The celebrity speakers for this week’s Democratic National Convention are not “random” or “odd,” despite a mean-spirited and uninformed story from Slate. Gossip Cop can take it down piece by piece.
The article, which came out last week, is currently headlined, “Demi Lovato, Chloe Grace Moretz, and Eva Longoria Are Odd Choices of DNC Speakers.” It was further tweeted with the teaser, “Why Debra Messing, Demi Lovato and Chloe Moretz are disappointing DNC speaker choices.”
Arguably, there’s no reason for any stars to speak at political conventions, but it’s become the norm over the last three decades, and the celebs mentioned here are perfectly good choices to represent the Democratic party. And yet, the accompanying story begins, “Is speaking at a national political convention a prestigious gig? Because the list of the celebrities who will appear at the Democratic National Convention next week has started to trickle out and… there are a lot of randos on it!” It’s said that Debra Messing, Eva Longoria, Demi Lovato and Chloe Grace Moretz are a “step up” from celebrity Republican National Convention speakers Scott Baio, Antonio Sabato Jr., and Kimberlin Brown, “but they’re still decidedly B-list.” Slate asks, “Wouldn’t you just as soon expect that group to do a reality show as endorse our president?”
Giving a “quick rundown of why these four are such odd choices,” it’s said Messing, though a “big-time Democrat,” is “not at the top of her game lately” because “‘Will & Grace’ was a while ago, she was not the best part of ‘Smash,’ and ‘Mysteries of Laura’ was canceled.” Gossip Cop wasn’t aware having a series canceled just a few months ago after two seasons made someone unqualified to speak at the DNC.
But it’s similarly said about Longoria, “Eva Longoria, like Messing, was in a big TV show a few years ago and more recently has been on some canceled ones.” It’s noted that the actress has done “surprisingly legit” “political work,” but since she previously spoke at the 2012 convention, it’s said, “Give someone else a chance to orate, Eva.” So a qualified actress, who also happens to be a minority, should be prevented from speaking simply because she’s appeared in the past?
It gets worse. For Lovato, the author writes, “Some of her songs are great. I also know that she recently broke up with Wilmer Valderrama. Not exactly the makings of a political leader.” Why should Lovato’s political worthiness be measured by her love life and whether her music is liked? Similarly, for Moretz, it’s noted how she’s “dating Brooklyn Beckham, son of Posh and Becks,” as if that should have any bearing on her speaking capabilities.
It’s further said of Moretz, “There’s nothing wrong with her exactly, other than the vague air of desperation that encircles her. Is she someone teens find inspiring? Seems doubtful.” But it’s never once mentioned how Lovato and Moretz have spent time campaigning for Hillary Clinton long before they were announced as DNC speakers. In fact, Gossip Cop reported more than a year ago that Moretz was one of the first celebrities to show support for Clinton when she launched her campaign.
And after stumping in Iowa in January, Lovato explained why she’s voting for Clinton, even noting, “Her being a woman is just a bonus.” Longoria and Messing, too, have both demonstrated that they are politically-minded. All that makes them neither “random” nor “odd,” and Longoria and Lovato should hardly be consisted “B-list.”
But because Slate absurdly believes these stars aren’t up to par, alternative suggestions are given, such as, “Instead of Demi Lovato, how about an Ariana Grande or a Kendrick Lamar?” Yes, Ariana Grande who was caught on camera saying “I hate America.” The article concludes, “Pander to us, Democrats, show us how shiny and popular you are! Instead, you’re just showing us how desperate to be loved Chloe Grace Moretz is.”
But it’s not Moretz who comes off as desperate here. It would’ve taken such little research to discover truly relevant information about the selected speakers. Instead, Slate chose to publish a complete misrepresentation of the chosen stars. To be clear, this has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting Clinton. It has nothing to do with whether people should vote for her.
It has everything to do with a baseless and cruel attack on celebrities who are admirably attempting to be politically active. Again, it’s reasonable to say that there’s no need for TV actors or pop stars to be part of political conventions. But if some had to be chosen, this cross-section of women, Latinas and young people are a fair representation for the Democratic party.