Everyone talks about the media catering to an entertainment soaked culture. Well, in this election cycle it seems to me that Obama has taken on the role of the Protagonist. This more than anything says to me that he will win. As we can see from our illustrious host, who has written four articles discussing Barack Obama and none about Hillary or McCain, that Obama is the one getting the most play in the media. As it regards Hillary, you don’t really get to see much of her anymore unless it is in comparison to Obama. This is contrasted with Obama who oftentimes gets his own chapters, like the Rev. Wright thing. As damaging as it appeared to be, it was largely about Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton conspicuously absent from the narrative. John McCain having won the Republican ticket so early on is like the antagonist lurking in the shadows, who we get a glimpse of occasionally, who we know is there, but who doesn’t feature very heavily into the narrative.
I have come to realize that I personally view these sorts of things in the terms of their narratives. An election cycle when it is all said and done becomes the narrative of the rise to power of whoever wins. We don’t consider the loser to be the protagonist after the fact. So from this, I am going to argue that we can induce the winner based upon who fills the role of the protagonist the best.
I do not think that John McCain has what it takes to be the protagonist in this election cycle. It could happen, but I find it unlikely. As such, I think Obama will win. Just as in the last couple of election cycles, George W. Bush was able to cut the role of Protagonist better than his rivals, as was Bill Clinton more adept at it than Bush’s Father or Bob Dole. We see this in Hollywood all the time. A blockbuster film is driven by star power. This star power isn’t simply a created thing, but it is some sort of ambient charisma that an actor is able to portray. Now, Hollywood can manipulate it and provide star power temporarily to someone, but they have to have whatever it is within them to remain a star. This is what separates your Brad Pitt from your Gary Oldman or your Sigourney Weaver from your Tilda Swinton. All four that I have mentioned are IMO phenomenal at their craft, but some have the star power and others do not, or at least have it to a lesser degree.
I believe there is a lot of historical context to be said for this. From George Washington being a shoo-in, to Thomas Jefferson and his ‘Revolution of 1800’, portraying John Adams as ‘The Man’ on to Franklin Pierce coming out of nowhere just because his friend Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote his biography.
I think that it is this ‘protagonist’ quality that will ultimately drive Obama to the White House.
Yea, Obama is definitely the Hollywood hero in this election. He and Hillary would both be breaking barriers, but Hillary’s also part of the old power structure, which makes her less underdog and more middledog. Obama is also the most inspirational speaker (regardless of what you think of the man, you almost have to concede this), which can be converted into even greater Hollywood feel-good moments along the narrative, culminating with his first Presidential speech. But the moment he falters as POTUS, the press will be on him like a band of jackals, because, let’s face it, fallen heroes are great copy.
Well, I feel like the media wanted to hand Clinton the Protagonist slot but she kept going for the victim card. I think ultimately the tears hurt her. “Oh I’m just a poor woman.”, and the country said, “There there, don’t cry, let’s get you away from that mean old Presidency so you won’t have to cry anymore.” If she wanted to prove that she was every bit as capable as a man she shouldn’t have cried over her lumps. It won her that battle but ultimately lost her the war. Like when she was asked the first question in the debates all the time, “Why do you guys pick on me?”, rather than recognizing it as being treated like the star of the show, she acted like she was getting some sort of second shrift. Obama played his hand cooler, and thus upstaged her.
You are correct though. Fallen Heroes are great copy.
Its like the last episode of Survivor. McCain won the immunity challenge, except he doesn’t get to decide who he faces in the final tribal council, Pennsylvania does.
Oh I don’t know about that…PA doesn’t get to decide much…the final 10-12 contests will though. And mark my words, Obama will take the majority. Plain and simple.
Well it isn’t a guarantee. As someone elsewhere pointed out Teddy Roosevelt was the Protagonist in 1912, William Jennings Bryan in 1896, and some others I do not recall at the moment.
I think that our media soaked culture acts a little bit differently. After the blip that was the 70s, it would seem to hold out as true.
Reagan was definitely the protagonist.
Michael Dukakis made George HW Bush look great
Bill Clinton was sexier than George HW Bush
George W Bush was more compelling than Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.
I think it has always mattered, but it matters more now than ever before.
I’m pretty sure he rides the subway, now and again. And I think you could make him a hero. At the least, worthy of a decent biopic. Self made man and all that. He’s not one now, but, you know, after Mayor, he’ll be looking for something to do. And really, he could do anything.
I disagree with this part. Sure, Gore was portrayed as a bore by the media, and he did lose, but he lost on a technicality, not a mandate. I am probably biased but I think Kerry would be more the protagonist in 2004. He was a war hero and non-evil, whereas Bush was neither.
Well YMMV. I am talking more about perception of the media narrative. So if the media portrayed Gore as a bore, then he wasn’t the chosen protagonist. It’s also his own fault, he hid his passion until he lost.
I always say Kerry as the antagonist to Bush’s protagonist. At no point did I really expect Kerry to win, nor did I particularly want him to win. I wanted Bush to lose, but that still makes him the protagonist.
E-Sabbath My impression about the subway thing is that it was mainly a photo op sort of thing. The Post was floating the notion of him being Obama’s Vice President. I wouldn’t be so opposed to it.
Regarding Gore, I think you missed my point. Gore may have been the antagonist, but he won the popular vote, and Bush only won by the slimmest of margins, 5-4. I don’t think its fair to use 2000 in support of the protagonist theory.
