"Since we graduated from college we're looking around for something to do for the next few years…kind of like dad," spoke Jenna Bush at the Republican National Convention, alluding to her and her sister’s recent ubiquity on their father’s campaign trail. Indeed, President Bush’s daughters have been much more visible in the past month than ever before - drunken party pictures notwithstanding. In fact, both the Bush twins and the Kerry sisters have been pushing their fathers’ candidacies as would-be first children never have before. All this campaigning begs the question: why this unusually active role? And, more importantly, why should anyone care what a few kids known only for their stances on underage alcohol policy have to say about gay marriage, health care, or the war on terror?

When Vanessa Kerry visited Dartmouth last Wednesday, she at least addressed the first of these questions. Having admitted to never participating in her father’s political campaigns, she said she was compelled to take leave of Harvard Medical School and work for Kerry’s most consequential campaign yet because “you have to fight for what you believe in.” She reiterated that the repercussions of this election could last 25 or even 100 years and that she “believes in [Kerry] a lot” as a politician and not just as a father. She was inspired to get educated on the issues, which she demonstrated by arguing her father’s stances on tax credits, the economy, the Supreme Court, health care, and “the real war on terror.” But the Bush twins have taken an equally prominent role. Barbara Bush, for her part, said at the RNC: “Jenna and I are really not very political, but we love our dad too much to stand back and watch from the sidelines. We realized that this would be his last campaign, and we wanted to be a part of it.”

The candidates’ daughters certainly cannot be accused of watching from the sidelines. Each day sees them before new crowds in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Nevada, and most other states, especially those considered battleground states. The daughters have spoken mostly to young audiences of college campuses, and also appeared on MTV’s “Rock the Vote” for similar reasons: namely, that their youth ostensibly helps the 18-34 demographic identify with them more than with their fathers, who haven’t been young and hip in forty years - if ever. The logic of both campaigns seems to be that a younger face can even make the most tedious issue, like social security, resonate with the young voting demographic.

Do the voters buy it, though?

One Dartmouth student described Kerry’s visit as “preaching to the choir” in that the turnout was composed primarily of Kerry supporters. “She didn’t sway my vote.” Another, however, idealistically argued that her efforts were worthwhile if she could convince just one voter at every appearance to vote Kerry. Indeed, the sizable crowd reacted well to Ms. Kerry by laughing at her “not funny” jokes - Vanessa Kerry’s words - and challenging some of her stances.

Whether students came to learn about life on the campaign trail, to support John Kerry, or simply to show for the “cheap allure of celebrity,” Vanessa Kerry clearly had an audience. In this election, where so much is at stake, some call it frivolous for people uninvolved in politics to pontificate on issues on the behalf of well-schooled politicians - or to remind Americans either to vote or die. However, as the hours tick down to November 2nd, both candidates clearly need to play every card in their hands. In this sense, the daughters are at least provoking thought and discussion. Unfortunately, it also shows that both parties would rather place second-rate surrogates in front of young voters than the candidates themselves. Hint for Republicans and Democrats in 2008: send us what we young folks really want to see - a Presidential candidate himself, not just somebody with the same last name.