The Fishbowl Life
Hawaii commented in Ashes to Ashes and Dust to Dust and ‘Til Death Do You Part:
Are people really “fascinated” by Jenna Bush’s coming of age?! I recall some humor when she was busted for under age drinking, but I can’t honestly say I know anyone at all who give the Bush girls much thought. And in my mind that is completely fair. Unless the grown child involves themselves in politics they should be off limits to most discussions. Mary Cheney only opened herself up to scrutiny after she began involving herself in politics. As far as I have heard, neither Jenna nor Barbara have done so seriously, so they should get all the privacy they desire.
I saw an article in the Washington Post on Chelsea Clinton, Too Solemn for Her Generation?; if memory serves the link on the home page asked not if she was “solemn” but if she was too “goody-goody.” Geez. I don’t think she’s been ticketed for underage drinking or DUI, she hasn’t borne a child out-of-wedlock, and she hasn’t appeared in any “Girls Gone Wild” videos. I think she did pretty well in college, although she wasn’t a Rhodes scholar like her father. The author of that article, Ian Shapira, asks “So how does Chelsea fit in with the rest of us?” (i.e., the twenty-something’s generation). My question: Does she have to?
I don’t feel like I fit with my own generation, or at least the media’s conception of it as regards politics. According to the well-researched electoral demographics, as “a woman of a certain age” I should be suporting Hillary Clinton and not Barack Obama. I’ve always been a square peg and rather like it this way.
At any rate, people fascinated with the lives of the First Children need to get a life. Those kids didn’t sign up for a public life; they got dragged along when Mom or Dad decided to run for office. If they do decide to get involved in campaigning or on public issues or enter public life, as with Mary Cheney and Chelsea Clinton, then they become fair game. Sort of. But this still doesn’t mean the public gets an invitation to the wedding.
The New Yorker ran a profile on George Clooney a while back, and amongst other things it discussed how effectively he has dealt with being a celebrity:
Clooney can be thought of as a studio of one—someone with the good sense and the resources to provide for himself what movie studios used to lay out for their contracted stars. So, for example, his driver is a broad-shouldered off-duty cop, which is a nice card to play in an argument with a paparazzo. There’s something similarly old-fashioned about the way a public version of Clooney’s private life has kept his actual privacy intact. He is incessantly winning but not confessional: the media gets its wine and cheese, and Clooney—without taking visible offense at any question, without ever taking the conversation off the record—holds on to his soul.
Of course, Clooney opted for the life of a celebrity by going into the entertainment industry, but that still doesn’t mean he owes the public any information on his private life. It must be weird to go through life wondering if your life is going to appear on the cover of People magazine or The National Enquirer:
Asked if he could ever be assured of the social sincerity of new people he met, Clooney said that one test was whether or not, “three days later, your conversation is recounted on a talk show or in a magazine, which has happened a lot. Oh, yeah. That’s frustrating. And it makes you trust so little. You trust nothing. Because I was Nick’s kid, and Rosemary’s nephew, and then spent my time being famous, there is not a moment in my life when I haven’t been aware of the idea that at any moment, including taking a bath or taking a shower or going swimming in my pool, somebody might be watching, or photographing. It’s freaky, so you have to live your life in a very different way. You don’t pick your nose, you know. Or, if you do, you do it under a desk somewhere.”
Hearing Clooney on The DP Show not long after I read The New Yorker article, I was struck by how absolutely natural and relaxed the guy sounds. It didn’t seem at all like he was wary of Dan’s questions and had his defenses up.
Heck, any guy who’d keep a pet pig is cool, suave, and debonair in my book.
By the way, there’s a great photo of Clooney included with the article. I never noticed before, but his hairstyle is a lot like Keith Olbermann’s.
I vaguely recall Dan Patrick once saying that his wife cut his hair to look like Clooney’s hair.
You are right to ask the question ‘does Chelsea Clinton have to fit into our ideas of twenty-somethings?’. And the answer should be “no”. We need to take people as individuals, not group statistics. That said, we can still question their political motivations if they involve themselves. But you are correct in saying that just because we can question their politics and what is behind it, we have no right to a wedding invitation (even with Mary Cheney, however absurd her political affiliations seem to fit with her lifestyle. We get to ask about her reasoning, but not insert ourselves into her relationships.)
Comment by hawaii — 15 May 2008, Thursday @ 11:25:44
George Clooney — yummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Comment by Jenn — 16 May 2008, Friday @ 16:56:21