Obama has been on Time magazine cover 7 times compared to McCain's 2. Yes, Obama Hilton is the celebrity.
because time magazine, a serious news publication is the exact same as jay leno, secondly time magazine can put obama on the cover of their magazine anytime they want, mccain actually has to go the jay leno to be on jay leno's show. EPIC
Yeah because Paris Hilton is always on the cover of Time Magazine. Did you hurt yourself attempting that reach? McCain: SNL, Tonight Show, Letterman, Wedding Crashers, 24, etc <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nAl73WBcz9s&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nAl73WBcz9s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Since when did being a celebrity require trying? Celebrity is generally thrust upon people by the interests of the masses. But, comparing indicators of celebrity for these two men is a bit silly. The masses have a legitimate interest in the actions and comments of candidates when they have to decide which one will be president. Of course they'll show up on Leno and Time. It isn't like a prurient interest in what Brad Pitt may have done to Jennifer Anniston, which is nobody's business.
the point is more about being on the cover of time. you're right, people magazine can put mccain on every cover, it doesn't mean mccain is looking for celebrity, or anything is wrong with him being there. but still the point is he compared obama to being on a magazine cover (let's ignore its a news magazine) to mccain actually going on a late night comedy show, an occurance that takes effort by mccain to fit on leno's time slot, to further his celebrity
I'm curious to know if conservatives where this concerned with the celebrity status of its demigod Ronold Raygun (who we KNOW was a Movie Star) when he was bidding for the white house. Meh…probably not Hypocrites
i love this tatic from the conservatives, make nasty ridiculous attack (ie. obama hilton, still referencing an actual political ad that was aimed as a negative to an actual political campaign) 2nd. wait for calling out of stupidity of claim 3a ask either, why democrats or so bitter, its all fun and games (even though they have made this in their eyes an actual campaign issue) or 3b claim that those attacks are from the wacky wingnuts, i'm actually a rational conservative
I'm not bitter at all! In fact I'm light as a feather! We're about to elect Barack Obama President! I coudn't be happier!
To be fair Reagan had been a governor for a long time and also on the political scene for almost twenty years when he was elected. That's a lot longer than Obama. Further, whether or not you agree with his politics he also had a fairly enunciated agenda which I'm not really sure Obama does. I don't think the Obama/Paris comparison was nasty at all and I think some of your are overreacting. If anything it's a funny way to point out that Obama is trading on a lot of media driven praise without having a lot of real experience. Why is that out of bounds? If that's as 'negative' as the campaign gets then we can all thank our lucky stars how far we've moved away from Rovianism.
actually i'll agree with on face value its no big deal. its actually a little funny. if your message is that dude's not ready to lead, its really effective, it think, fair or not
Is there any country other than the US that focuses on such silly things when electing a leader? "Oh my god! He's a big celebrity!" "He was a prisoner of war!" "Wow, his running mate is a WOMAN!" "His name isn't normal! Oh no!!!!" "He has too many houses!" "He made a comment one time that may or may not have been taken out of context that made him sound like a snob! I can't vote for that side!" Every single one of them is totally irrelevant. I could understand if most people were saying things like "I don't support that guy's views on immigration, so he sucks" or that type of thing, but hardly anyone is doing that. All this focus on such irrelevant stuff is just foolishness. Also, why does the US drag its elections out for so long? This one has been going on forever and ever, and it seems like nothing new is really being said. It all just seems to be smear tactics at this point. How long do you really need to elect a president? Dragging it out for so long is just a big waste of money. I guess it's good for TV ratings? BALLOT BOWL 2008!!! *LOL*
