If Oprah wants to campaign for Obama, she should give up her daytime televison show; i.e., that lovely salary. I doubt limiting her political guests to Obama doesn't violate FEC policy.
Her lukewarm hosting of former President Clinton yesterday was a sight to behold.
Posted by Sally at September 5, 2007 10:03 AMSally, that was my first thought, too, but check out the article:
Winfrey's show is not subject to any "equal time" obligations, because Federal Communications Commission rules do not apply to news programs, interview shows and documentaries in which the candidate is not the sole focus.
and:
On Tuesday, former president Bill Clinton made an appearance on Oprah. But the talk show host made clear that Clinton had solicited the appearance himself, and they did not dwell long on politics, instead talking about his new book "Giving" and his global good works.
I agree that this is a big thing; millions of people hang on The Oprah's every word (and that odious "Dr." Phil creep's word, too). This will be interesting, in any case.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 5, 2007 10:13 AMThe idea that Oprah has any influence on a person's vote is absurd.
A person's vote ain't a Toni Morrison book of the month kind of thing.
Posted by JoeCHI at September 5, 2007 10:28 AM...and that odious "Dr." Phil creep's word, too...
People love Dr. Phil because he gives advice they can understand: "If you've got too many weasels in the cookie jar, how the hell do you expect to make tea!?" There is nothing like pop-psychology to feed the masses.
He has a true Tex-ass republi-con history behind him. He wouldn't stop having sex with his patients so he lost his license and ended-up doing law psychology. That's where he met Orca, the killer talk show hostess during the beef imbroglio.
Maybe she'll give a car to everyone who votes for him?
Posted by phidipides at September 5, 2007 10:30 AMMaybe she'll give a car to everyone who votes for him?
If it's a hybrid, I'm in.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 5, 2007 10:36 AMIf it's a hybrid, I'm in.
Naw. She only gives away low-end GM stuff.
Oprah is the most powerful woman in America. Unlike most powerful people, her voice directly reaches the millions of women (and a few men) without filtering it through paid surrogates, think tanks, etc. She earned the trust and respect of her viewers the hard way by building it one viewer at a time. Corporations always to where there are big bucks to be made and Oprah was raking in enough of those bucks in the early years of her local show that they weren't about to pass on that gravy train.
Every powerful person has a lot of help along the way and Oprah would be no different. However, she wasn't tapped or annointed by some senior network executive before she had demonstrated her talents and skills. She isn't one of those unknown, talentless bobbleheads that cable news channels love to give shows to. Bobbleheads that remain unknown to all but a tiny audience.
Is one hour a day, five days a week comparable to the virtually non-stop, virtually "yeah GOP" and "nay DEM" on the cable channels? Difficult to say that there is anything unfair about Oprah choosing not to cover anybody but Obama from now on -- and it's not going to be Obama all the time because that would quickly become boring and nobody knows better than Oprah that boring is a rating killer.
I have no idea what, if any, impact her decision will have on the primaries. But in the general election, if Obama gets the nom, the election for all practical purposes will be over.
Posted by Marie at September 5, 2007 10:55 AMlow-end GM stuff.
Forget it, then. I don't even like Obama!
The idea that Oprah has any influence on a person's vote is absurd.
You don't get out much, do you? Every single woman in my office, at my grocery store, at ballgames, daycares, tupperware parties, churches, etc, discuss who was on her show every single day. People who don't give a shit about what's happening in Iraq will give a shit about Obama 'cos Oprah says so. You watch.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 5, 2007 10:55 AMYou're right, Coyote, Oprah is WAY influential in Wal-Mart America and beyond. This is a huge pick-up for Obama and cuts into Hillary's quest for the woman vote in the primaries.
I'm not saying I agree or approve of this, but it's reality.
We are so sad sometimes.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 5, 2007 12:12 PMI don't watch Oprah. I have nothing against her show, I just get bored easily with those formats. So, no, not all women are going to rush to the voting booth for Obama because Oprah likes him.
Posted by kerril at September 5, 2007 12:52 PMkerril, no one said "all women" would do what Oprah says - I don't watch her show, either. But a lot of other women, and men, do. People who don't follow politics or Iraq, or much of anything past soap operas and talk shows because that's the thing to do when the kids are down for a nap or at school will get their only political exposure from Oprah, and all they'll hear about is Obama. Most of the women in my office record it and watch when they get home. Discount her influence at your own risk, but Oprah can sell.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 5, 2007 01:28 PMWow. This will be interesting. The most interesting thing will be to see how long she sticks with the Obama-only pledge. Next most interesting will be to see if her relatively non-partisan audience follows where she leads them. If they do, her influence will crush every other candidate.
Posted by Brian Bell at September 5, 2007 04:05 PMRush Limbaugh exclusively interviews Dick Cheney or COndi Rice---it's his show and they benefit. Or John McCain and soon Fred Thompson.
As long as news and entertainment are the same thing, and fairness is no longer part of anybody's doctrine just because of syndication or cable-access, I don't see Oprah doing anything wrong.
I don't like it, but I don't see how she's behaving any differently.
On the other hand, if she chooses to display herself as a single-issue, single-candidate, single-minded lobbyist for Obama, I think enough people will also see that for what it is to dilute any overwhelming effect. Does her book club control the bestseller list? That used to be the claim. I doubted it then and I doubt it now.
Posted by gtash at September 5, 2007 04:39 PMGtash, do not doubt that the Oprah Bookclub controlled the bestseller lists. It did, absolutely. Her word was worth more than any other book review by profit margins in the millions and millions and millions to the publishers. The Times book review could have only hoped for a fraction of her influence.
The only reason Oprah's dominance of American publishing ended was because she decided to end it on a regular, monthly basis. She viewed it as a negative. She was sick of it. Books and authors who got the "O" on their cover were guaranteed to be a bestseller. She could turn it back on in a heartbeat, too, if she wanted. As it is, any book she endorses on even the irregular basis still lands it on the bestseller list immediately.
You may doubt this, but why else would publishers fight to get that "O" on the book cover? Because it was worth millions to them.
Posted by Brian Bell at September 5, 2007 05:08 PMI do not know if Oprah's endorsement will help Senator Obama.....I am not sure that celebrity endorsements are useful.
However, here is a very interesting article addressing both sides of the Oprah endorsement:
http://www.nyobserver.com/print/56715/full
All this being said, and as I have posted before, Hillary is the Democratic nominee: the Clinton machine is very, very powerful. The only thing that could derail her is clear, very clear (black and white) proof of criminal behavior or a obfuscations along the lines of Clinton-Lewinski.
Posted by And Bagley Was A Friend of Mine at September 5, 2007 05:25 PMIamcoyote,
I think I let my "Oprah is not the boss of me" come out. Numbers don't lie I guess. I just find it weird that one woman can determine how so many other women think.
kerril, I'm torn, really - it's so refreshing to see a woman, especially a black woman with so much power, even if it is because of an insipid talk show. It's the same with Madonna and Martha Stewart, I'm all "you go, girl," but still kinda "why are people so easily swayed? Humans! Whaddayagonnado?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 5, 2007 07:49 PMOprah is the quintessential snake-oil salesman. "If you listen to my happy talk, you'll be happy, too, and I'll enjoy the money my happy talk buys for me."
She did a show on the minimum wage and was shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn how minimum it is. To add to her flub of this, she did not have an expert to enlighten her audience on the ramifications of low wages. At the time, I was disappointed she had missed a great opportunity to shine a light on this but chalked it up to entertainment versus information.
Her audience is as captive as Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's. Democracy doesn't have much of a chance when the uninformed sway the masses.
Let her make the big bucks entertaining but keep politics out of it. We have enough politicians pretending to know what they're talking about. Think Iraq.
It's 1984...The US political system doesn't really care about the average man...just like Orwell's Party and the Proles.
Washington feels that the common American doesn't have the intellectual power (by design...No Child Left Behind = All Children Left Behind...everyone taught to the minimum standard) to understand that they are exploited. The function of the American public is to work (earn a little money), buy stuff (spend the money) and have kids (create the next generation of blind consumers). We aren't expected to care much about anything else than taking care of home and family, watching movies and football, drinking beer and cheap gin, and buying lottery tickets. We even have our meaningless songs (Britney Spears anyone?), novels, Entertainment "news" (Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, People Magazine, the tabloids, etc.) which more poeple watch/read than "real" news (which is still controlled by the system).
To keep us in control is not difficult. It is not desirable that the we should have strong political feelings. All that is required is a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it is necessary to make us accept whatever the government wants to inflict upon us for our "own good/protection" (PATRIOT Act, illegal wiretaps, etc.) And even if we do become discontent, it will lead nowhere, because we can only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escape our notice...and if we do happen to catch glimpse of and draw attention to those evils, we are discounted as imagining things or being conspiratorial. There is a vast amount of criminality, a whole world-within-a-world of thieves, bandits, prostitutes, drug-peddlers and racketeers of every description; but since it all happens among the commoners, it is of no importance to the system...other than the occasional "War on..." (poverty, drugs, crime, etc.), and that's only to make us feel like the system cares.
It is all a smokescreen..."Pay no attention to the man (Big Brother) behind the curtain"
...okay...my 2 cents (and 2 minutes of hate) have expired.