"Like every in-demand A-list couple who concedes to allowing a peek behind the curtain, the Obamas insist this will be the 'first and last' up-close and personal look at them as a family. What they don't admit to is that this was a carefully orchestrated, well-thought out brand presentation. And it isn't actually the first highly personal look at the photogenic family. No, it's the culmination of a publicity campaign designed to take advantage of the couple's charisma and Hollywood-worthy good looks. Team Obama is using popular mass-media vehicles such as People, Us Weekly, The View, Access Hollywood and The Colbert Report to familiarize the American public with the candidate and his wife, and to dispel myths about the couple, in a far more aggressive way than has ever been done before in a presidential election."
It's a deft and necessary strategy. When the campaign heats up, after the conventions, you can bet that it's going to get "down and dirty" in a hurry. The Obamas--both of them--will likely get hit. If it's anything like the Kerry and Dukakis campaigns, it will be along the lines of "they're not like you."
In Dukakis' case, he had a funny name, was Greek, and wasn't patriotic. In Kerry's case, he was too "elitist." That's another reason the Republicans always hated the Clintons. This strategy didn't work on the Clintons precisely because, in so many ways, they are "like us."
The Obama campaign wants to establish "brand name Obama" now, before the attacks hit, as a way of protecting themselves. If you've established a positive image before the negative hits, the negative doesn't stick quite as well. So we will see a lot of the Obamas in mainstream, non-political publications, and they will be portrayed as an average celebrity couple, who go to supermarkets and take kids to school, just like you and me.
I tend to think better of those political couples who try to shield their children from such things. I remember from the ’92 election that Bill and Hillary were chary of public appearances for Chelsea and only relented somewhat when polls revealed that a significant portion of the public believed them to have no children. That television interview with the Obama kiddies was pretty tasteless although apparently effective, if that’s what counts with you. The Clintons would never have done that when Chelsea was young and I can just imagine Jacqueline Kennedy’s icy reaction to such a suggestion.
These lifestyle articles are pretty harmless, though, and I think all Presidential candidates get some version of them. McCain will get his People cover too. Personally, I don’t care for the American political habit of displaying family members as if they were especially fine bits of horseflesh or prize heifers at the state fair, but it does seem to be expected of them by the press and public. The Obamas are an attractive couple by political standards, they look good for fortyish, and both seem to be a trifle vain about their svelte figures - I bet Michelle would wear those sleeveless tops in a blizzard.
I’d also point out that none of this demonstrates much about the politician’s standards of morality. Richard and Pat Nixon produced two beautiful and accomplished daughters who’ve displayed exemplary love and loyalty toward the memories of their parents. Chelsea seems to have come out great despite her parents’ marital vicissitudes. Whatever.
Posted by: Hypatia | July 29, 2008 at 02:40 PM
Are you reading my mind? We have a lot of the same thoughts.
Posted by: John Petty | August 01, 2008 at 01:00 PM