In this week’s Time magazine, TV writer James Poniewozik wrote:
Why, after all, is celebrity an insult? Personal magnetism, the ability to galvanize attention and rally masses: this is a bad quality in a Chief Executive? J.F.K. and Ronald Reagan managed to soldier on with this handicap. Besides, celebrity is America's chief international export. There's something almost unpatriotic about denigrating it; it's like insulting Obama by comparing him to a GMC truck. (You know who complains about American celebrity culture? Al-Qaeda and the French, that's who!)
All this proves is that Poniewozik doesn't get it. He doesn't understand why Obama's celebrity is so offensive. Obama is a celebrity much like Paris Hilton. She's a rich heiress who has accomplished nothing in her life. When Obama has accomplished something noteworthy, then it would be different.
What about John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan? Didn't they have celebrity status too? Well, Kennedy was a big war hero, in spite of serious medical problems that should have disqualified him from military service. He also had served in the house and senate. So Kennedy had done some noteworthy things to attain his celebrity status. But Reagan was just an actor, right? What had he done? Well, actually he had run the Screen Actors Guild. Then He was a political activist giving speeches all over the country for several years. When those early Reagan speeches are analyzed, we see that they are heavy with content. Obama's speeches in contrast sound good, but say little. Then Reagan became governor of California. All this before using his "celebrity" to run for president.
What is offensive about Obama is that he is famous for being famous, and then he is using that empty fame to gain high office. Past political celebrities usually had something of substance in their portfolios that justified both their fame and their political aspirations.