re: celebrity affecting choice of candidate.
ans: No.
re: friends or family affecting choice of candidate.
ans: No.
Without sounding all high and mighty, I personally don't care who endorses whom.

If I choose a candidate it's not about what everybody (or anybody,) else thinks.

I think one of the biggest problems with making decisions, particularly political ones, in this country?
So many other factors that have nothing to do with the Pol's abilities, stances, performance (etc.) are dragged in, and the ball is spun so hard, you will never tell truth from marketing.

-As a Christian? I'm supposed to be 'a Republican.'
(What's funny is, now that it's obviously McCain for the Reps. -a LOT of fellow Christians are saying '..looks like I'm not voting this year.' (Brilliant.)
But I used to go to churches where, literally, cards would be handed out telling us 'what God's choice was.'
(shuddering at this point, embarassed even.)

-Then it gets weirder as everybody goes nuts on Obama's 'apparent,' religious ties, (what his pastor thinks, etc. etc.)
-and we wind up with a candidate who is playing the same game that W played (appealing to the Religious,,, you realize that there are W Devotionals that have been in print for years, right?)
-in that Obama is now letting the tail wag the dog
-and has probably shot himself in the foot, because he can't take the pressure of simply being associated with someone who has beliefs and is not afraid to voice them. (His pastor is NOT running for President, btw...)

What people forget is:
One of the major aspects of the govt. starting in this country was that the founding fathers wanted freedom for (any) religion, and freedom FROM a national religion (because they had enough of that with Church of England.)
(...what is really funny is: I happen to be Episcopalian (Church of England.) -and we're quite adamant about NOT telling congregations who to vote for, and make great effort to keep politics out of the church...)

Now?
If you make a decision based upon a candidates real performance and capabilities ---and it's against the 'spin,' of your social club or 'church?'
It's like you're voting for the anti-Christ or something.
Stupid Stupid Stupid.

It's a rather clarifying grid to run things through, however, as I really don't wish to be all that close to folks who are going to get so worked up on obvious media hype and such (non) issues and run like lemmings to any candidate for shallow reasons,
---or allow their church to become a stump for politics, (which, honestly? I think is sick, and think that God is probably not too pleased with.)

I (personally,) decided to vote for Hillary quite some time ago.
And it wasn't based upon anybody's support, it was the simple playing out of her role as senator in my homestate, and how she was able to do a lot of good with such majorly different areas (upstate: very poor / City and boros middle to upper class.) And this done with a ton of criticism about her being everything from a shrew, to a failed housewife, to gay, to being a carpebagger.
We, as a state were pretty rough on her.
Yet the lady hung in there and did her job and did it well.
That earned my respect.
-I think her beliefs are her business, think their marriage issues are their business, and am simply going with the fact that she knows what she's doing, and can do a great job.

-that I eat my lunch alone, and find a lot of fellow believers and trendsters backing away after stating and explaining my choice?
Not a problem.
At least I'm chewing in peace
-and not surrounded by a bunch of folks who (probably,) havn't really thought things out,
nor really care to,
yet need to yap on and on about stuff that they know practically nothing about, and are going to throw away one of the few times an individual has to stand with their own reasoning,
-all for the sake of peer pressure and group association, (which gets only worse when they start dropping Gods name into it,) and (on an even shallower level) is the only reason why anyone would care who Tom Hanks, Jane Fonda, or Yogi the Bear is going to vote for.

speaking of yapping on and on...
I think I'll let somebody else type for a bit.
;)

-E

...my lord, I'm worrying about word choice...

okay,,, above? where I write 'And this done with a ton of criticism about...'

Probably a better word to use would have been 'accusation,' (because Criticsm is more about commenting on something that is definitely there... the list that follows in my sentence were the accusations of her critics... some unfounded, most disproved, all unfair and all the product of base minds.)
...and the word is Carpetbagger, not Carpebagger (a carpe bagger, we all know is one who either knows how to not only sieze the day, but do so in a grocery sack (paper or plastic, still no mean feat,)

-or-

merely someone who puts large expensive goldfish in same-said sack, (perhaps not as impressive, but a durn good parlor trick that I can be amused by for hours...)

hmm... you should probably point out that celebs overwhelmingly support dems. isn't that interesting fact? thats great that you point out that Heidi somewhat supports McCain, but can you name any others off the top of the head without having to google it?
the way i see it, celebs for the most part are so full of themselves they need to compensate by pretending to help "the little guy" in america, too bad they actually do the opposite in the process.

Hanoi Jane should have been shot.

Bobby, you were making a valid point right until the part where you advocated shooting someone for her beliefs.

Here is a list of Republican celebrities for those who are curious.

"Barry Zito, baseball player. "He's a conservative Republican," so says his then-girlfriend Alyssa Milano."

Yet, another reason that Zito would be better off in Fresno than in S.F.

Also: I was surprised to see The Honky Tonk Man on the list. Not necessarily because he's a Republican, but because he made the "celebrity" list. Way to go, HTM.

now...
honest question.

Among Mike Oz's finer qualities (and I mean this sincerely,) is that, in the past when I've spoken with him (via phone,) about how a thread goes, one of the things I can tell he's passionate about is NOT swinging the conversation, -but looking to see real discussion take place, --and HE simply reporting issues with non-bias.
(I've heard the same from other local journalists as well.)
Kudos.
Freakin' Kudos.
That's a difficult line to walk..

Now.. here's the deal.
-In their own write, er... rite,
he writers on Beehive, in the Bee,
-even some bloggers who are better known ---may have opinions on who's running, who they like, and why...

As they (youse-guys, and girls) ARE local celebs...

-Do you have any feelings (and/or) restrictions on sharing your opinions of who you like and why?
-Do you feel it's influencial?
-If it's influencial, is it to be used or not used to convey your feelings to others.

(This gets wild... I mean, I have heard some pretty harrowing tales from folks who were 'excused,' for not being Republican in a local major area business that was...
I see tons of signs hanging and posted on properties for business, -some of them (supposed to be,) non-partisan.
(Dr's. Lawyers, Churches...)
-Is a college professor (or) any teacher
(or) anyone who has influence (be it emotional, occupational, religious, public servant (-post office?)
-are any of these folks, when 'on duty,' allowed to talk about who they support?
--and why?

I mean, I've had people really go off because I told them I was backing Hillary.. (didn't matter that I knew the woman's track record personally from living in NY.)
I was dating somebody who told me flat out
'..My son will not ride in your car if it has a Hillary sticker on it..'
And, to be honest, their only reason that they could give as to why the didn't like Hillary?
'What her husband did, I just didn't like any of it...(saying that 'she lied for him,' or something (which she didn't... she was lied too...)

In a town where THAT sort of reasoning influences one of our greatest priviliges (voting,) --what is the feeling among the press, leaders, and other celebs. as far as expressing these things?

A good and very valid question, WT.

I'm going to write for a while and mix jokes with truth. Ready? Let's go ...

Way back when journalism was invented (by Al Gore Sr. I think), there was this big line drawn in the sand between the reporter folks and the opinion folks.

For instance, the reporter who covers City Hall vs. the columnist who has opinions about City Hall. The reporter is objective, the columnist totally jective ... errr, full of opinion.

Then came the Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who invented the Internet. Years later, newspapers got all energized about using this Internet. It was a good idea, all thought.

Then came blogs and a problem: Blogs are very often opinionated. And blogging is a medium that's growing among newspapers. It creates a problem of where's that line between objectivity and opinion. It's something there's no steadfast answer to right now. Read enough and you'll see reporters dropping in opinions on blogs -- and you'll also find reporters who are scared to do so.

I'm turning Mike-centric and answering the question as it pertains to me: I'm a tough position because I function as a blogger, columnist and reporter. Fun, eh?

I have opinions sometimes, try to be objective others.

As far as politics go, I try to be very meticulous about if I say anything, what I say and where I say it.

I said something on Famous once that people took as arrogant, but it's the way I feel: I'm not going to just express my political opinions at any instance I see fit.

If I do it, I make sure I do it in a manner that is effective and straight-forward.

I have the liberty, yes, but I want to make sure I don't take that liberty for granted or cheapen it.

Is that Jack Nicholson ad for real? No.

It took me a sec to think it over and decide it absolutely wasn't real. Okay, now I'm sure. Here's another Jack parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3VEMazRvNY&feature=related

He is actually supporting Hillary, tho.

whew...I was scared for a sec...

There are parodies out there now, but the Jack video is real.

And if you don't believe MTV, try CNN.