TresSugar

Campaign Kids on Access Hollywood, Blogging: Right Roles?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:49:29 -0700

The Obama kids (Malia and Sascha) had a first this week: a full-family interview on Access Hollywood. Though if the girls had any plans for an encore, dad has put his foot down this morning. Obama regrets the interview, saying that he doesn't think the exposure is "healthy" and that the family got carried away because the interview was on Malia's birthday, and added that famous dad-ism, "it won't happen again."

The Obama girls aren't the only campaign kids in and out of the spotlight. Meghan McCain, though quite a bit older than her Democratic counterparts, is no stranger to the stump. She has her high-profile blog, plans to author a children's book, and isn't a stranger to red-carpet events - she's even been in GQ, where it came out that she voted for John Kerry. By contrast, her brothers (Jack and Jimmy) are military men, with Jack in the Naval Academy and pretty publicity-shy, and Jimmy who returned from Iraq in February, and whose service is famously off-the-table on the campaign trail.

What's the right role for a kid on the campaign trail? Was Obama right to let the girls do the interview? Should the candidates let their kids choose their level of involvement as it appears McCain has?

And here's this: did you know Obama is actually "pretty conservative?" Apparently it's true - when it comes to his gum. To check out the Obama kids on Access Hollywood, read more.

Want more about what kind of life awaits the next White House-bound kid? This piece has all the juicy details - including this which I love from Susan Ford (Bales): she walked into a meeting her dad was having with Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state. "I walked in and said: 'Hi, Mr. Secretary. Dad, I need my allowance and Mom doesn't have any cash.'" The leader of the free world ponied up.

America's Most Famous Family Keeps Paparazzi at Bay

TresSugar — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:30:00 -0700

Photos of the Obama family are often too cute to handle.

Other than a few grainy images, like the paparazzi shots of Obama shirtless in Hawaii, almost every picture we see coming from the first family has a photo-shoot finish. That's on purpose.

The LA Times points out that the glimpses into the Obamas' everyday life are not spontaneous. It's all strategic.

Think of it as Operation Access Hollywood - the Obamas figure that if they willingly give the public a peek inside their world, they'll get popularity and privacy in return.

Releasing exclusive and "private" photos diminishes the value of a paparazzi shot, and lets the Obamas manage their image. And if the Obamas grant exclusive interviews to gossip magazines, outlets will avoid publishing unauthorized images, lest they be cut off!

While critics might think the president is exploiting his family for popularity, I can't argue with the plan if it helps keep Sasha and Malia's lives free from too much disruption. And like I said - the pics are cute, people!

To see some more well-coordinated pics of the Obamas, read more.

View 10 Photos ›

Source

Ease & Access vs. Security & Responsibility: Voting Too Easy?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:53:57 -0700

I filled out my voter registration card months before I turned 18. It sat on my dresser impatiently until finally I was old enough to send 'er in. It was fun and easy. This election, the very process of voter registration has sparked passionate points of view: this editorial advocates for a minimal civics test that hopeful voters would have to pass in order to wield the power of the punch card.

He says, "I really don't want someone on the streets of Hollywood, who just failed to identify the vice president of the United States on one of Jay Leno's "Jay-Walking" segments, helping to select the person who will lead my government for the next four years." Given that we require basic knowledge to become a citizen or operate a motor vehicle, is choosing the future of the country a responsibility that should have stricter requirements?

Despite this opinion, the US seems to be moving away from more restrictions, to easy-as-pie-voting. A new Ohio voting law allows for a window of time (Sept. 30-Oct. 6) during which voters can register and vote early, immediately. Voting registration is controversial and there's a partisan aspect to the split according to this piece in the WSJ:

Traditionally, Democrats favor fewer checks on verification and greater access to voting to encourage larger turnouts, particularly among lower-income and minority voters, who tend to favor Democrats. Republicans usually push for closer monitoring, in such forms as laws with strict requirements for voters to present identification, which can result in lower turnout.

Does an ever increasingly easy/free-for-all access to voting a requirement of a democracy, or does the gravity of the task of voting deserve stricter requirements and heightened security measures?

Source

She Said, She Said: RNC Rolls Out Obama/Celeb Quote Game

CitizenSugar — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:45:59 -0700

The game rolled out by the RNC today called "Who Said It? The Celebrity Edition" takes a quote, and makes you choose who said it between three Hollywood-famous types and Obama, my favorite quote being: "Who knows what a hitch ball is? This is a hitch-ball cover. We don't know what a hitch ball is. Anybody know?" It's harder than you'd think.

Given the prevalence of the big c-word this week (that's celebrity, dirty minders) and the fun-meaning yet controversial nature of the game, Liberty and I found ourselves at odds on what to make of it, so here we go: She Said, She Said: Obama vs. The C-Word.

Citizen: Perhaps the question is not what a celebrity is, but the behaviors we associate with someone seeking fame - rather than someone seeking service. Lest we forget, that's the essence of all of this. This game is designed to be a lark (and it is) but truth under it remains: famous is, as famous does. There are scads of people who behave as, and we follow as "celebrities" who don't follow any definition of celebrity - but because they act the part, and we respond accordingly. "Celebrity" is not tied to wealth, or fashion, or time on screen. Celebrity is the cultivation of adoration, plain and simple, and Obama has that in spades.

Anyone seeking fame knows they have to be seen by as many people, as often as possible, regardless of propriety - and the stunt of giving his nomination acceptance speech in the Thunderdome-setting of Denver's Mile-High stadium, affecting rock concert rather than party business, is an appalling display of hubris that completely circumvents the meaning of humbly accepting the nomination to serve one's country. There is a difference between political showmanship, and spectacle bordering on farce.

How many covers of Us Weekly and People has John McCain graced? None have crossed my desk, but I know of at least two Obama covers, (including the issue that hit the week before this ad was released) plus a fashion spread, plus debuting his kids' first interview on Access Hollywood. Not Meet the Press, not C-SPAN - but a show specifically designed and devoted to following celebrities. Ahem. I call your Maria Menounos and raise you a Scarlett Johansson. Obama is, and carefully curates, that very celebrated image.

Don't agree with me? You're in luck. To see what Liberty has to say, read more.

Liberty: With this quiz the GOP has invented its very own convenient definition of
celebrity: Barack Obama. As the celebrity narrative pushes on, the media happily turns away from the facts that: McCain is married to a blond heiress, wears shoes worth half a grand, has hosted Saturday Night Live, and had a movie made about his Vietnam experience. And today we have news reinforcing the notion that the GOP is the party of big business, but Obama is the elitist, arugula-eating celebrity, right?

What's even more disheartening? When you stop looking at Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, the facts in the celebrity ad are false. For example, Obama never said he wanted to raise taxes on electricity.

While the GOP tries to tell Americans that they should be skeptical of a
candidate that gets them, and other people around the world, excited about the US and their future (a pretty impressive feat after eight years of apathy and cynicism), it distracts voters from finding the candidate that has a better substantive plan for America. And that campaign tactic is more sizzle than substance.