I don't know how much it's the sponsorship that gets mileage for (some) candidates, or the opportunity it gives the media for spin. How is it, for instance, that the media gave so much coverage for the endorsements for Obama from some Kennedys, while Clinton got far less coverage for getting sponsorship from some key younger Kennedys, like Robert Kennedy Jr? As one commentator said on the blogs, if the younger Kennedys had endorsed Obama, the spin would have been about how it showed Obama was the candidate of the future.
Does it work? Well Clinton came in first in Teddy Kennedy's state, so it didn't seem to work THAT well.
Clinton also has her share of celeb endorsements but they get less media coverage. Soooo.... it pretty much seems the same old same old in US politics to me. The mainstream media, and corporate sponsorship of all the major candidates (Goldman-Sachs for Obama for instance)prevail. The media spins Obama as some new hope, and loads of people jump on the bandwagon.
I'm not sure we really understand the power of endorsements here in NZ politics. There's been so much fuss over Oprah and the Kennedy's endorsements that there must be some sway in the number of voters over there.
So let's see, a bunch of celebrities that I either don't know or don't like support Obama.
Well, if I needed another reason to support Clinton, there it is.
Seriously though? They expect people to go, "oooh wow, that annoying actress from grey's anatomy likes him, I better vote for him."
Wtf?
I mean, I know the American public is presumed stupid but, c'mon, if you're stupid enough to vote solely on the fact that some celeb likes the candidate than you don't deserve to vote.
I don't know what I have more of a problem with. The fact that Scarlett Johnassan supporting Obama might actually make a couple of people vote for him for that 'reason'. Or the fact that celebrities jump on the bandwagon of the "cool" candidate with the intention of exploiting the stupid voters of America.
campgrrls
I don't know how much it's the sponsorship that gets mileage for (some) candidates, or the opportunity it gives the media for spin. How is it, for instance, that the media gave so much coverage for the endorsements for Obama from some Kennedys, while Clinton got far less coverage for getting sponsorship from some key younger Kennedys, like Robert Kennedy Jr? As one commentator said on the blogs, if the younger Kennedys had endorsed Obama, the spin would have been about how it showed Obama was the candidate of the future.
Does it work? Well Clinton came in first in Teddy Kennedy's state, so it didn't seem to work THAT well.
Clinton also has her share of celeb endorsements but they get less media coverage. Soooo.... it pretty much seems the same old same old in US politics to me. The mainstream media, and corporate sponsorship of all the major candidates (Goldman-Sachs for Obama for instance)prevail. The media spins Obama as some new hope, and loads of people jump on the bandwagon.
Lemons
...Is it just me or does nothing show up?
Rachel
I'm not sure we really understand the power of endorsements here in NZ politics. There's been so much fuss over Oprah and the Kennedy's endorsements that there must be some sway in the number of voters over there.
Finally Free
So let's see, a bunch of celebrities that I either don't know or don't like support Obama.
Well, if I needed another reason to support Clinton, there it is.
Seriously though? They expect people to go, "oooh wow, that annoying actress from grey's anatomy likes him, I better vote for him."
Wtf?
I mean, I know the American public is presumed stupid but, c'mon, if you're stupid enough to vote solely on the fact that some celeb likes the candidate than you don't deserve to vote.
I don't know what I have more of a problem with. The fact that Scarlett Johnassan supporting Obama might actually make a couple of people vote for him for that 'reason'. Or the fact that celebrities jump on the bandwagon of the "cool" candidate with the intention of exploiting the stupid voters of America.