I came across an article this past week about Clinton’s presumptive democratic nomination for presidential candidacy, about how she’ll be the first female nominee. It irked me because this shouldn’t be solely about gender, no matter which side we’re on—hating her because she’s a powerful woman or loving her because she’s a powerful woman. It should be about qualifications and what’s best for this country.

More importantly, what frightens me most is that the article mentions excitement: We need someone new! And exciting! Clinton has been around for so long and there’s nothing enticing about her because she’s old news. Even though she’smaking history, we don’t really care because there isn’t much pizazz. It was too expected.

Support her or not, we shouldn’t be following politics because of its excitement. Sure, it’s a great way to grab attention, but this isn’t "The Real World"; we do not live in a “reality” TV show, and these politicians are not celebrities to be judged (might I add, for presidency) based on personal likability. Politics are not entertainment. Just because you can laugh at a candidate’s jokes and like their colloquial, unrestrained ways of talking; does not mean that they are fit for the highest political job in the country. These can supplement their policies and goals, but they are in no way meant to be primary reasons to side with a candidate.

Bored? Be aware that the media plays on this boredom by giving us what we want: excitement, even if exaggerated, to get the hype up.

Democracy works best when a greater number of voters are involved because it better represents the population, but democracy also works best when the facts remain facts and in return are not gilded by shimmering excitement in the form of hyperbolic headlines, data discrimination, and slippery slopes.

If we want to talk about the sinful things that corporations do for money, we should not forget to take into account that some media platforms focus more on views, likes and shares rather than on personal interests and thorough research. The sin here is disguising twisted, tainted news as reputable news, because whatever grabs the audience and increases popularity, and revenue is what’s important.

If purely objective facts are too boring for you. If you need to be constantly entertained and have opinions fed to you in order to catch up on the news, then maybe politics are not your strong suit. Maybe follow politics, but don’t claim expertise. Politics shouldn’t have to be portrayed with ecstatic crowds, candidates pointing and yelling, fights and extremist goals to get people’s attention.

A great example of excitement and personal likability shifting political opinions is the tweet by Hillary Clinton’s official Twitter page. It was indeed bold, sassy, and overall savage—whether you think that in a positive or negative way. However, a single tweet (might I mention not even signed “-H” to signal that it was directly from Hillary Clinton herself) should not be the no-or-go for supporting a candidate.

An Elite Daily writer covered the “breaking news,” and the coverage pinpointed exactly why people, especially young people or people who have had no prior interest in politics, are soon going to become engaged in the presidential race in the next few months. “It’s on,” they describe as the meaning behind her tweet, and “We cannot wait for the debates.” How many people will watch them like a reality TV show series as opposed to serious presidential debates? Compare Elite Daily’s coverage with CNN’s coverage. I’m not saying that either source is better, but there’s inarguably a difference in tone and subjectivity between the two sources for the same event.

I know we all like to get involved in other people’s lives and other people’s business because any drama other than our own is a relieving escape from our seemingly mundane lives. It’s inevitable that the media, the government, and even the candidates have to grab America’s attention in some way in order to keep democracy in this country alive. However, when this attention-seeking Trumps the pragmatism of reality, our choices become skewed and our priorities become indiscernible in the bright lights.