stars are for Hollywood dreamers

Neal Gabler says that, yes, Barack Obama is in fact a star—the star of his own movie [e.a.].

Kennedy was the first politician to realize that the best politics wasn’t politics at all. It was a form of popular culture — dream-making. Or, as [Norman] Mailer put it, Kennedy turned politics into a movie.

All campaigns are movies now, consisting of competing narratives with competing stars. Part of Obama’s appeal, as it was for the Kennedys, is that he has what all rising stars have. He has youth. He has good looks. He has charisma. He has an ability to spellbind. He has had a rapid ascent that makes him new and unfamiliar. He has, in this McLuhanesque age, unflappability that plays especially well on television. And as the biracial son of a single mother, he has a great personal story that provides a terrific vehicle for his role.

But, above all, Obama has something else that all great stars have — he embodies a theme. …

Obama’s theme is a potent one. Whether one buys into it or not, he promises to cross divides — political, ideological, racial, geographic — and to transcend the old politics of fear and hate that has commandeered recent elections. He believes that America can — and should — be the moral beacon for the world by returning to its core values. In analyzing his own appeal, Obama says he has become a symbol — which, again, is exactly what all stars are. He is providing a really good, uplifting movie.

That’s all well and good, except let’s forget about Barack Obama for a minute and think about John Edwards. Didn’t he also provide us with a “really good, uplifting movie”? Wasn’t he also a star?

Do we want a star as president?