumors about the First Couple's various affairs. It's pretty crazy.

Comment from Uncular1 on 2008-11-26

2008-11-26T19:07:46Z

Reagan had quite a bit of celebrity attached to him when he entered the White House as well. Remember how the press mentioned his movie career, jellybeans, Ron jr.'s ballet, Nancy's wardrobe, not to mention her astrologers.

I may agree that the tabloidization of the media has increased tremedously (or they say it has) and there are 24 hour news networks that need to be fed. However, that does not change the fact that America was really smitten with all things Ronnie in the 80s.

Hell, the right still is smitten with Ronnie even today.

Comment from PaulW on 2008-11-26

2008-11-26T19:34:45Z

I agree with Uncular1 in that we've had celebrity Prezzes before. Count the number of covers Reagan got on such magazines as People or Us Weekly back in the day... Clinton entered with a whole Gen-X package on MTV and Arsenio Hall... Jack and Jackie popping up just as television had reached every corner of the nation and the globe...

Comment from AhYup on 2008-11-26

2008-11-26T20:14:45Z

Hmm, I don't know. The Clintons were always on the covers of those same magazines as well.

I think there is something really different in the way people feel about the Obama family though. While the MSM yaks about Obama seeming like a cold distant figure when I see interviews with him and Michelle and him and the family I have the exact opposite reaction. They seem more real and down to earth than is usual with people in their position.

So ironically I think the "celebrity" has a lot to do with this. They are on those magazines becuase I think they are the first family to really resonate with the mainstream of modern American culture in quite some time.

Comment from Persia on 2008-11-26

2008-11-26T20:39:39Z

Didn't you guys all watch Mad Men? Don't you remember Jackie Kennedy, in prime time, on Valentine's Day, giving her tour of the White House?

Though I think AhYup may be on to something with the 'realness' of the Obamas.

Comment from Eduardo on 2008-11-26

2008-11-26T20:41:20Z

I am not into celebrities at all but I have to confess that I can't help myself reading a lot of celebrity stuff about the Obamas. I can't help to gloss at the magazines that have them in the cover while I'm at the line in the supermarket. And the funny thing is that I don't look for crap --they are truly likable people.

Comment from SH on 2008-11-26

2008-11-26T20:56:36Z

T-N C, "Say whaaaaat" (To keep the "Presidents to represent me" theme going).

One wonders what "celebrity" in this instance means. Does celebrity come from a certain "star power" that the individual has? Wouldn't that be something more akin to "charisma"? Not that these are mutually exclusive categories--"charisma" and "celebrity"--clearly the former can intensify the latter. But my main point is maybe that the Obamas are the first First Couple to occupy the Presidency under the entire networked apparatus of broadcast, print and Web 2.0. This kind of robust mediascape didn't really exist fully under W.

Couldn't the "celebrity" status that the Obamas have be symptoms not 100% about them or even about the collective psyche (or Unconscious for you Jungians) but the sheer saturation of media in everyday life?

Comment from peter on 2008-11-26

2008-11-26T21:48:52Z

I think Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt were both national celebrities well before they ran for the Presidency or Vice Presidency. Even though he spent part of his adult life living alone in the Dakotas, TR is also the only other President before Obama to hail from the city.

Comment from CitizenE on 2008-11-26

2008-11-26T21:51:44Z

The country will be poorer for Obama being unable to take walks around the neighborhood to cut the zzzz's of thinking at everyone else's pace. Michelle Obama will have the advantage of not having to be President, so she may be able to handle it with a bit more graciousness. However, as a citizen of this country and a grandfather of a girl their age, no matter how cute those 2 kids are or how sweet it is to see them with their folks, I want them out of sight. I don't want to see 'em, hear about 'em, or know about 'em. Period.

Comment from emma on 2008-11-26

2008-11-26T21:58:27Z

I hope they leave the girls alone, but I would rather hear about and see the Obamas then Brangelina and Tomcat.

Comment from anna perez on 2008-11-26

2008-11-27T00:30:55Z

If the Obama's were old and "ugly" w/o the really cute kids, we would not be seeing this "celebritization" going on. As for the children being in the public eye, I know that they know that once you identify yourself as food for the (media) beast, you don't get to decide when to ring the dinner bell.

Comment from Melissa Svendsen on 2008-11-26

2008-11-27T04:26:41Z

As president, Obama will be not just head of government, but also head of state -- a role that in England is played by the Queen. The Obamas have been elected the Royal Family of America for the next four or eight years, and during that time the Obama girls as much fair game for the media as the princes William and Harry were at their age.

Comment from Christopher M on 2008-11-27

2008-11-27T05:32:27Z

Could someone please explain what is supposed to be different between Obama as the supposed first celebrity president, and the Clinton presidency? Both Clintons were all over the celeb-culture magazines. The nation was gripped by his revelations about his choice of underwear, and how many stories did we get about how much Bill loved Big Macs?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Kennedys were treated the same way, but I wasn't alive then so I won't argue the point.

Comment from MR Bill on 2008-11-27

2008-11-27T10:03:24Z

I'm old enough to remember the Kennedy years dimly, and was aware as a preschooler of Jackie's status as magazine icon, the examination of the Kennedy style, the Kennedy wit, the Kennedy family's football games..
The coverage of Jackie's failed pregnancy was up there with Marilyn Monroe's death, in terms of the saturation coverage. There was plenty of tabloid stuff, even if the Mainstream press covered up Jack Kennedy's womanizing.
Maybe the difference is that we haven't had this sort of star power in the White House for almost 5 decades('cause Ronnie Reagan will always be a grade B actor, and outside of Republican hagiography, will fade in history as a grade B president who set up the epic fail of the Bush crime family, and set the Right on a course of economic smoke and mirrors..)

Comment from rikyrah on 2008-11-27

2008-11-27T15:31:15Z

The Clintons came into office in 1992.

The Obamas 2008.

In that time, you had

a) the explosion of the internet
b) the explosion of the 24 hour news cycle
c) in the Clinton era, there was one entertainment show - Entertainment Tonight. Now, you have Access Hollywood, Inside Edition, The Insider, TMZ.com, etc.
d) you also have the explosion of entertainment sites on the internet that get millions of hits per day
e) in the Clinton Era, you had - what, People and US? Now, add OK, Life & Style, In Style, etc.
f) the merging of news and entertainment
g) the stalkerazzi

The President of the United States already is someone who had no privacy. Add in the entertainment industry treating the Obamas like Brangelina, and I just think it will be totally insane.

Like I wrote, I'm sad for Barack and Michelle Obama, but they're adults. I'm horrified for the WeeMichelles.

Comment from TMH on 2008-11-28

2008-11-28T23:39:28Z

I gotta say, I'm not convinced. Sure, we have TMZ now. Vut for decades, and by decades I mean well before even the Kennedys, we had a celebrity driven gossip infrastructure in this country. The only difference is that it now comes in a different medium. Yes, the internet and the 24 hour news cycle are a big deal, but so were morning and evening newspapers, and radio shows devoted to celebrity news, and newsreels. There is no more Life, or Look Magazines. Those are now People, or US. Maybe.