Endorsement By Sarah Palin Seen As A Negative, Poll Shows
"Endorsed by Sarah Palin" could become something that Democrats start using in negative campaign commercials.
Greg Sargent points out one of the more interesting tidbits in the new NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll:
The poll asked people how they’d respond if a Congressional candidate had various hypothetical attributes. Asked how they’d feel if a candidate were “endorsed by Sarah Palin,” the response was….
Enthusiastic about this attribute 8
Comfortable with this attribute 17
Have some reservations about this attribute 15
Very uncomfortable with this attribute 37
So a majority, 52%, reacted negatively. And an astonishing 37 percent would be “very uncomfortable” about a Palin endorsement, more than four times the eight percent who would be “enthusiastic” about it.
Even better, there were only two attributes a candidate might have that were seen as worse than a Palin endorsement: Supporting Bush’s economic policies; and supporting the elimination of various Federal agencies and/or Social Security.
This seems counter-intuitive given the fact that Palin has endorsed several successful primary candidates recently and has seen nine of the twelve candidates she’s endorsed so far win their primaries. It’s worth noting, however, that these were Republican primaries so it’s likely that the voters who participated were more likely to have a positive view of Palin to begin with. Once the General Election rolls around, the impact of a Palin endorsement inside the voting booth will really be put to effect and, if these poll numbers are correct, it could be a problem in close races.
The other fact to take into account is that, so far, Palin’s endorsements have not been very risky so far. Most of the candidates she’s endorsed — such as Rand Paul in Kentucky, Terry Branstad in Iowa, and Nikki Haley in South Carolina — were already leading in their respective races, in some cases by nearly insurmountable margins. Even Carly Fiorna was starting to open up a lead in California in California before Palin endorsed her. So, it’s hard to say that Palin’s endorsement had any sort of decisive impact in any of those races.
There is one race coming up that will be a good test of Palin’s ability test, though. In her home state she has endorsed a relatively unknown lawyer named Joe Miller in the Republican primary against Senator Lisa Murkowski. Miller is the ultimate underdog, and Palin used to be immensely popular in Alaska. It will be very interesting to see if her endorsement leads to victory for him in August. My gut instinct is that it won’t.
Sargent, who obviously has an partisan axe to grind, concludes with this jab at Palin:
The above finding is another mark of just how toxic Palin has become to the rest of the world — and how out of sync with public opinion the media obsession with Palin’s influence really is.
Indeed.
She’s been accused of swooping in to endorse clear leaders.
So far, that seems to be exactly what she’s doing.
Except for this Alaska race
I’m not sure having reservations about an endorsement is a clear negative. Political skeptics, like myself, have reservations about everything. In the grand scheme of things I don’t see her endorsement as a vote getter. Most people know enough about what’s going on to already have made a choice without particular endorsements from celebrities. She might bring out a crowd but they were already voting for her candidate.
Her measure of toxicity is all about her media portrayals.
@Steve,
An honest question here – do you really believe that the toxicity level is wholly wrapped up in the media portrayals? Just a short list of things that I believe need no media spin to be toxic:
1. Resigning her post as Governor.
2. Well documented problems between Palin and the McCain campaign staff.
3. Several butchered interviews prior to calling a moratorium on said interviews with media not from Fox News.
Again, you’ll get no argument from me that the media exploited these topics, but they didn’t create them.
I won’t go into other, what I fell are debatable, topics like her book and tv gigs that makes it look like she’s out to make a quick buck, or the ethics issues she was saddled with which may or may not have been a big deal/political. I’ll even give on the fact that she offers little in the way of a substantive plan on any platform and that she’s better suited to write bumper stickers than policy.
I guess what I’m asking for is some level of acknowledgement of the cognitive dissonance that takes place when discussing Palin.
Doug, YOU LIE! Swooping in to endorse clear leaders? Tell me who?
Perry v. Hutchinson (tight poll, Palin endorses Perry early, GOP establishment lines up behind Hutchinson) blow-out victory.
Paul v. Grayson (tight poll, Palin endorses Paul early, GOP establishment lines up behind Grayson) blow-out victory.
Martinez v. Weh (Martinez trail in Poll, Palin endorses Martinez, takes lead) blow-out victory.
Haley v. Barrett, Bauer, McMaster (Haley trailing in 4th place in poll even after Romney “so-called” endorsement. Palin endorses Haley, takes lead, stands with Haley even after false accusations) blow-out victory
Fiorina v. Campbell, DeVore (Fiorina trails in 2nd place to Campbell and splitting conservative poll. Palin endorses Fiorina, takes lead) blow-out victory
Ah yes of course, Palin is toxic. “Palin is toxic” have been told for the last 2 years, but yet here she is standing stronger than ever. Palin toxic? a record of 9-3, batting 0.750? toxic? Yeah right. I’d take that record and that endorsement everyday of the week and twice on Sundays. Compared to captain kick-ass? whose record is 0-4. can anyone say Deeds, Corzine, Coakley and Specter.
Once the General Election rolls around, the impact of a Palin endorsement inside the voting booth will really be put to effect and, if these poll numbers are correct, it could be a problem in close races.
Your conclusion seems to be based on a static analysis in which the perception of Palin is a constant across time. A dynamic analysis would incorporate a changing perception of Palin. It’s quite likely that if Palin has backed attractive and competitive candidates that her endorsement of these people will reflect back on her and so alter the public’s perception of her. This is basically the endorsement process with a feedback loop incorporated. She lends her stature to the candidates and the success of the candidates reflects back on her.
Just a short list of things that I believe need no media spin to be toxic:
1. Resigning her post as Governor.
2. Well documented problems between Palin and the McCain campaign staff.
3. Several butchered interviews prior to calling a moratorium on said interviews with media not from Fox News.
People who are influenced by propaganda are often not aware of how influenced they are. Resigning as Governor, given the circumstances of the situation, was a decision that was best for the State of Alaska. There’s nothing inherently toxic about that. The media portrayal which ignores the circumstances and daily consequences leading up to that decision and only focuses on the action as being out of the norm for a rising politician casts a different picture.
Problems with staff are not in themselves a reflection on the toxicity of Palin. Palin has assembled staffs for governance and for political campaigning and there were no fireworks. The McCain campaign staff has shown itself to be a bunch of clowns, both during the campaign and most effectively after the campaign. This would indicate that the friction with Palin, which was out of the norm for Palin, is more indicative of the quality of the clowns Mccain assembled to run his campaign.
Why would stumbles during interviews paint Palin as toxic forever thereafter?As Obama noted the principal difference between him and Palin was that he had 6 months of time to go through an in-depth briefing book and she didn’t. Dealing with hostile media is a skill that can be learned. Lacking that skill at one point in time doesn’t forever taint on as toxic.
The fact that you hold all 3 factors to be supportive of the notion that Palin is toxic clearly indicates that you’ve drunk the kool-aid quite deeply.
HerneTheHunter is right. Doug is just rewriting history in order to avoid reexamining his prior assumptions. For him the Palin narrative he’s constructed must be maintained, so when inconvenient facts arise that threaten to undermine his narrative, the narrative must be protected and the facts must be massaged to fit the narrative.
@Tango,
Seeing as I don’t watch the news, nor do I listen to commentators how would you conclude I am affected by propaganda?
Resigning from any job to essentially do nothing because the going got a little rough while knowing that there is a mandated service time prior to accepting said job inherently gives you an unreliable track record. Unpopularity and divisiveness come along with most political positions, especially high ranking ones. Besides, you really can’t throw a blanket of “given the circumstances” over this and expect that to be good enough. What was she polling when she left? Was this a mandate from the people or did she simply bow to internal pressures in Juneau?
The McCain campaign had a pretty good track record in winning the Republican nomination over some very qualified candidates. Unless you voted for McCain you are essentially saying that you opted for a candidate that lost to a incompetent group of clowns. That doesn’t reflect well on those men, some of whom will attempt another run at the White House soon. To my knowledge McCain never had this kind of trouble in his decades of winning Senate battles for his seat either.
The interviews were train wrecks. If that is not your conclusion then perhaps you are the one clinging to a problematic narrative.
Tangoman, you cannot win over these escapees from DK. Many here are aflicked with Palin Derangement Syndrome. The got it from folks with BDS. Obama abandoned his senate seat to run for President, has never had any executive experience (which shows) and lied his ass off about what he intended to do and how he would govern. These Kossacks want to look in every direction except where they need to look. That is toward the top. Seems our well qualified President has large holding in a company called Vangard. The seemed to be the beneficiary of information about a problem with a oil well being drilled by a company they held 1.5 million shares in. How fortunate they decided to sell that stock and reinvest in a Brazilian oil venture also invested in by George Soros. Now this is probably all a coincidence. The moratorium and all, the lack of effort both before the incident and after, the need for drilling platforms in Brazil and the sudden surplus if a moratoriuim existed. All I can say is if Bush were involved there would be screams for an independent investigator. I hope the Republicans, when they regain the majority in congress in November will check out these Chicago thugs.
Much as they did with Howard Dean’s post-defeat speech in Iowa in ’04. If the media smells blood, they will go after you.
John P. (Tupelo),
Reasonable questions. I think Tango and Zels touched on the main points.
Resigning as governor was a result of the nonstop accusations and threats of investigations by Dem operatives. It’s well documented and handicapped her ability to serve. The problems between staff are probably no more than the problems between Obama and Biden’s staffs. The interviews are no worse than Biden’s interviews or Obama off a teleprompter. I just don’t see her as that bad of a person. Now I wouldn’t have chosen her as VP running mate and I don’t think she’s ready to be president. But she’s not running for president.
I honestly believe her portrayal in the media has been lousy. I also believe her role as conservative lightning rod is a good place for her. While liberal Dems concentrate on her the real leaders of the party are planning and preparing. In my opinion she is no more a leader of the party than Al Sharpton is a leader of the Democratic party. She’s a likable speaker who espouses conservative values, what’s not to like?
It is worth noting that Palin got fantastic press early on. I thought Campbell Brown was going to ask her out on a date after the GOP convention, she was so obviously smitten.
Palin’s problems with the media are the result of
A. Hiding from the media
B. Babbling on camera once she came out of hiding
C. Blaming the media because she sounded like an idiot
D. Lying about what questions Katie Couric asked her. (kinda lame as it is easy to verify via youtube)
Palin’s problems with the media are the result of
A. Hiding from the media
B. Babbling on camera once she came out of hiding
C. Blaming the media because she sounded like an idiot
D. Lying about what questions Katie Couric asked her. (kinda lame as it is easy to verify via youtube)
Baloney. Just…pure baloney. While there is a grain -stress grain- of truth in these points, the primary reason that Palin has a problem with the liberal media is because the media wanted to make sure she had a problem with them after her appeal and popularity became obvious.
Good luck with your dissemination, and pretended ignorance; of Charlie’s disdainful and inane questioning, as well as Couric’s winning a PRIZE for cripes sake for her “interview” of Palin. Boy are you in for a surprise. I’m gonna’ LMAO when Palin’s candidates kick Democrat hiney after Democrat hiney in about 4 months.
Funny, for someone that is so ineffectual, y’all can’t stop talking about her.
Hmmm. Like the time he went to the GOP retreat and cleaned their clocks in their house?
If Palin is not toxic, would anyone care to offer a prediction of how she’d do in a head-to-head match with the president in 2012…
Yea, yea, yea. The same liberal media that evisceration Howard Dean after his election night speech in Iowa in ’04? The same “liberal media” that went after Clinton like sharks during the Lewinski affair?
Talk about baloney. The woman could not answer a question as simple as “what newspapers do you read” from Katie Couric, who is a softball interview if there ever was one. She literally babbled like an idiot. Actually by saying that, I am doing a disservice to idiots:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y
Heres a bit more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E
I guess it is understandable that the right hides behind the “liberal media” bogeyman. It is pretty damn embarrasing to hear their “leaders” talk.
If Palin is not toxic, would anyone care to offer a prediction of how she’d do in a head-to-head match with the president in 2012…
Interesting. What will be your refrain if she doesn’t even run for POTUS? In case you haven’t noticed, Obama is the toxic one right now. Democrats up for re-election in the fall are staying as far way from him as possible
Talk about baloney. The woman could not answer a question as simple as “what newspapers do you read” from Katie Couric…
Forgive me, but don’t act like an idiot. This example is another clear indication of the desperation of the left. Palin reads. Palin was a Governor. Any fool knows that. Do you?
Hesitancy is not lack of knowledge. No matter what she said it would have been wrong, somehow. Again, if you think she is stupid then, by all means, just forget about her and move on. Don’t pay any attention. She’s no danger to you, right?
If Palin is not toxic, would anyone care to offer a prediction of how she’d do in a head-to-head match with the president in 2012…
She held her own against the the wise old man of the Senate in their debate and even trumped him by some accounts. For her to be the 2012 Republican nominee means that she will have triumphed over her primary competitors. The very act of besting them will a.) hone her debate and presentation skills, and bl) serve as the basis for a public reevaluation of her.
If she goes up against Obama they’ll be presented the nation with two different debate strategies. Obama will come across as the egghead President who can read a great script and argue very fine intellectual points, points which are based on fundamentally flawed axioms. Palin won’t come across as an egghead professor and she can blunt Obama’s intricate points simply by pulling the wrong out from under him by illustrating how they’re based on flawed premises.
I’d much rather be governed by a President who understand the world as it is than a President who tries to craft the world into something he wants it to be in the face of forces that are moving against his visions.
Who said she is ineffectual? There is no denying she is a force to be reckoned with. (this is rather revealing about the aggregate brainpower of the far right).
How is it Gibson or Couric’s fault that she literally babbled during their interviews. She did pretty much the same with Hannity, did he put some kind of evil liberal mojo on her too?
Please bring back comment preview.
And comment feed subscriptions too.
Palin reads. Palin was a Governor. Any fool knows that.
Not the point. She was not able to articulate an answer to a question that any reasonably bright high school sophomore could handle. No only could she not answer it but she frigging BABBLED. That was not “hesitancy” and your trying to characterize it is such is blatant intellectual dishonesty. She could have said “I read the Alaska Daily News and USA Today and there never would have been an issue her. Don’t try to dance Juneau, you got no rhythm.
As for your other point, you can be stupid and still be dangerous. Mr. Bush proved that quite conclusively.
ZR — It’s not a coincidence. It’s a lie. Here’s how you tell the difference — if it was spread by Glenn Beck, it’s probably a lie.
It was a ridiiculous question, that really showed Couric’s lack of preparation for the interview, had she or her researcher done the most preliminary research they would have seen her op ed to the Times, challenging the EPA designation, and her letters to local papers. Her complaint with the Supreme Court’s Exxon decision was also legendary, Then again, she let the real vice
president get away with saying that “FDR had spoken on TV in 1929 as President’ we really dodged a bullet there”
TangoBrimelow:
Just out of curiosity, can I take it that VDare endorses Palin? I don’t think you should be coy about that.
Seeing as you are quoting Sargent (someone with an axe to grind with Palin) who links a MSNBC article (another with an axe to grind) it is not surprising that they come to the conclusion they so desire.
So let us look at some of the other ‘internals’:
Strong Democrat …………………….19
Not very strong Democrat ……….14
Independent/lean Democrat……12
Strict Independent……………………14
Independent/lean Republican…10
Not very strong Republican……. 10
Strong Republican…………………..16
That is 45% Dems, and 36% Reps. (I’d guess that of those 14% strictly independents, 10% are fully “enlightened” Democrats.)
No wonder Sargent and MSNBC is talking up this…talking point.
The point being, Palin may or may not be beneficial for GOP candidates, but poll results distorted by partisans is hardly proof.
***Hmmm. Like the time he went to the GOP retreat and cleaned their clocks in their house?***lol…………
The internals tell the tale, as usual. Why does it seem that virtually every poll that appears to bode well for the Dems turns out, upon deeper inspection of the sample, to be the result of oversampling left-leaning individuals? Pollsters should absolutely be required to post the sample percentages along with the results. One benefit – this would settle the issue once and for all of which pollsters favor one political bent over the other.
Juneau:
Go read Nate Silver. He’s all over the poll ratings.
If you are prepared to be President, you should be prepared to answer a ridiculous question. How much longer are you guys going to keep playing kill the messenger? John Cleese has Palin nailed. A good looking parrot. But a parrot really does not know what they are saying, hence the long strings of utter nonsense emerging from Palin’s mouth.
“John Cleese has Palin nailed.”
He is like all the other “celebrities” that liberals somehow feel are qualified at – what, besides acting? Personally, I love Monty Python but Cleese, like all other actors, is only really good at pretending to be someone else. His opinion is no more important than yours.
“His opinion is no more important than yours.”
Or yours, for that matter…
So I guess you are saying that Ronald Reagan was a terrible politician, because like all actors, he was only good at pretending to be someone else.
Or Paul Newman was a failure as a businessman and philanthropist in spite of the fact that he built Newman’s Own from scratch into a wildly successful business that has donated almost 300 million to charity to date. Because Newman, like all other actors, is only really good at pretending to be someone else.
Of course Clint Eastwood is a failure as a director, and Tom Hanks as a producer, because, like all other actors, they are only really good at pretending to be someone else.
You should really stop talking Juneau, you have embarrassed yourself enough for one evening.
You should really stop talking Juneau, you have embarrassed yourself enough for one evening
Actually, thanks for proving my point. Besides Reagan, the one actor you named above who has done something besides play someone else (or direct other people to play at being someone else) is Paul Newman. As you correctly pointed out, he is a successful businessman. And you don’t hear him whining the liberal line. Appreciate the assistance in making the distinction – I couldn’t have picked a better example.
Well, um, Paul Newman “isn’t” anything. He’s kinda dead.
And when he was alive he was a liberal. From Wikipedia:
You’re right on the edge of becoming the next Zelsdorf or G.A.
Not done embarrassing yourself yet I see Juneau. Sometimes it is a good thing to take direction from folks who are older & wiser…
As Michael points out, Newman was not just liberal, but famously liberal. By all accounts, he was a wonderful man, so please don’t do an about face and trash him because you now have been educated about his political views. He actually practiced family values, instead of paying right wing lip service for them, coining the phrase “Why go out for hamburger when you have steak at home” when asked about infidelity.
I see you are dismissive of Eastwood’s remarkable accomplishments as a director. What exactly have you accomplished in your life skippy? I suspect you are not qualifed to shine Eastwood’s shoes.
You are equally dismissive of Tom Hanks accomplishments as an executive producer. Working with Steven Spielberg, he has collaborated to produce work such as “John Adams” & “The Pacific”. Do you have any idea how hard that is to do?
What a small minded twerp you are.
Juneau:
While we’re on the subject of actors. Nancy Reagan was an actor. Senator Al Franken is also an actor. Jesse Ventura former governor of MN. Clint Eastwood, mayor of Carmel. Fred Thompson, former GOP presidential hopeful. Fred Gandy fomer GOP congressman. Sonny Bono likewise. Schwarzenegger governor of CA. Charleton Heston head of the NRA. Then of course we have Jimmy Stewart who was a brigadier general in the Air Force reserve. Audie Murphy, most decorated soldier in WW2. James Doohan (Scvotty from Star Trek) shot 7 times while landing with the Canadians on D-Day. Charles Durning, wounded on D-Day, taken prisoner, survived Malmedy massacre.
Incidentally, liberal paul Newman? Formerly tail gunner Newman, United States Navy, off Okinawa in 1945.
Google. You’ll find it right there on your browser.
BTW, Eastwood is a highly successful businessman and investor, he owned a very successful restaurant in Carmel and currently owns one of the best inns on the coast. He is also a partner in the investment group that owns the Pebble Beach Company along with Arnold Palmer & owns another country club in the area. He is a former mayor and has served with distinction on the California Costal Commission, where his work has been recognized by both Democratic and Republican governors. He is an accomplished pianist and composer, and he owns a successful record company.
Really dude, STFU.
Jimmy Stewart was indeed a vet. He was drafted, but failed the physical because he was underweight. He hired a trainer and worked out until he put on enough muscle to get into the service. At the time, he was already a star. He could have simply stayed in Hollywood, made a fortune, and hung out with starlets. This was before Pearl Harbor too.
He was an excellent pilot. Could have had soft wartime duty because he was a star. but he pushed for a combat assignment. In 1944, he twice received the Distinguished Flying Cross for actions in combat and was awarded the Croix de Guerre. He also received the Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters, after flying 20+ combat missions over Nazi Germany.
I disagree with the political views Stewart held, but what an amazing guy he was. Lots of talent, lots of guts, lots of class.
Idiot child of the frozen north says: “like all other actors, is only really good at pretending to be someone else”
Actors and combat. Favorite topic of mine. Eddie Albert ran a salvage boat at Tarawa, ferrying wounded Marines off the beach, supplying Marines on the beach with whatever he could bring them. Louis Hayward was a Marine combat photographer at Tarawa. Chester Morris was a naval aviator. And my fav: if you’ve ever seen Three Days of the Condor, you might recall that the Redford character asks John Houseman’s CIA biggie what he did during WWII. Houseman says, “I sailed around the Adriatic with a movie star.” That was a direct reference to Sterling Hayden, who joined the Marines when the war started and, because he had his master mariners ticket, ended up in the OSS. He was parachuted into Yugoslavia and spent a few years running guns and personnel to Tito’s partisans. (I don’t know if it’s still in print, but if you read Hayden’s autobiography Wanderer, you’ll discover that nearly all the things John Wayne did in the movies, Hayden did in real-life.) And then there’s Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart’s best friend: three years in the Navy in the Pacific (Bronze Star).
Examples can be multiplied, not that that would have any effect on the frozen one.
Getting back to the story, Isn’t it also quite shocking that just 36% are enthusiastic or comfortable with an Obama endorsement, he is the President afterall.
My favorite part is how she gets to claim credit for getting people elected that were already way way ahead of the polls and she basically swooped in at the last minute with an endorsement.. Naturally not all endorsements were such cases but there were several 😛
So let us look at some of the other ‘internals’:
Strong Democrat …………………….19
Not very strong Democrat ……….14
Independent/lean Democrat……12
Strict Independent……………………14
Independent/lean Republican…10
Not very strong Republican……. 10
Strong Republican…………………..16
in other words 33% dem, 26% gop, 36 indi…that’s totally consistent with current voter party id
I see that after I retired last night all the freaks came out. So, now that all of you have successfully (in your own mind) made your point, let me point out that you have all completely twisted the point.
Once again – slowly for those of you that need to move your lips when you read – the subject was whether or not actors have any inherent credibility for their opinions being more relevant than your average person? The subject of the discussion was Cleese, but you could just as easily say, Hanks, Eastwood, Penn, or (fill in the blank).
And yes, I’ll say it again, actors are only really good at playing other people. The ones that are extremely good get rich and hire financial advisors to help them by making investments in business.
They’re funny, dramatic, skilled at what they do and yes, successful. So what? Most of them are so “creative” that they couldn’t make it through their first year of college. And while were at it, they make lousy role models by and large.
So to put it bluntly, nobody intelligent really gives a rip what Hanks, Penn, or any of them have to say about political figures. Their opinion matters about as much as yours does, except their foolishness is just more widely known.
So frankly, nobody really gives a rip what you fools have to say most of the time either – in case you haven’t noticed.
“idiot child of the frozen north says: “like all other actors, is only really good at pretending to be someone else””
Idiot child of OTB, here’s a clue for you. The post, and tense used in the comment is the present tense. It’s just another diversion of the left for you to make it about all people, historical or legendary. There are always exceptions to any rule. Doesn’t mean it’s not the rule.
Your current breed of Hollywood star or starlet is moronically liberal. It’s an industry requirement and has been for decades. There are several notable exceptions, such as Heston, and Thompson, but they are few and far in between.
Cultured is the new stupid.
A statement so thoroughly rebutted above that only an imbecile would actually repeat it.
I assume you consider yourself to be the old stupid. We all certainly do.
I assume you consider yourself to be the old stupid. We all certainly do.
Thank you. I sincerely hope that I never see eye to eye with you on any substantive issue. That would be the day to start looking for a place to wile away my waning years before the emerging dementia progresses to the point I no longer recognize family and friends..
Oh look who else Sarah is endorsing…
Pssst. Hey! I heard that Palin’s supporting Elvis Presley for a position on the board at a high school in North Dakota. Pass it on…
Well, certainly you can make light of it if you want…but supporting the loony idea that the president is somehow comparable to Hitler really won’t do much for dear Sarah’s already shaky credibility…well, accept among people like you…that, of course, isn’t saying much…
Once can see why Juneau is so enamored of Palin. Our Lady of the Tiny Mind is clearly his intellectual superior by a wide margin. Sad as that is…
Mr. Heston died a few years ago. He was in his 80s. His career peaked around the time I was born, and I am in my 50s now. How exactly is he representative of the “current breed” of Hollywood stars?