I don't know, Liberty..I can see how it would, and yet at the same time, celebrity supporters of causes or candidates abound on both sides of the political fence, and always have, though Hollywood seems traditionally to be more left-leaning, there are plenty of millionaire dollars from other slices of society that are given to the opposing camps.

And for just that reason, I don't see how Clooney raising money for him SHOULD, in theory, be any bigger of a headline than Clint Eastwood's regular appearances at repub fundraisers, or the fact that McCain was headed to Claytie (rape: "As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it,") William's fundraiser (before realising how utterly stupid a move that was and cancelling it.

Whether the millions are generated by Hollywood celebrity, or by Houston builders (such as Bob Perry, who has donated in the millions to the Repub party alone)....its the same colour of green.

But it will be made an issue, perhaps, because no doubt someone will leap on the opportunity to poke at it in light of how he is sometimes portrayed.

Some celebrities make asses of themselves and use their notoriety in unwise ways (tsk...Ms Stone, you embarrassed yourself so badly)....others have shown themselves to have their hearts AND minds in the right place.

That one might be a celeb as opposed to an oil billionaire, a wealthy developer, a CEO of industry should not, in theory, matter..should it?

I should add that as an expat, I see no problem with either candidate doing what they can to get their views and support out into other countries. Its their own fault (or a lack of understanding of the potential of technology) if they FAIL to take advantage of the opportunities in front of them.

There was an article in the Washington Post yesterday about a bundler for McCain (who also used to work for Clinton and Guliani) that was collecting $4900 for McCain from people that weren't registered to vote and worked at Taco Bell. IMO, that is a bigger story.

I don't think having fundraisers for American citizens abroad is a controversial thing.
It is funny how some Republicans paint celebs as the worst people in the world with the most power, but really, CEOs and company heads are far more wealthy and powerful than celebrities. When it comes to wealth and therefore power, they are pretty low on the food chain in the grand scheme of things. They are rarely on the Forbes 500.

Yep, I can see McCain swiping at him again for campaigning in Europe instead of here in the heartland of trucks, beer, and apple pie.

It doesn't matter who does what for Obama, McCain will make a trivial ad about it.

Haha, seriously. I can hear the cary voiceover now:

"Obama is good at eating breakfast, BUT is he ready to lead?

"Obama can do 50 stomach crunches and bench press 200, BUT IS HE READY TO LEAD???"

Sadly, I think you guys are right. I read yesterday where McCain's camp was making fun of the fact that he likes protein bars and tea. Ohhh, that is such a disqualification for being President!

Next thing you know he will be making fun of Obama's energy suggestions that actually work, Oh! Too late, he's already got that covered.

McCain's standards have sunk sooooooo low. I am really surprised as to where this has all gone.

I don't see this as an issue and I wouldn't if McCain were doing it. Does this really bother people?

I agree that McCain's camp is using some pretty bizarre tactics to discredit Obama, but it's also a campaign and he is just doing what every other candidate has done since the 18th century: attacking his opponent's credibility. It's a terrible rationalization, but please let me cling to my allusions.

It is a terrible rationalization.

Now, now, Stephley...

Unless I'm missing the coverage, Obama isn't using these kinds of tactics, so it's not "what every other candidate had done." It's one thing to say he's young, inexperienced, to say he doesn't have the right plans for the war, etc. It's a whole nother ball game to make fun of him for liking arugula. It's just silly, and it makes McCain look silly, which is not a good look for him.

speaking of the "ready to lead commercial" - I showed the messiah commercial to my sister, who does not pay any sort of attention to politics and thinks it is all a waste of time, afterwards she looked at me puzzled and said, "I don't get it, why wouldn't I vote for him or think he was "ready to lead" after that commercial made him a God?

I laughed, but I also wondered if McCain's humor and sarcasm might backfire with some people.

"I don't get it, why wouldn't I vote for him or think he was "ready to lead" after that commercial made him a God?"

When I first started watching it, I thought it was a pro-Obama ad. It's not really very well done.

Political campaigns aren't necessarily about furnishing a fair image of your opponent. It's about winning. And if making people afraid of your opponent gets you elected, then that's completely valid. I want to know that my president will do anything necessary to win, because when he's leader of the free world, his opponents will be less than courteous.

To add to my original post and after reading comments just want to add one more thing...

I think my main concern about any ad like the celebrity attack ads is that when a politician uses them it just smacks of "I got nothin' else."

When McCain makes comments about not being that knowledgeable about the economy of the very country he has lived in for all these decades and now wants to run...makes a poor impression on me, far FAR poorer than the fact Obama likes healthy food, can throw hoops and has a popular following.

I will not like someone BECAUSE of those things, but I damn sure won't dislike them for it either, and messages that infer I should just sound... stupid.

I agree rabidmoon. It's just a stupid way of attacking and it makes Mac look silly and petty. He's not going to convince anybody who isn't all ready convinced.

"I want to know that my president will do anything necessary to win,"

I would also want a president that played fair and didn't make false accusations about his opponents. I don't think it is a candidates job to sit there and sling insults, I would rather they take the high road.

i would pay to get CLooney to shut his mouth.

Stilletta, it's fine to try to paint your opponent in a bad light, but why not attack him in ways that are legitimate? Why focus on the fluff, that he's a good speaker, that he likes arugula. Why not attack him based on his actual weaknesses? I'm an Obama supporter, but even I recognize that he isn't super experienced, that he's calling for plans that would likely raise taxes, etc.

I think, Torgleson, its because people respond to fluff.

People are easily led by fluff. Fluff is easy on the brain, easy to spout off about it, easy to have an opinion about it. Its like the fast food of the political advertisement world, I think...sugary, attention-getting, empty-calorie, easy to get, cheap, and intellectually lightweight faff.

And...it's worked in the past, time and time again.

But this time - I hope - people will stay a bit more focused on both sides.

I agree Rabid, sadly fluff is easier for the masses to digest.

I was really hoping for more discussion about the issues with this election, because McCain said he would run a different type of campaign.

It is really surprising to me how bias the media is against Obama in all of this. The AP had a story the other day saying that Obama's Social Security plan "lacked some details"...but if you look at the plan there are TONS of details. McCain's plan is "everything is on the table"...aka "I don't have a plan". The fact that Obama got that headline from the AP when McCain doesn't even have a plan says so much to me.

No one in the media is pointing out McCain's very clear voting record when it comes to renewable energy. He has voted against funding, against improving standards, against tax credits for renewable energy, against tax credits for investing in renewable energy...And now he calls Obama "Dr. No", and the media just parrots it back out with out looking at his history.

Why isn't the media jumping on McCain for his unicorns and rainbows assertions about how he would end the war in Iraq- in victory - have
taxpayers filing under a flat tax, the world food crisis ending, low inflation and a "much-improved" quality of life "not only in our country but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world"...more accessible health care for Americans and an easing of pressure on Medicare because of lower health care costs...a United States well on its way to "independence from foreign sources of oil"...a Social Security system that is solvent, does not reduce benefits for those nearing retirement and includes individual retirement accounts."

He offered no explanations how he plans to work these miracles - and all CNN said was it was a risky speech because it set measureable benchmarks.

But scary serious stuff seems scarier than scary fluff. I just don't understand why McCain's attack ads are silly instead of, he'll raise your taxes and terrorists will get us!

Clooney couldn't come to America and host a fund raiser ?

It will only hurt Obama if there's a controversial ex-pat in attendance, other than that it is no big deal.