The Celebrity Factor

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not quite as taken with this now-famous Obama video as everyone:

In particular, I'm always made uncomfortable for the celebrification of progressive politics in the United States. I think it's nice that a certain number of rich celebrities like progressive causes in the United States and certainly I encourage them to both use their richness to provide direct financial support to such causes and also, perhaps, to deploy their social connections to encourage other rich people they may know (rich people tend to know lots of rich people) to do the same. But to what extent do they really need to be putting themselves forward as the public face of a political candidacy? Are these people supporting good groups that are doing important work? Helping to build an infrastructure of progressive ideas and communications channels? Mostly, the answer is no. And yet a lot of them are really in a position to make a different rather than make a music video.

Comments

It's not even you. It's that you like thinking of yourself as a contrarian.

The way I see it there is now possible way for an Obama presidency to live up to the coolness and hopefulness his campaign has delivered.

Posted by Stav | February 4, 2008 8:33 AM

Of course, Matthew here is writing an indictment of the entire Obama campaign, not just the video...

Posted by Petey | February 4, 2008 8:34 AM

We are in the middle of GOTV. That is the purpose, the intent and the objective of this video.

Are you suggesting they should go out and plant a tree or become a big brother or donate food to the homeless? Com'on, there is a national primary on Tuesday and Obama supporters are trying to get people to the polls.

Posted by heather | February 4, 2008 8:35 AM

By selling Obama are they not at least tenuously indirectly selling his platform?

Posted by Jeff Morgan | February 4, 2008 8:38 AM

Y'know, yesterday morning I was settling in front of my computer ready to do a days work, and I received a link for this in my email.

I watched the video, and it inspired me to do something - so I made 100 calls for Obama thru MoveOn.

So I'd say it's pretty effective.

Posted by Brautigan | February 4, 2008 8:40 AM

This is just basic brand building. Target a demographic and associate your brand with people/places/things that the targeted group admires. It's a bit naive to expect campaigns not to engage in this kind of thing when it's to their advantage.

Posted by Chris | February 4, 2008 8:42 AM

What Heather said: The last frame of this video says: VOTE.

And Matt, is getting out the vote too pedestrian an enterprise for your lofty ambitions? I love Matt's analysis and his skepticism of even those on his own "side," which is why I frequent this blog. But for better or worse -- in my view, worse -- this blog even combined with all the others like it probably do less to bring about progressive results than one well-timed work of pop culture art. That's not to dis blogs; in the long term people like Matt slowly change consciousness but it's a different skill and a different track, and we benefit from people applying their skills productively. These musicians know music, not post-Cold War history; so they do what they can through music.

Posted by RaymondA | February 4, 2008 8:42 AM

I liked the video, but its prominence has made me a bit nervous. Having the best music is the sort of thing that I associate with losing.

Posted by otto | February 4, 2008 8:45 AM

Even within Matt's frame -- which others have pointed out is the wrong frame -- this video is the least offensive use of celebrities I've ever seen in following politics. Why? Because all the celebrities do is dramatize Obama's own words. They are not pretending that, as celebrities, their thoughts are better informed than your thoughts as an accountant, a teacher or a dentist. They are saying, listen to this guy's message; hear the music in it.

So even if Matt's premise is right -- that celebrification of progressive politics is a bad thing -- his conclusion that this video is unworthy does not follow, because it avoids the worst pitfalls of the genre. Obama's lyrics are better than Lionel Richie's or whichever hack wrote "We are the world. We are the children."

Posted by Leon723 | February 4, 2008 8:48 AM

Now I KNOW I'm old.

I thought it was a great video, but part of the reason was I thought they WERE all ordinary (albeit very talented) people. I didn't recognize one of them. And I'm only 51. Sad.

No wonder I can't figure out who's electable and who isn't...

Posted by bcamarda | February 4, 2008 8:48 AM

Matt, Matt, Matt. I think you've gotten a little gen-Y parochialism here. For people over 30, these artists aren't celebrities. We don't know who they are. (Well, didn't before now.) We just think they're some folks who made a ripping good video.

Posted by aretino | February 4, 2008 8:48 AM

I presume Matt would also object to this successful artist trying to help the campaign, but I like it.

Posted by southpaw | February 4, 2008 8:53 AM

What heather said. The point of this video is getting people excited about Obama enough to want to go out and vote for him. It's a video, so it will appeal to some, and not appeal to others. No big deal. It's actually a fairly practical move.

And I don't understand the ethical objection either. Yes, there are all kinds of stuff people could be doing instead of backing some damn politician. Raising cancer awareness, global warming awareness, Sudanese child soldier awareness are all good causes. Celebrities often prefer to do that work, too, witness Angelina Jolie and whoever else. But the fact that some celebrities prefer to back a politician in a primary contest is some kind of testament to that candidate's charisma. That's the ultimate take-away message here.

Even if the video is complete dreck.

Posted by sweaty guy | February 4, 2008 8:54 AM

I'm 44; I recognized only three, and two of those three were only because of my kids -- with one exception. I immediately recognized the great Kareem Abdul Jabbar. How can Matt, as part time basketball blogger, not warm to that one?

(By the way, if you've ever read any of Jabbar's books or seen him interviewed, he is one of the most intelligent and intellectual guys ever to have played in pro sports. He's wicked smart. He also gently smacked down Clinton supporter Magic Johnson a couple of weeks ago. Johnson cut an ad for black radio calling Obama a "rookie" and saying that when he was a rookie, he wouldn't have tried to take over or some such blather. Jabbar was the Laker's veteran the year Magic was a rookie, and Jabbar noted that he and the others on the team thought that it was in the team's interest to use Magic as much as humanly possible that year, because he was so darn good.)

Posted by RaymondA | February 4, 2008 8:55 AM

"Are these people supporting good groups that are doing important work? Helping to build an infrastructure of progressive ideas and communications channels?"

My assumption is yes. Not as much as a professional like Matt, but more than most people.
My assumption is that Scarlett Johansson gets more direct requests in a week than I get in a year, and donates more money and more time than 90% of the population.

And what heather said.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 4, 2008 8:56 AM

I'm 62 years old. There were only two celebrities I recognized in the entire video. Their celebrity status had no effect on me whatsoever. What moved me greatly was the music and, as always, Obama's words.If it helps you feel superior to dismiss it because it involved (gasp) celebrities, so be it. But they did what they do best and they did it because they believe. Me? I find moving, exhilarating and an excellent call to action.

Posted by Richard | February 4, 2008 8:57 AM

if the video had featured all non-famous people, it wouldn't be a problem.

but because some(i only recognized about half of the, myself) of these people are famous, they suddenly have LESS right to voice an opinion?

if Obama had hired these people, then maybe. but this was generated by the people themselves, grass roots at its finest.

yes we can!

Posted by rob! | February 4, 2008 8:57 AM

I'm 62 years old. There were only two celebrities I recognized in the entire video. Their celebrity status had no effect on me whatsoever. What moved me greatly was the music and, as always, Obama's words.If it helps you feel superior to dismiss it because it involved (gasp) celebrities, so be it. But they did what they do best and they did it because they believe. Me? I find moving, exhilarating and an excellent call to action.

Posted by Richard | February 4, 2008 8:58 AM

I would go even further: a video like this is actually counterproductive. The great mass of voters, worried about the economy, medical care, the war, and the many difficulties and pressures they face in their daily lives, will have very little patience for this kind of celebrity glitz. What is in it for them? It also reinforces the notion of Obama as a kind of faddish, pie-in-the-sky enthusiasm, rather than a serious candidate for our most important government position. He is being presented here and elsewhere as a combination Moses and Martin Luther King, and I don't think most Americans are there yet.

Posted by Winston | February 4, 2008 8:58 AM

The various celebs are offering their opinion, and as noted above, the words are Obama's. This seems to me to be a good and rather subtle way of dealing with the celebrity-endorsement problem. Now, one may object that Obama's oratorical prowess isn't really a good reason to vote for him, but that's a different question.

Posted by MattF | February 4, 2008 9:01 AM

A working link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASuneGRqBM8

Posted by Kurt | February 4, 2008 9:02 AM

"By selling Obama are they not at least tenuously indirectly selling his platform?"

Obama has a platform?

(Well, I know he's opposed to universal healthcare, but beyond that he has a platform?)

Posted by Petey | February 4, 2008 9:03 AM

The link is down, so here's one that works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

Leon's got it right. All the celebrities are doing are taking Obama's (very general, and I wouldn't even say particularity progressive) and amplifying their message. The video isn't so much partisan as inspiring - celebrities have always had an easier time pushing inspiration than one side of a political argument. Because inspiration, at its best, is simple. And that's why the video works so well.

Posted by ly_yng | February 4, 2008 9:04 AM

rob at 8:57 makes an excellent point. The Obama campaign did not produce or have anything to do with the video.

It did try to do something similar a few months ago, using ordinary people to reprise in a video Obama's 2002 anti-war speech, for which there is only about 8 seconds of available video from the 2002 event itself.

That video didn't go viral, perhaps because it wasn't as good aesthetically or artistically but probably more importantly because the spokespersons were ordinary people. I wish it weren't they way the world works, but it is.

Posted by RaymondA | February 4, 2008 9:05 AM

The facinating thing since last tuesday in SC and wednesday in FL is that the Clinton campaign has deliberately crafted images of hillary alone AND the obama campaign has deliberately crafted images of crowds.

I think this helps Hillary, telling the voter that she stands alone for what she believes in and that they are needed to stand with her.

The obama images of electric crowds create an ultra coolness and fashionable in crowd thing that will bring people on board but push away people too.

These are the same sets of images that helped Hillary get NH and pushed NH out of Obama's reach.

Obviously some will say that Hillary has to go with this image of her alone because Bill may have worked against her in SC BUT scarlett Johanson can't even get people to pay to see her movies or rent them at blockbuster: do we really care who she endorses? Will.i.am is on every award show there is but can his wicked brand of cool really win votes? does any mainstream voter think they or the monied trustfunded kennedys or even ultra rich john kerry shares their economic concerns?

A lot of voters will be turned off.

Posted by Michael c. | February 4, 2008 9:06 AM

1) I really dislike the quick label of "celebrity" put on actors, athletes, musicians. A lot of the people in the video aren't rich or famous, by most standards.

2) Kareem is a good example. He has been politically active since he played at UCLA. I can't remember specific examples, but I have seen his presence lent to causes all my life. Kareem is on that video because the producers had a good idea what would happen if they gave him a call.

3) What is this really? Very few will vote some way because Kareem or Scarlett do. The only real message sent is that these busy people have given a little of their time, why can't you.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 4, 2008 9:08 AM

Post script:
jack nickelson and Dyan Cannon courtside didn't make people like the lakers more but it certainly helped some people hate the lakers.
And jack didn't help the lakers win: not even once. And spike didn't help the knicks post and w's either.

Posted by Michael C. | February 4, 2008 9:10 AM

Post script:
jack nickelson and Dyan Cannon courtside didn't make people like the lakers more but it certainly helped some people hate the lakers.
And jack didn't help the lakers win: not even once. And spike didn't help the knicks post any w's either.

Posted by Michael C. | February 4, 2008 9:10 AM

The feeling that I get is that it is the WE in the "yes we can" message getting out. It is empowering people to standup, take matters into their own hands. If you're a singer - sing, A director make a video. If you are Maria Shriver or Stevie Wonder head over to UCLA and lend your voice.

If you are inspired make some phone calls for Obama.

Posted by Mike | February 4, 2008 9:11 AM

I would go even further: a video like this is actually counterproductive. The great mass of voters, worried about the economy, medical care, the war, and the many difficulties and pressures they face in their daily lives, will have very little patience for this kind of celebrity glitz. What is in it for them?

I totally disagree. I just have a hard time believing the number of people who watch this and say, "this guy is looking better and better, maybe I'll vote for him after all" will be less than the number of people who say "a lousy rock video! I was considering him but no more!". Considering this thing will generally be viewed on the internet, our hypothetical angry person would be better served going to each of the candidates websites to find out their policy positions. If people are digging this video up on YouTube or watching it on a connected blog, they've probably come to it with some initial level of interest in campaign songs, and taken away more about Obama than they would have with any campaign song written about any politician in the history of ever.

People who like him but not the video (there's probably a few of us) will roll our eyes and continue on with our merry lives. People who don't like him will continue to not like him. This may pick up a few undecideds though.

Posted by sweaty guy | February 4, 2008 9:12 AM

Erm, there's rich, and then there's wealthy. The people in this video are rich; Warren Buffet and Ron Burkle and the Pritzkers are wealthy. There's actually very little to contribute if you're a celebrity who's worth only millions rather than hundreds of millions.

Note that you don't see the big players ... Madonna, Oprah (until now), Meg Ryan ... actively doing this sort of thing. Well, Babs, I guess, but even she is mostly behind the scenes.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 4, 2008 9:12 AM

Winston and Michael C go further than Matt and says this will turn off voters. I think that Matt and Winston and Michael C are seeing only the rational element in politics, and are forgetting the hugely emotional aspect of politics.

Let's revisit Ronald Reagan, whose policies for the record I abhorred. He did not just use celebrities; he WAS a celebrity. But he also was an outstanding orator, and he and his advisers like Deaver knew that voters use a combination of intellect and emotion in choosing their leaders. I've watched election after election where the Democratic nominee just did not get that -- wasn't within a mile of that understanding. So we saw, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. I personally am far more like Mondale and Gore in my (defective) personality, so I personally relate to those guys but I always see them as unable to cross the finish line because they fail to make the right emotional connection with that small percentage of voters who need that, plus agreement on policy, to show up and vote for you.

Clinton, Bill was the exception. But Hillary is more in the tradition of candidates like Dukakis Gore and Kerry than Bill. And Bill had a very lucky assist from Perot, so we will never know whether his brand of feel-your-pain wonkism would have gotten a majority of the popular vote.

Posted by RaymondA | February 4, 2008 9:15 AM

I have already over-posted; this will be my last. But I have one final thought on this. The Obama speech that forms the basis for the video was one he gave after he lost -- lost New Hampshire.

Yet what do we know about whether this speech, on its own, and before the celebrity video accomplished? We now know that Obama raised more money in the four days after he lost than he had raised in the four days after he won Iowa.

Sorry, Hillary supporters. But I hear you repeatedly making the argument that Dems should support Hillary because she is more of a realist and understands power better and how to beat the Republicans with the tactics that are distasteful but necessary. But what is more real than campaign cash? The Clintons themselves trumpeted their fundraising prowess early in the race (back in Feb 07) as part of the argument why she'd be the strongest to beat the Repubs.

But Obama's figured out how to beat the Clintons even at that most material and real of games. So even if you want to be a pragmatist and skeptic and not an idealist, Obama's techniques of persuasion achieve real, pragmatic results. And I've gone this far without even referencing his most important pragmatic result: motivating new voters.

Posted by RaymondA | February 4, 2008 9:21 AM

I think the video is just intended to get people to the polls, I mean most of the people watching this are going to be in the younger set, who are mostly poised to go for Obama anyway. I thought it was a bit cheesy when I first saw it, but the music is actually pretty good. It's less about celebrity then it is about echoing Obama's words.

But yeah, this is just about inspiring people to get to the polls.

Posted by example | February 4, 2008 9:21 AM

Chalk one more post up to Matt's constant need to show how sophisticated and jaded and world-weary he is...

Posted by J.B. | February 4, 2008 9:26 AM

Matt, you're not supposed to be taken with the video. Similarly, you wouldn't have been the target audience for "Happy Days Are Here Again". It's not aimed analytically-minded, highly educated, well-informed political animals. It's target is lower information young people, whose contact with the political race goes through popular culture, and who probably make their decision more on the basis of feeling, buzz, personal identification and other superficialities than on critical intelligence and study of the issues. For people like you, there have been an interminable series of issue-oriented debates, along with the various position papers, essays in Foreign Policy etc.

Pop music, celebrity endorsements and other pop cultural ephemera are part of every major campaign, whether the campaign actually produces it or only attracts it. It just goes with the territory in a Democratic society. To win, you have to get a whole bunch of people to vote for you who don't pay a lot of attention to politics and policy debates, and one way to get them to jump on board is with music. That's why they called it the BANDwagon.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 4, 2008 9:38 AM

The gut reaction to some or all of the people in the video is probably what lingers most, so whether this video proves effective or repulsive is really up to each viewer and how they react to these specific people and to the more basic idea of actors and musicians getting political. For example, seeing Kareem (older, very smart, utterly uninterested in what's "cool") was a plus but for some reason I can't stomach Kate Walsh or that young actor who was on the first season of "Six Feet Under" as Clare's scumbag boyfriend. (Eric something?) But as I watched, despite my slow WiFi connection and my Yglesian discomfort with Scarlett Johansson, I got misty.

I continue to find it silly that some people begrudge Obama's popularity because some of his supporters seem to be really young or dumb or "only in it because he's cool right now." Whenever you've got a popular candidate, there are going to be supporters in the crowd whom you probably wouldn't like or don't find authentic. That's just the way it works. And there's no real evidence or proof that any of these people don't actually like Obama or that their fondness for him is any less substantive than anyone else's. To suggest otherwise without offering much evidence is snobbery. And I don't see why celebrities should be kept in cages and only viewed when they're practicing their craft. For some reason conservatives think Clooney et al should be gagged but they're quite elated when Reagan and Arnold are elected.

Posted by tinisoli | February 4, 2008 9:39 AM

I think RaymondA (at 8:42 AM) said it best:

These musicians know music, not post-Cold War history; so they do what they can through music.

Posted by Vaughan | February 4, 2008 9:42 AM

I, too, was inspired to make calls for Obama when I saw the video.

Posted by John | February 4, 2008 9:47 AM

"It is empowering people to standup, take matters into their own hands" - and vote for Obama and maybe get some other people to do the same.

Fairly effective if you are promoting a blank slate/empty vessel.

I didn't hear any of the youth complaining when Springsteen lent his support in 2004 so I am not going to complain about this now.

Posted by enjoy video, candidate not so much | February 4, 2008 9:51 AM

Who is a celebrity anyways? Is it a label the right uses to attach to liberal famous people, and not Arnold Scwarzenegger or Ronald Reagan or Chuck Norris?

More importantly, I recall Bruce Springsteen having a terrific riposte back in 2004 to a question for Soledad O'Brien on CNN. She asked him why voters should listen to him. And he said, "Well if they are listening to Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, why not him?" He added something to the effect that they don't have degrees in political science nor have they demonstrated any command of facts that are beyond the ken of anyone who is self-taught and reads a lot like Springsteen himself.

And the one young musician who really makes the video go into high gear is John Legend, a 27 year old black musician. (He's the one who sings the "mountaintop" line). Legend according to Wikipedia was the top of his class at a top high school in Ohio, then went to Penn and graduated with honors in English. Worked as a business consultant at a prestige consulting house for a short spell after Penn while trying to establish his career in writing and performing music. Why is he less qualified than Sean Hannity or even Keith Olbermann to have an opinion?

Posted by Leon723 | February 4, 2008 9:52 AM

It's odd, really, because when I saw the video the thing that struck me was how much the celebrities (who, despite being 28, I mostly didn't recognize) where kind of shunted off to the side, the main celebrity of the video *is* Obama. It's about him, not about them. Celebrity only starts running into a problem when they *start* making it "about them."

Finally, the video was perfect for the brand that is Obama, watching it, it was schlocky as all out, but it still made me tear up just a little and feel inspired, etc etc. And fundamentally, that's what Obama is trying to get people to do, his primary meta message seems to be "stop being cynical for a second and believe that you can be part of a transcendent political moment." And certainly, alot of people are very hungry for that sort of thing.

Posted by Chilango2 | February 4, 2008 10:00 AM

I liked it. But I was voting for Obama anyway.

Posted by Curtis | February 4, 2008 10:03 AM

Poor Matt. Got in the way of a freight train on this one!

Sorry, Matt. Everyone above is right. This video is going to reach people already leaning toward Obama, and it's not an endorsement -- just GOTV, using Obama's own words and bringing out the music in them. That's what musicians can do.

And in this case, they did it awfully well -- because this happens to be a damn good piece of music in its own right. Contrarian intellectuals may get nervous, but the echoes of gospel here are wholly appropriate for a campaign that is drawing so heavily on a revival of civic religion. This video might just be remembered when a lot of other details of this primary season have faded from our memories.

Posted by Ted | February 4, 2008 10:09 AM

It's just you, Matt. And a few others here, but mostly just you.

Posted by NCProsecutor | February 4, 2008 10:11 AM

Obama may be the greatest president of the last thirty years or a hybrid pyramid/ponzi scheme. Get back to me in eight years and I will let you know.

Posted by don't trust anyone under 30 | February 4, 2008 10:11 AM

Matt applauds Hillary for the fact that she'd use sleazy and dishonest tactics to win, but he thinks there's something demeaning about using celebrity endorsements?

Posted by aleks | February 4, 2008 10:14 AM

To think the video is bad because it contains celebrities seems to me to be a curious form of self-hating.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | February 4, 2008 10:18 AM

I would go even further: a video like this is actually counterproductive. The great mass of voters, worried about the economy, medical care, the war, and the many difficulties and pressures they face in their daily lives, will have very little patience for this kind of celebrity glitz.

Here's my re-enactment of this not-terribly-likely scenario:

"Someone's sent me a link, let's go check that out....ooh, those are celebrities. I think. Oh, there's Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. There's Scarlett Johannsen. Am I supposed to recognize the rest of those people? There's a lady with a little girl. She's probably not famous. She doesn't look too famous. But some of these people are probably famous. Damn, I hate celebrity glitz! This speech is pretty good. I haven't heard some of this stuff before. Okay, I've given it a minute and a half of my time and it's only four minutes long, but I'm going to stop now. I've got some economy, health care, and war worrying to do, and this celebrity glitz, well, if that's what it is, is pretty disgusting. You know what? I'm going to vote for Hillary now. Hillary supporters only make videos that are substantive and soporific. What?! What?! Those kids are on my lawn again!"

Posted by Jen | February 4, 2008 10:19 AM

Has Petey degenerated into an anti-Obama troll? What a sad decline.

Posted by John | February 4, 2008 10:22 AM

What does this celebration of Kennedy handsomeness and multicultural, wealthy yuppiehood have to do with getting people health insurance? This stuff is not going to resonate with the broad mass of Americans.

Posted by bob h | February 4, 2008 10:36 AM

Michael Chabon may be something of a celebrity, for writers, but I thought this endorsement was good. (His novels are top-notch, that's probably been mentioned somewhere before.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302526.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

It kind of captures the feeling I get when talking to Obama supporters (hope and enthusiasm, probably too much hope and enthusiasm, but doesn't it feel good?) versus Clinton supporters, which kind of feels like talking to Marge Simpson's sisters Patty and Selma, if they were embittered old Democrats trying to win an election.

The contrary editorial for Hillary is subtitled "a vote against the patriarchy". I can't even bring myself to read that. I refuse to submit myself to the Vagina Litmus Test, and these second wave Boomer feminists are making me insane.

Posted by Jen | February 4, 2008 10:37 AM

"...that young actor who was on the first season of "Six Feet Under" as Clare's scumbag boyfriend. (Eric something?"

Man, Eric Balfour needs a hit movie or something. He was a regular on "24" for two seasons, and has done a couple indie movies I liked, but he is mostly just a working character actor in smart edgy roles. I like him.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 4, 2008 10:37 AM

I don't know any of those people (except Scarlett who I'd better recognize since I'm going to marry her) but the dominant image for me was the different kinds of people shown, all ages and colors. Obviously any candidate could find one supporter or hire an actor from each demographic group, but if the Republicans did that people would just laugh and if Hillary did it people would immediately think of Obama.

Posted by aleks | February 4, 2008 10:53 AM

Maybe they did it because they like the campaign and wanted to make some emotionally moving art. Actor and musicians do that you know. They don't know how to write position papers or run a campaign, they do know how to make beautiful things.

Posted by Gully | February 4, 2008 10:57 AM

Well, Tatyana Ali did go to Harvard, so at least she's halfway smart.

btw who is the dark-haired woman who appears in the video at 1:30 and 1:37? She's quite good-lookin' IMO.

Posted by nbt | February 4, 2008 10:59 AM

Obama 08: A hip black friend for every American!

Posted by mq | February 4, 2008 11:01 AM

Matt,

I think you (and others who have criticized this video) are really overthinking it.

It's just a video made by people who happen like Obama and who were inspired by his speech. (And it WAS a very good speech).

The video was made independently from the Obama campaign by will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas and Jesse Dylan (Bob's son)- who both said that the Obama campaign was not even aware that they'd done this.

And really Matt, how do you know that these celebrities (and with the exception of Scarlett Johansson and John Legend, most of them are not that well known) do not support "good groups that are doing important work?"

Again, they're just people who felt strongly enough about a candidate to use their talent to make a video in support of him.

Why does it need to be more complicated than that?

Posted by Aaron M | February 4, 2008 11:02 AM

MQ,
I have a hip black friend (that's more impressive if you know I'm in Korea), and Obama annoys her no end.

Posted by aleks | February 4, 2008 11:05 AM

"Are these people. . .[h]elping to build an infrastructure of progressive ideas and communications channels?"

YouTube is a key communications channel now, so the answer, resoundingly, is YES.

Old infrastructure still matters and the new infrastructure matters more for the young.

Posted by Sue | February 4, 2008 11:09 AM

In my experience, every black person who comes to Korea/Japan is hip over there.

Posted by nbt | February 4, 2008 11:13 AM

A bit of history:

In 1960, Frank Sinatra recorded a 45 record of "High Hopes," with new lyrics supporting JFK for president. Check it out:

http://www.blue-eyes.com/store/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=338&osCsid=aa8e2b7ee

This Obama video is in an old tradition. If it gets some people to vote for him because they think he's cool, that's OK with me. It beats voting for Hillary because she has a vagina.

Posted by Hal | February 4, 2008 11:26 AM

Hal -
With my 11:13 comment (responding to the 11:05) I was trying to make a subtle point that I think was a bit too subtle. Just as blacks in Korea are seen as cool because they're black, there is a strong element of Obama being cool because he's (half) black, which is not much different than voting for Hillary because she has a vagina. Consider the counter-factual: Could Obama make that 2004 speech about red states and blue states if he were another white guy running for Senate, even one who had grown up in the Philippines? (Hell, McCain was born in Panama.) Could he be quite as cool and inspiring if both his parents were from Kansas? No, of course not.

I am an enthusiastic Obama supporter and I am glad that Obama has not premised his campaign on racialism in any way, but I am quite cognizant of the above.

Posted by nbt | February 4, 2008 11:37 AM

Hal, I know you weren't addressing me with your 11:26 post, of course :)

Posted by nbt | February 4, 2008 11:42 AM

"I think it's nice that a certain number of rich celebrities like progressive causes in the United States and certainly I encourage them to both use their richness to provide direct financial support to such causes and also, perhaps, to deploy their social connections to encourage other rich people they may know (rich people tend to know lots of rich people) to do the same."

That's exactly what they're doing, Matt; and I appreciate their involvement (you're such a crabass). This coming from a now HRC supporter who was previously inclined toward BO. My problem is that this video is emblematic of BO's inability to command or monopolyze any substantive policy issue; yes, including Iraq. They've turned him into a hit song, a hit video.

Hope and Change can only go so far, and after a little while it becomes annoying, just like that one-hit wonder that gets overplayed to the point of saturation.

Posted by Israel | February 4, 2008 11:43 AM

nbt,

I see it differently: Obama simply looks to be the most talented politician of our time. He happens to have had a father from Africa, that's all (or it should be all). I do think that his campaign could look 90% the same if he were white. He's got an inclusive style, great presence, and a "first-class temperament" (see Walter Lippmann on FDR). These things, along with decent policies, are enough to win me over.

Posted by Hal | February 4, 2008 11:46 AM

emblematic of BO's inability to command or monopolyze any substantive policy issue; yes, including Iraq.

Do all "i"'s get replaced with Y's on Yglesias' blog? :)

If you really think he doesn't command any substantive policy issue, then I am not sure why you were ever inclined towards him. There is a difference between whether or not you have command of a substantive policy issue, and the extent to which you incorporate that into your speeches. The speeches are clearly working very nicely as is.

Posted by Jen | February 4, 2008 11:49 AM

God grief Matt...you sound older than my dad who is reaching the century mark.

It's a cool production. It's got a good message of get out and vote. It's all about how the artist(s) were inspired and is their only vehicle to share that message. They support Obama, but the underlying message is the same...get out there and work for what you believe in.

What the hell is wrong with being inspired? Cynics of course hate it as it feeds against their message.

If Obama accomplishes nothing else in this run but to get folks off their damn couches and get involved in their governance again, then he will have served the nation well.

Or we could stay stuck in the mentality that our votes don't count anyway, so why bother couldn't we?

Yeesh...

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unity, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | February 4, 2008 11:51 AM

Having the best music is the sort of thing that I associate with losing.

Aw... 50 years later, we're still quoting Tom Lehrer. "They may have won all the battles, but we had all the good songs."

Posted by shereld | February 4, 2008 11:55 AM

These are MUSICIANS (for the most part), for God's sake. They make music; that's how they express themselves. Not everybody is a standard unimaginative politico, thank goodness.

At the very least, this video shows that Obama can inspire that creative part of people. I can't see HRC inspiring musicians in the same way. Unfortunately, I still can't erase the image of her awkwardly bopping to Fleetwood Mac years ago.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 4, 2008 11:57 AM

The MUSIC, not the celebrity, makes this video an asset. Will.i.am of the black eyed peas has used his creative genius to highlight the poetry of Senator Obama's words. Let's not underestimate the power of art to reach people in a way that nothing else can.

Posted by Jocie Fong | February 4, 2008 11:58 AM

It's notable that the message is "Yes, we can". It's not "I can do it for you", nor is it "If you do what I tell you, we can succeed" (the more authoritarian message, a la George W. Bush).

Do the right thing. Go vote for Obama.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | February 4, 2008 12:11 PM

The MUSIC, not the celebrity, makes this video an asset. Will.i.am of the black eyed peas has used his creative genius to highlight the poetry of Senator Obama's words. Let's not underestimate the power of art to reach people in a way that nothing else can.

yes this video is not about policy, its not about action. its about inspiration, that critical first step that so many of our leaders ignore.

Those whose minds are constantly filled with talk of policy and politics have difficulty considering the perspective of those who don't spend their time reading/writing political blogs, reading the news, writing letters to senators, or working with policy organizations. These people are turned off by detailed policy discussions because they don't have the basis or background knowledge to analyze these things. Obama recognizes that the vast majority of people need to be inspired by ideas before they get into the policy details. Messages of "change" and "hope" are the gateway for the masses toward political involvement.

Posted by Jocie Fong | February 4, 2008 12:11 PM

"Vote unity, not divide and conquer"

Can someone explain to me how repeating the generational talking point -- that is, it's time to take the country away from all those crazy boomers so that the cool young kids can govern -- is consistent with a message of unity?

Obama's a smart pol, not our damned messiah.

Posted by Israel | February 4, 2008 12:11 PM

Matt, you seem to suggest that all the rich matter for are their wallets and their rolodexes--an attitude which may explain why many are Republicans. But _how_ you give, the quid, matters as much as _why_ you give, the pro quo. You can give $131 million to the Clinton foundation in exchange for a lucrative uranium contract with a despot, or you can volunteer your time and your studio to make a political ad with no other motive than to express a personal stake in the outcome of this election. People may vote their interests, but I doubt people would record a song about repealing the death tax. In the end, I will take help for the progressive movement where I can, and I would rather a donor who believes that they matter for more than their dollar or their Sidekick; that they have a stake in the lives that progressive causes are here to help. In my opinion, this is a particularly artful and spontaneous union of celebrity and progressive politics, not to be dismissed as more Southern LA navel gazing.

Posted by JC | February 4, 2008 1:16 PM

"this video is the least offensive use of celebrities I've ever seen in following politics"

I agree completely. Maybe it's because I don't know many of them. I had seen John Legend on the Bill Maher show once and he was very good. As others have said, it wasn't about the celebrities so much as the music and Obama's words.

Posted by Mike | February 4, 2008 1:34 PM

The MUSIC, not the celebrity, makes this video an asset. Will.i.am of the black eyed peas has used his creative genius to highlight the poetry of Senator Obama's words. Let's not underestimate the power of art to reach people in a way that nothing else can.

Or the power of 3 chords planatively strummed on an accoustic guitar to convince morons that something is emotionally meaningful.

Posted by MattXIV | February 4, 2008 1:43 PM

The MUSIC, not the celebrity, makes this video an asset. Will.i.am of the black eyed peas has used his creative genius to highlight the poetry of Senator Obama's words. Let's not underestimate the power of art to reach people in a way that nothing else can.

Or the power of 3 chords planatively strummed on an accoustic guitar to convince morons that something is emotionally meaningful.

Posted by MattXIV | February 4, 2008 1:43 PM

For whatever it's worth, not having lived in the US since the middle of last year and being pretty indifferent to pop culture at the best of times, I had no idea who most of those people were. (I recognised John Legend, but only as "Hey! It's that guy who was in the thing!")

The video still worked. Hell, it might actually have worked better.

Posted by kb | February 4, 2008 2:18 PM

What bcamarda said. 1956 was an excellent year.

I first saw the video linked on a right-wing website ("the tsunami is building"), which in turn I got to from Sullivan's site. I recognized nobody, but was moved...by the "we" message, as well as the usual musicality of Obama's words. I was shouting for the
political 17-year-old at the two-minute mark, and had some barely-conscious recognition of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's face, but otherwise not a glimmer.

The teenager recognized nobody (but he was involved in the music, the words, and the mosaic of faces).

My wife was the one who came up with Scarlett Johansson's name, then said "nahh, can't be."

It was later in the day that I learned that that was the great Herbie Hancock decorating the last minute. *That* impressed the political teenager (who has played Hancock's compositions).

I know Obama's platform. As an economist I follow avidly the Krugman Smackdown Attempt although I find it irrelevant.

Political excitement, in a noble cause, is a value in itself. To see it in our children, after these last 8 disasterous and dispiriting years, brings great joy.

I want the to believe, and to join in shouting and singing,

Yes We Can.

Posted by Marcus Sitz | February 4, 2008 2:54 PM

What bcamarda said. 1956 was an excellent year.

I first saw the video linked on a right-wing website ("the tsunami is building"), which in turn I got to from Sullivan's site. I recognized nobody, but was moved...by the "we" message, as well as the usual musicality of Obama's words. I was shouting for the
political 17-year-old at the two-minute mark, and had some barely-conscious recognition of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's face, but otherwise not a glimmer.

The teenager recognized nobody (but he was involved in the music, the words, and the mosaic of faces).

My wife was the one who came up with Scarlett Johansson's name, then said "nahh, can't be."

It was later in the day that I learned that that was the great Herbie Hancock decorating the last minute. *That* impressed the political teenager (who has played Hancock's compositions).

I know Obama's platform. As an economist I follow avidly the Krugman Smackdown Attempt although I find it irrelevant.

Political excitement, in a noble cause, is a value in itself. To see it in our children, after these last 8 disasterous and dispiriting years, brings great joy.

I want them to believe, and to join in shouting and singing,

Yes We Can.

Posted by Marcus Sitz | February 4, 2008 2:55 PM

The funny thing is how even RedState is showing this video as a cool thing. This is a REALLY COOL video, not because it has celebrities but because it's just REALLY COOL. This isn't just a music video in support of Obama, like Obama Girl's features; this is a very artistic piece of work that happens to feature Obama and that propagates a commonsense message that's also Obama's catchphrase rather than Obama himself. I agree that Obama's rock-star-ness is a little disconcerting, but I also don't feel he's a real celebrity. Celebrities are relatively empty people who are famous because people know who they are rather than because of something they did. Like Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith or, to some extent, Britney Spears. Obama's a very moving politician, not a celebrity.

Posted by Mauro | February 4, 2008 4:31 PM

Matt - agreed. I would also like to point out that this video is very hokey.

Posted by Saif | February 4, 2008 4:45 PM

Matt - agreed. I would also like to point out that this video is very hokey.

Posted by Saif | February 4, 2008 4:46 PM

Matt - agreed. I would also like to point out that this video is very hokey.

Posted by Saif | February 4, 2008 4:46 PM

Alas Matthew, you are now too old to appreciate how this appeals to people just barely legal to vote.

Posted by Guerrilla | February 4, 2008 4:46 PM

To be honest, I had a clue who maybe 3 of the people in the video were.

They could have been just any random group of people who happened to look good on video to me.

Posted by MNPundit | February 4, 2008 9:52 PM

I'm much more concerned with the implication that celebrities are are somehow in the wrong for voicing a political opinion. The RNC did it after the Democratic debate in L.A. Do you forfeit your right to a political opinion after you win a grammy? Will.i.am wrote an eloquent piece on why he was compelled to create the video. The Obama campaign was so far behind the curve that it took them three days to send out an email about it.

This video is citizen activism. The citizens happen to be famous. It turns a political speech into art, and manages to distill Obama's eloquence and appeal to voters into a beautiful, 4 minute video.

I can't imagine anyone doing this for Clinton.

Posted by DCProgressive | February 4, 2008 10:40 PM

I only recognized Scarlett - which was easy since they made SURE she was easily identifiable - and had to look up the rest. Of the rest, I've only ever heard of or seen Amber Valleta and Kelly Hu - and only because I'm a babe picture collector and watched movies those two have been in.

As for the music, well, it wouldn't have been bad - if a bit plain - if it hadn't been talked over by Obama. So that let's the music out as being all that useful. And I've never heard of any of the musicians.

The thing is a propaganda video intended to stir up young people who know the artists. It's that simple. The "celebrities" listed aren't known for being raving nutcases like Britney, so their celebrity status really doesn't bring down the video much. If McCain had Chuck Norris in a video, or Ah-Nuld, that would be "celebrity bullshit". The people Obama had there could be considered "progressive celebrities" (I assume, since supposedly a couple of them are "activists", according to the article I read.)

So, as usual, Matt is off base on just about everything here.

Maybe he didn't get the message from the Pew study that said 75% of people weren't influenced by celebrity endorsements:
http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/7655/Do-Celebrity-Endorsements-Hurt-Presidential-Hopefuls?/

I don't know if that's true, but I think the guy in the article is right to say, "The proverbial star system is no longer in place." There are a few people who act in some sense like old-time "stars" (Angelina Jolie would be one), but most of them are so low-key these days that no one cares what they think about politicians.

Jolie reportedly (an erroneous report) endorsed Edwards, but she explicitly issued a press release to say she hadn't endorsed anyone. That was reasonably responsible. The only reason anyone would care about her endorsement is her involvement with the refugee issue for the UN which is sufficiently high profile - with appearances at international conferences, meetings with foreign nation leaders, and the like - that it gives her some credibility.

But who cares what some celebrity who merely speaks about an issue in some interview thinks?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 5, 2008 2:05 AM

This ain't real substantive, but looking at all the comments above naming various celebrities -- Johannsen, will.i.am, Jabbar -- fer cryin' out loud, people, that's Herbie Hancock there. Herbie-frickin'Hancock. And he's got more cred towards being a truly transcendent American artist for the ages than all the others combined. So let's get our celebrity-watching right, shall we?

Posted by Sanjay | February 5, 2008 11:00 AM