You almost never see politicians singing and acting.

So why do all these entertainers think they need to be political? And what makes them think their opinions are any more valid or learned than those of the average person on the street?

Entertain me, folks...don't preach at me politically.

Let me turn that around on you: Why should their choice of career prevent them from expressing their beliefs?

I can't speak to the question of their own opinions of their beliefs, but I do know they'll be coming under a lot of criticism for them, so as far as that goes, they'd better feel pretty secure in those beliefs.

And of course, this isn't the first time that Springsteen has performed in support of his politics.

Why should their choice of career prevent them from expressing their beliefs?

It shouldn't, of course. But why is it always entertainers? No other group in the public eye that I'm aware of so routinely gets so political. It's as if they feel like political activism is part of their job description as musicians, actors, et cetera.

There was a thread on Eschaton during the Dems' convention in which a troll groused about Glenn Close, Richard Dreyfuss, et al. being given podium time. Eschatonians responded that this was hypocritical, given the number of Republican office-holders who were former actors. The troll's response was that they had paid their political dues, had run for and won office; what had these libruls done? Had I remembered it, I would have brought up Charlie Daniels' liberal-bashing book that came out a few years ago, but that's espirit l'escalier.

I tend to think it's a difference of degree; both parlay their "spotlight access" into political access, just in different forms. (Would Gopher from the Love Boat have been elected to Congress if he weren't, well, Gopher from the Love Boat?)

But back to Tim's point: I, for one, don't think their opinion is "more valid or learned" than mine, and will take it for what it's worth. I mean, come on, how seriously can you take a political endorsement from Britney Spears?

But why is it always entertainers? No other group in the public eye that I'm aware of so routinely gets so political.

Well, who else is there in the public eye? Politicians? The media? Both politicized. I guess sports teams, maybe -- and while political activism doesn't seem that widespread, it's there (isn't there a major-leaguer who won't sing "America the Beautiful" or something?).

CrispyShot's right that most of us only really notice when it's entertainers who speak out (because the media pay attention to them because they're celebrities). Of course, with the AMA vigorously pushing tort "reform", the US Chamber of Commerce mulling its first-ever Presidential endorsement (of Bush, of course), and a Las Vegas gambling lobbyist writing laws at the behest of the Texas Lottery Commission, I'd argue that quite a few groups in the public eye are getting very involved in politics these days.

As for athletes, former Denver Nugget Mahmood Abdul Rauf (formerly Chris Jackson) came under a lot of fire some years back for refusing to stand for the National Anthem, saying it conflicted with his Muslim beliefs. A female college basketball player (can't recall the name offhand) came under similar fire for turning her back during the Anthem while Iraq War II was going on. Toronto Blue Jay Carlos Delgado is currently refusing to stand on the field during seventh-inning renditions of "God Bless America". And who could forget Reggie White's more colorful remarks about gays, sex, and secularism to the Wisconsin Assembly a few years ago?

In short, this happens frequently, it's not just entertainers (though the media is usually all over it when entertainers are involved), and more previously apolitical groups are getting in on the act.

"But why is it always entertainers?" - Tim

Simple: it isn't always entertainers. It's bloggers and pundits and columnists and wealthy people who own worldwide media outlets. It's you, Tim, in your comments. It's me, on my blog. Everyone who has any sort of skill or venue or platform has the opportunity... some would argue the obligation... to use what they've got to express their political views. I don't see Springsteen's opinion as more valid than mine... that's a real stretch on your part to say that entertainers feel that way... but I do think he has every right to use his art and craft to express it.

BTW, I don't recall seeing your howls of protest when Ahnuld parlayed his stardom into a governorship. Is your objection only to entertainers whose political views differ from your own?

Is your objection only to entertainers whose political views differ from your own?

I'm not sure that's fair. Tim's been a pretty consistent libertarian, both-Ds-and-Rs-should-be-run-out-of-town poster, from what I've seen.

Just sayin'.

And while I'm here:

You almost never see politicians singing and acting.

Can I just say, Thank The Higher Power Of Your Choice!

BTW, I don't recall seeing your howls of protest when Ahnuld parlayed his stardom into a governorship. Is your objection only to entertainers whose political views differ from your own?

First of all, Arnold's political views are definitely not mine. And I never said anything about being disgusted with the leanings of their politics, just questioning why so gosh-darn entertainers seem to think activism is part of their duty.

It's funny how so many people think that if you are critical of anything left-leaning or Democratic, you must be a right-wing Republican -- and vice-versa. The political world ain't that two-dimensional, folks. Besides, being the devil's advocate that I am, I'd usually save criticism of Arnold for comments in right wing blogs. :-)

Other sports figures; John Carlos and Tommie Smith at the Mexico City Olympics, 1968.

Don't forget Jackie Robinson as a Lieutenant in the US Army, too.