The Oprah Thang

I don't know why I'm writing this diary. I've been scanning round the blogs and reading the happenings and the arguments, this, that, whatnot. Today is apparently the Oprah-Obama media event. So I'm like, alright, okay. More celebrity driven crap. Next. But as I'm reading around, in the arguments for and against the Oprabama media fantastiganza, I keep reading, that as a supporter of another candidate, I'm either .....

1. Jealous

2. Eating "sour grapes"

......over something I don't give a crap about, which of course is why I hesitated writing this diary. So why write it if I really don't care?

Because I don't want to leave anyone with the idea that I'm jealous or eating or drinking "sour grapes".  First off, I don't watch Oprah. Heck, I barely watch the teevee. But since I'm going to be accused of feeling things I don't...let me tell you what I really think about the Oprabama thing.

From the beginning of the race I tagged the top three candidates mentally as:

Clinton: The Insider
Obama: Hollywood
Edwards: The Outsider

Things since then have pretty much remained unchanged. Today's event was pretty much the culmination of the celebrity thing for Obama. Oprah drew, what... 20,000 to see Obama speak. Um, okay.

Let me ask you all a couple of questions.

Does anyone on this blog seriously believe that if Striesand had chosen the same venue to do a rally for Clinton, it would have been less full?

Does anyone on this blog seriously believe that if Melloncamp had chosen the same venue to do a rally for Edwards, it would have been less full?

I think that the same arena would have been just as full for either Streisand or Melloncamp. The question then becomes how Oprah has chosen to help Obama. For people like me, who are more impressed with humans or great humans, and not at all impressed by celebrity, how would Oprah's support of Obama make me think even more of her than I already do?  She is a good woman afterall.

Well, if Oprah had used her celebrity to inform, motivate her audience to do the research, talk amongst their families about important issues facing the world, and do a before & after show with people talking about the issues and which candidate represent them best, then I would have been more impressed. She could have easily said the she's endorsing Obama & why, motivate the people by doing something as simple as let's say canvassing for their candidate, not as a celebrity, but as a citizen of a democracy that has helped made her who she is despite it's many flaws. She could have helped more by getting them involved in the process of the thing, instead of just an empty glorious result.

What I myself don't like, is Oprah playing kingmaker and presenting Obama as "THE ONE" on her mega platform of celebritydom. Especially granted through a media that manipulates and deceives the American public every single day. And since Oprah represents big media, she, and Obama becomes part of the game.

There's nothing to be jealous of in that hollowness. My candidate is working hard for every vote based on policies and strong plans. He works hard for every bit of support he gets. I guess I just respect that more than all the big hoopla of media events.

•  Flames :-)

  by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:08:57 PM PDT

  •  Hey!

    Don't diss the Big O! Her company is the economic
    lifeblood of Chicago's West Loop neighborhood.

    And I ought to know: I work 2 blocks west of Harpo
    Studios!

    BTW, they say studios, but as far as I know, only
    Oprah's show is shot there. Or are there other shows
    I don't know about?

    by JeffW on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:15:29 PM PDT

    •  Didn't diss. Just said what I thought.

      by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:18:48 PM PDT

      •  Oprah = American Idolization of Politics

        I agree with your thoughts cosbo :)  She uses her wealth and power for great humanitarian purpose all over the world.  I admire her for that.

        However, when it comes to politics, she is no substitute for the substance that is sorely lacking with Obama's campaign.  I'm still waiting for him to take the lead in the Senate cloakroom, instead of playing it so damn politically safe.

        Where's the leadership ?

        by catchawave on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 08:46:04 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, you're jealous and eating sour grapes

    Oprah mentions a book on TV and everyone goes out and buys it. Her celebrity power is unprecedented.

    Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

    by InsultComicDog on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:16:07 PM PDT

    •  She IS God.

      by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:17:50 PM PDT

      •  No.

        She is beloved.  Deal with it.

        by snout on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:20:32 PM PDT

        •  Like I said...She IS God.

          Beloved.

          by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:24:47 PM PDT

          •  Are you completely convinced

            that this is sour grapes?

            Cause I gotta tell ya that looks like sulking to me.

            by LithiumCola on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:26:54 PM PDT

            •  Actually that was just sarcasm.

              by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:39:00 PM PDT

          •  er.. NOT sour grapes?

            by LithiumCola on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:27:23 PM PDT

        •  She sure overestimated "Beloved"

          as a mega movie project, as I recall.

          Could it have been an omen?  ;)

          by sgary on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:45:38 PM PDT

        •  And no one else is? It's all about

          who the media "CHOOSES" to cover.

          They are not "OBLIGATED" to cover Oprah/Obama, but they will, because Obama is a preferred candidate of theirs, for obvious reasons.

          Those billion conglomerates want a Republican elected President in 2009.

          by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:05:50 PM PDT

          •  "billion DOLLAR" conclomerates

            by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:08:49 PM PDT

        •  Beloved by some

          disliked by others. I think it comes out about even in the end.

          by thursdays child on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:50:31 PM PDT

      •  Don't you get that the only "CHILDISH" response

        that an Obama has to anything is "sour grapes."

        It's the most idiotic argument that I have ever heard.

        I suppose if they beat someone in basketball as a child, and then that person became their doctor, and told them that they had terminal cancer, they'd chalk up the diagnosis to "sour grapes."

        Like people can't make a REASONED ARGUMENT or observation, without be jealous.

        How freaking stupid.

        by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:07:57 PM PDT

        •  Obama "supporter"

          by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:10:57 PM PDT

  •  since you don't watch Oprah,

    how do you know what she does or doesn't do on her show?

    by byteb on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:19:00 PM PDT

    •  Did she have a research the candidates show?

      by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:25:25 PM PDT

      •  research Edwards show you mean

        by byteb on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:48:48 PM PDT

        •  no. this is most important election

          of our lifetime. did she do anythings but push Obama. Did she engage the people in the process, the issues, why it's important that they vote? That kind of thing.

          by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:51:49 PM PDT

          •  I don't watch her that often but she has

            tackled what you  might consider "important' issues. You admit to never watching her yet you seem to instinctively know that she has never "engaged people inthe process or the issues or why its important that they vote".

            Unless you know, making blanket statements is just blowing smoke.

            You might not like her campaigning b/c I'm not sure why..but judging without knowing is pointless.

            by byteb on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:06:59 PM PDT

    •  You don't live in Iraq, how do you know its bad?

      by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:09:53 PM PDT

      •  because my son

        does live in bagdad right now ..for the next 14 months..thanks to HRC and John edwards voting to allow bush to invade iraq..

        And yes, it is bad in iraq.

        cosbo; do you really want John Edwards voting record exposed for everyone to see. I suppose Oprah could look at his 2001 votes for instance..

        voted for tax cuts for the wealthy- 3 times.
        voted against public financing for elections.
        voted for Big Packing consolidation
        voted for the Bankruptcy Bill
        voted against addintional funding for the VA

        I could go on .. but the point is..Edwards has a bad voting record without even talking about sponsoring AUMF..

        His voting record is least progressive of any candidate for the dems..

        by Hawkjt on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:56:57 AM PDT

        •  Edwards does not have a bad voting record

          He like everyone running has some bad votes, but most of his voting record scored him high points from liberal groups.  High lifetime ratings.

          What else was included in that TAX CUTS bill?
          What in the public financing bill did he disagree with?
          Wasn't there an increase in the minimum wage in that bankruptcy bill, and maybe he thought that was the only way to get that at the time?

          ALL OF THOSE BILLS AREN'T SINGLE ISSUE BILLS.

          You are cherry-picking the votes.

          Even with your son in Iraq, you still get the point.  When I use the word "YOU," I'm speaking to anyone who reads the post.  Everyone here claims that Iraq is a mess, even though they don't live there.  The point.  You don't have to watch Oprah to know about it.  

          MAYBE SOME OF THEIR FRIENDS are giving them info about Oprah, just like your son is giving you some about Iraq.  Ever thought about that?

          by framecop on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:16:05 PM PDT

  •  Nicely done

    thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.  My question is, where are the celebrities going to be when their candidate gets in office?  Are they going to be out there to help push legislation and urge voters to contact their representatives to help the President pus through their agenda?  I seriously doubt it.

    Edwards doesn't need celebrities, he's already getting everyone who supports him for this fight and he's talking about down the ticket and campaigning for every single Democrat running if he can.

    I don't want to celebrity, a phenom, I want a President.

    by Ellinorianne on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:10:29 PM PDT

    •  I agree Elli!

      It's time for serious solutions.

      by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:14:43 PM PDT

    •  Well if Edwards doesn't need celebrities

      then why did they rush to inform us that Harry Belafonte endorsed him.  I guess thats okay because its an endorsement for Edwards.

      by ronnied on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:21:44 AM PDT

      •  Belafonte

        is more than a celebrity, he's been a humanitarian and activist for many years.  I think I'm talking about the weight and hype with which people are putting the Oprah involvement in Obama's campaign.  Is she going to be spending that much energy to help him with his Administration?  What about other celebrities?  There is nothing wrong with celebrity endorsements, it's just how much weight you put on them.

        by Ellinorianne on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 08:36:39 AM PDT

•  Sometimes it's best to ignore things

  I don't quite see the point of complaining about someone endorsing someone else.

  by The Other Steve on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:13:37 PM PDT

  •  Or complaining about someone caring

    as everybody concedes that it's not a big deal.

    by Inland on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:16:06 PM PDT

    •  When this many people say it isn't a big deal

      it's a big deal.

      by citizenx on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:28:08 PM PDT

      •  Yeah. There must be a half dozen of us

        saying it's not a big deal around here.
        Cause to us, it's not.
        Will it throw the Democratic Primary?  Who knows, but if it does, it's a sign of a sickness in our citizenry.

        by sgary on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:49:16 PM PDT

        •  Or it's just how caucuses work...

          If you can talk to 24,000 people in one night, and the biggest turnout ever for a Dem caucus in Iowa is less than 150,000, obviously it's going to make a difference.  Whether you think it should or not.

          by JustAngry on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 01:22:54 AM PDT

  •  Unless it's David Duke or Don Black, both of whom

    have endorsed R0n |>4u1 (if not officially in Duke's case)

    by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:17:02 PM PDT

  •  Like it's about the "endorsement".

    Harry Belafonte is a more meaningful endorsement than Oprah, because Belafonte is all about "substance."

    Oprah's just endorsing Obama because he's from Chicago and black.  Last time she voted in another Presidential Primary was when Jesse Jackson ran, so they say over at DU.

    Look, the thing that pisses people off is the media choosing to use Oprah as an EXCUSE for more around the clock Obama PUSHING, as if no other big names have endorsed anyone.

    All of these media pissants want their books to make Oprah's list one day.

    by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:14:01 PM PDT

    •  Belafonte does not have more substance

      than Oprah.  That is your opinion.  Many of us to not see it the same way.  I think Joseph Lowery has more substance than Belafonte and he endorsed Obama.

      by ronnied on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:25:56 AM PDT

      •  If I want a refrigerator endorsed, I'll ask

        Oprah.
        If I want a tireless fighter for the world, I gotta go with Harry.

        by sgary on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:43:42 AM PDT

      •  Do you know anything about Harry Belafonte?

        Do you know anything about the "State of Black America" forums?

        If leaders in the black community had to choose either Oprah or Belafonte, Oprah wouldn't stand a chance.

        "Opinion"?

        Please wake up.

        by framecop on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:00:32 PM PDT

    •  This comment is wrong in so many ways

      1. Your comment comes off incredibly racist.  "Oprah's just endorsing Obama because he's from Chicago and black."  How do you know why she's doing it?  This comment is, frankly, offensive.

      2. "Look, the thing that pisses people off is the media choosing to use Oprah as an EXCUSE for more around the clock Obama PUSHING, as if no other big names have endorsed anyone."  Yes, the horrible media machine has an evil plot to get Barack Obama elected instead of your candidate of choice.  And whose using right wing talking points, again?

      by JustAngry on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 01:25:16 AM PDT

      •  If you think I'm racist, you don't know

        squat about me.

        Wait a minute, you don't.

        Obama is the Republican Party's candidate of choice, with Hillary Clinton a close second.

        Joe Scarborough has already said it on his show, and the Republican candidates go around all of the time saying they either "BELIEVE" that Clinton or Obama will be the Democratic nominee or a ticket together, or they "HOPE" the Democrats nominate Obama, like Tancredo just said.

        1:34
        

        People who are caught up in that "YOUR" candidate crap, need to get a freaking brain.

        The only thing that I care about is winning and winning big in 2008, not BLOWING 2008 just to have a "FIRST" female or black nominee.

        Screw that crap.  Edwards is the one who Republican "VOTERS" all over the country say they would vote for.  The woman in the GOP YouTube debate was not an anomaly.  

        But yeah, people like YOU, are willing to once again be suckered, just like you were in 2004, when the media started preaching the last month that Kerry was the most electable, just as PBS released a detailed study that only showed him tying Bush whereas Edwards defeated Bush by "ELEVEN" points.

        John Edwards also offers the most specific, detailed policy platform, which is one that he KNEW THE MEDIA wouldn't want to cover.  He's taking a stand, and you're ready for a fall.

        by framecop on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:08:32 PM PDT

    •  Wow, just like shut up already

      The damn Liberal Media is always out to get you.  
      Sheesh

      The ghost of Alice Longworth could come out and make an endorsement, and it still would pale in comparison to Oprah.  That's just reality.

      by The Other Steve on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:14:42 PM PDT

      •  Wow, just like wake up already

        The big money media is always shaping your perspective, and you don't even realize it.
        Sheesh.

        by framecop on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:09:31 PM PDT

        •  Uh huh

          And only you know the truth!

          I'll go find my tin foil beanie.

          by The Other Steve on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 07:41:31 AM PDT

•  Hey, so is mine:

  My candidate is working hard for every vote based on policies and strong plans. He works hard for every bit of support he gets.

  Just so happens that Oprah is also working for my candidate.  How is that some sort of bad thing?

  It is, unfortunately, sour grapes that leads one to conclude from Oprah showing up that Obama isn't working hard or based on policies.  The concept that one has to be either Hollywood or Insider or Outsider and Oprah showing up makes Obama Hollywood looks like a taxonomy created not due to any resemblance to reality but to turn an obvious positive into a negative.

  Oh, BTW, Oprah...Chicago, not Hollywood.  

  by Inland on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:15:14 PM PDT

  •  The diarist should ask themself

    If they would be complaining if Oprah was stumping on behalf of their candidate...

    by turneresq on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:17:11 PM PDT

    •  They'll never have to say, because

      nobody the likes of Oprah will endorse their candidate.  Well, Bill Clinton has that sort of star power.  Gore won't endorse anybody.  That's it.

      by Inland on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:19:54 PM PDT

      •  When you use the term "star power" you make

        cosbo's case.

        Paris Hilton has "star power," but it is, by itself, totally lacking in substance.

        Will Oprah bring more discussion and understanding of the issues so that people can make informed choices, or is she just enclosing a candidate in a celebrity bubble?  The diary asks some great questions.

        by Terra Mystica on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:12:32 PM PDT

    •  Same thing. It would have been more

      suspect, since I don't trust big media. Part of Edwards allure is that big media ignores him.

      by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:19:56 PM PDT

      •  Ignore or Insult

        Just like they did Gore and Kerry.

        But Democrats are foolish enough to think that the media genuinely likes Clinton and Obama.

        Wow, are they in for a wake up call.

        by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:18:13 PM PDT

        •  Just off the O/O rally

          You're right, I think, about Obama.  When I was interviewed by the press tonight, they clearly wanted me to dis Obama.  I'm an undecided re the Iowa caucuses - but when they heard that, the shallowness of their questions was really deep.

          by kmbaya on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:54:49 PM PDT

          •  Care to elaborate?

            by framecop on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:56:18 PM PDT

    •  We know the answer to that.

      The Edwards folks never shy away from talking about those who do endorse JRE.

      by snout on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:22:00 PM PDT

      •  Oprah gets hit diaries.

        Harry Belefonte gets a swooning diary, so does, incredibly, HRC being supported by Chelsea.

        There's been several hit diaries on Oprah, because she doesn't matter.

        by Inland on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:25:41 PM PDT

        •  Dude, Belafonte is THE REAL DEAL

          Oprah is not even in his league.

          by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:26:47 PM PDT

          •  Is this a different point from your diary?

            I thought your diary was how endorsements wouldn't make you feel differently.  

            by Inland on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:31:47 PM PDT

            •  My diary is not about endorsements...

              it's about a major media figure and the manipulations therein. I told you. I don't trust anything big media tries to sell me.

              by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:33:37 PM PDT

              •  Good point! n/t

                by JeffW on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:44:51 PM PDT

              •  so..b/c Oprah is a major media figure, she cannot

                endorse a candidate and campaign for that candidate?

                freedom of speech except for major media figures.

                sure.

                by byteb on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:56:09 PM PDT

                •  Because Oprah didnt endorse Edwards

                  I'm sure if she had, the spin would she is the only media figure who "gets it" or something.

                  by jj32 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:03:38 PM PDT

                  •  Billionaires don't endorse populists.

                    The last thing that non-union billionaires want is a populist president like Edwards.

                    by Mike Taylor on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:11:32 PM PDT

                    •  A populist

                      that voted for tax cuts for the wealthy 3 times in 2001?

                      That voted against the estate tax?

                      How many populists are concerned about helping the wealthy with their tax bills?

                      by Hawkjt on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:01:25 AM PDT

                •  IT'S NOT ABOUT OPRAH, YOU BUFFOON!

                  by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:20:39 PM PDT

                  •  Is it about the concentration camps we're

                    all about to be sent to?

                    See here for the comment inspiring my response

                    by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:23:02 PM PDT

                    •  Why are they being built in the US? Decoration?

                      All it takes is one more terrorist attack, and free speech is over.

                      Are you going to cower in the corner?  If you speak up, what will be the result?

                      With any Republican (probably other than McCain, Paul, or Huckabee), you'd be in serious trouble.

                      Think it's a joke.

                      Everything else that Bush has done, people thought was overblown at the time.

                      by framecop on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:54:52 PM PDT

              •  And to think, I was intelligent enough to already

                be saying this in your defense on this diary before I even read it.

                Some things, you'd think Democrats would be smart enough to know by now.

                by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:20:16 PM PDT

              •  People should get dollar sign shaped statuettes

                and set them on top of their TVs, to remind them of what's behind the MSM's agenda.

                by Mike Taylor on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:40:43 PM PDT

          •  Harry Belafonte is a Civil Right giant

            and a true Progressive Champion too:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            by jamess on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:04:26 PM PDT

            •  then no one BUT Harry Belafonte is allowed to

              endorse a candidate. Now I get it.

              by byteb on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:08:30 PM PDT

              •  It's about

                substance. Sort of like the diff between Edwards and Obama.

                by LaEscapee on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:22:51 AM PDT

            •  So is Joseph Lowery only more so

              And he endorsed Obama.  And nobody can make a speech like Lowery.  I'll match him against Belafonte any day.

              by ronnied on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:31:33 AM PDT

          •  yea, Harrys warm

            and very public embrace of Chavez is going to go over like a lead balloon in a general election..

            Will Chavez campaign for Edwards also?

            by Hawkjt on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:59:42 AM PDT

        •  Hello VISUAL, SENSORY human being

          No one is focusing on "OPRAH" but you.

          by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:19:17 PM PDT

    •  People with a clue understand it's not about

      Oprah.  No one cares about Oprah endorsing or stumping for anyone.

      SHE ENDORSED OBAMA MONTHS AGO.

      If the TABLOID VIEWS media was as fixated on POLICY POSITIONS as they are on Oprah's empire, the country might be a better place.

      by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:17:16 PM PDT

•  Remember when Oprah bought cars

  for her studio audience? And they all jumped around and screamed and cried and stuff? Don't get me wrong, it's great to be able to drive a new car without having the make the payments--but to get excited about it like it's the second coming or something, that kind of creeps me out. I wonder if Obama is this year's model..

  by Alice in Florida on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:15:28 PM PDT

  •  Are you kidding?

    Can you imagine going to a taping of a show and leaving with a free car?

    Oprah did her big giveaway show in my town this year.  Our commnity has a lot of poverty and many of the women who were given the expensive gift packages Oprah gave them had never been given anything of value in their lives.  In an interview on the show Oprah said, "it's not the things.  The powerful thing is believing that something special can happen to you."

    I thnk she's right.  And I think this diary and the above comments is sour grapes.

    by snout on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:26:32 PM PDT

    •  And those people needed the cars

      They had friends and family who wrote to the show, stating that there cars were very old or had serious problems. Amazing how doing a nice thing gets you mocked by some people.

      by jj32 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:00:55 PM PDT

      •  many had to forfeit them

        as I mentioned a few posts down and you can read all about here

        by sgary on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:45:00 PM PDT

        •  OT. So Pontiac donates the cars, Oprah gives

          them away reaping mega positive publicity, and her production company is going to let say 50 recipients forfeit the cars because is too cheap to make good on the giveaway?  Yikes.

          Thanks.  You always have to pay the taxes, but for Harpo to not make good (at least at that writing) on the publicity is reprehensible.  I hope they did make good.

          by Terra Mystica on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:41:07 PM PDT

    •  I don't like that.

      I wouldn't want a free car.  why doesn't she make a big donation to a local community college or for scholarships so people can get a better education and move into the middle class.. I mean it seems so cheap and easy to just show up and poof!, give away a bunch of stuff and everybody loves you, and then pretend like you've actually solved real problems.

      I am from a community with a lot of poverty too and the powerful thing is not believing that something special can happen to you.  I just don't agree with that.  The powerful thing is believing that you can do things for yourself and not being afraid to try and to persist even when it gets tough.  I know kids I went to school with were every bit as capable as kids in the magnet schools in rich counties downstate.  But most of the time no one taught them to aspire to much of anything and the schools didn't have the resources.  Just waiting for something special to happen, it usually won't.  you may as well play the lottery.

      by daria g on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:11:27 PM PDT

      •  Great comment!

        by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:34:40 PM PDT

      •  She has given millions

        to many charities especially schools and does give scholarship.  She once had a whole show on paying four years of college for many students that had been recommended by others.

        by ronnied on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:35:39 AM PDT

    •  You point to the problem, not the solution.

      This diary is not about Oprah, but rather about how she, and others like her, use their power.  Is it used to inform the electorate or to insinuate the candidate?

      ...The powerful thing is believing that something special can happen to you."

      I would say that this is why the lottery and "expect a miracle" televangelists are so popular.  I hope that this logic/appeal isn't being transferred to Obama as a reason to elect him.  

      I'm not saying this is what is happening with Oprah, but cosbo points out that there is a pretty good potential for some strongly mixed messages with the uber-celebrity approach, at a time when we need clarity and direction in our politics.

      by Terra Mystica on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:31:19 PM PDT

      •  Exactly.

        by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:33:54 PM PDT

  •  Give away a car = get slammed.

    Go figure.

    by citizenx on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:29:51 PM PDT

    •  Well, it's the audience that got slammed.

      Getting all excited about a new car and stuff.

      by Inland on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:32:39 PM PDT

      •  Talk about easily amused.

        by citizenx on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:42:12 PM PDT

      •  Your new-car-stoicism plank

        is noted . . . with some bemusement.

        by LithiumCola on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:55:14 PM PDT

    •  I think the point is that Oprah is big on

      gimmicks, just like the media are.

      by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:23:58 PM PDT

  •  No, no, no...

    Oprah didn't buy a single one of those cars. She merely left people with the impression she did. They were actually donated by GM.

    by MichiganSouthpaw on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:51:55 PM PDT

    •  about those cars

      some people couldn't afford her generosity

      For a brand new Pontiac G-Six, the model given away on the show, the sticker price is $28,500. The $28,500 would need to be claimed as income so, depending on the individuals tax bracket, the tax could be as high as $7,000. And that was after Pontiac agreed to pay most of the local charges, including state sales tax and licensing fees.

      The Harpo Spokeswomen said winners had three choices. They could keep the car and pay the tax, sell the car and pay the tax with the profits or forfeit the car.  

      by sgary on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:57:29 PM PDT

•  Well

  I've just about given up on the ability of any of the hardcore candidate supports to have an honest discussion about this race.

  As to Oprah, ehhh. She is one of, if not THE biggest media celebrity in America. And the rest of the media wants to pick up her ratings scraps by covering her whenever they can. The Oprah-Obama thing is seen as good for ratings, so they make a huge deal out of it.

  Few people agree on the value of endorsements, so I'm not surprised to see a debate here too.

  by eugene on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:15:48 PM PDT

  •  I don't see this as an endorsement

    as much as a door for Obama to wedge a shoe in and make his pitch.

    by Daaaaave on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:24:12 PM PDT

    •  It'll probably hurt him in the end. One of the

      things that hurt Dean was all of the out of staters that came there for him.

      After people finish hearing Chris Matthews' orgasms over Obama/Oprah, I think many Iowans will be sick of the shenanigans.

      by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:26:06 PM PDT

•  Oprah:

  "I'm not here to tell you what to think..."

  No flames, but I'm afraid based on your diary you don't know anything about Oprah's life. I don't watch her show that often (maybe once every couple of months), but there is a reason why so may respect her.

  by turneresq on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:15:50 PM PDT

  •  My two cents...

    There are also many reasons people like me think she's a pompous, self-serving windbag who gets WAY too much credit for being a generous, thoughtful person. I don't think she's ever given away a dime where she didn't have a camera crew following her while she did it. It's part of her business and she makes as much back from it as she gives away. She makes whole episodes of her show out of it. No class if you ask me. Sorry, there it is. And I really don't think she's all the bright. She falls for every snake oil salesperson who comes down the line.

    But then I'm not female. I just don't get women's slavish devotion to her. Women defend her in the same way Republicans defend Bush.

    by MichiganSouthpaw on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:04:01 PM PDT

    •  we women lack your manly insight.

      by byteb on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:09:48 PM PDT

    •  You are owed some change...

      that was not worth 2 cents.

      But then I'm not female. I just don't get women's slavish devotion to her. Women defend her in the same way Republicans defend Bush.

      One of the more asshole'ish statements I've seen here today...and there has been an abundance of stench emitting comments to choose from today.

      Moran.

      by carolinadreamer on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:16:37 PM PDT

      •  You don't like it but it's true

        It's easy to call names and react with both knees jerking, but much harder to prove me wrong. Are you trying to argue that the people who are almost cultish about Oprah, the people you dare not criticize Oprah to, aren't almost exclusively female? Oprah is a female phenomenon. You don't have to like it for it to be true.

        by MichiganSouthpaw on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 07:12:14 AM PDT

•  I hate cantidate diaries

  and if I were the goddess, I limit campaigning  to a few months before the actual voting and expect the candidates to be doing the job they get paid for,

  but hey!!

  That's just me.

  by mariachi mama on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:19:23 PM PDT

  •  Mariachi mama for Goddess!

    Now when's that election?   :)

    by Terra Mystica on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:44:31 PM PDT

•  You are flat out wrong.

  I live in Macon Georgia.  Oprah was here a few weeks ago.  You have no idea how huge an event it was in our town.  For two solid days, I knew exactly where Oprah was and what she was doing at every moment - and I could care less.

  Cosbo - we've had dozens of celebrities and important people in town since I've lived here.  None of tem caused a ripple compared to the tidal wave that was Oprah.

  Streisand may be able to fill up a stadium if she agreed to sing - but hardly anyone would come to hear her talk.  Mellancamp's not i the same league.

  You have no idea how huge Oprah realy is.

  by snout on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:19:33 PM PDT

  •  Okay. So she's huge. So what.

    Makes no difference to my argument.

    by cosbo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:22:53 PM PDT

    •  The rest of your argument...

      ...to be frank, is somewhat incoherent.

      by snout on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:29:02 PM PDT

  •  Anyone can be "huge" after they've been "hyped"

    Television views media: "Oprah, Oprah, Oprah!  Oprah, Oprah, Oprah."

    The initial public response is predictable, just like it was for Obama when he first entered the race, and then lost his luster, which the media started giving to him again a few weeks ago when they decided that they needed a horserace to cover heading into January 3rd.

    In the end, I think the Oprah thing will hurt Obama in Iowa.

    How do rural Iowans feel about the big-wigs in Chicago?

    by framecop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:30:09 PM PDT

    •  Oprah is Oprah, because she's Oprah....

      Anyone can be "huge" after they've been "hyped"

      Bullshit. One of the most childish and asinine comments I read on Dkos is this idea that because someone somebody doesn't know, like, or understand is popular, that somehow it can only be because of some artificial mechanism, conspiracy, or hype.

      I have been in a work situation in the past where I was exposed to Oprah for several years, otherwise I have not spent a lot of time watching her show. Her show and her persona are not really my cup of tea.

      However, Oprah didn't get to be what she is because of media "hype". One of the reasons she is so wealthy is because, when she started her show, she didn't have a whole lot of backing. Most media execs did not think a black woman could do a talk show and be successful with a general audience. She ended up taking all the risk and therefore has much greater ownership over her show than most media figures. She got the big payoff because she went out there, risked it all, worked her ass off and EARNED it. She is truly a self-made success and I respect her for that, even if I don't like her all that much.

      Her show is an expression of herself, whatever that is. She puts herself, her emotions, her idiosyncracies, her beliefs, etc. out there on the line, in public every day. And for some strange reason, a lot of people like that and are dedicated fans. Me, I have no idea why. Maybe her fans respond to her so strongly because they are seeing a real person, with all the warts, emotions, goofiness, inconsistencies, etc.

      Like I said, I am not a fan, and it's a mystery to me why other people are. But I am not so full of myself to dismiss her popularity as unreal or artificial simply because it doesn't agree with my outlook.

      by Azdak on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:42:48 PM PDT

      •  Good post

        you're absolutely right...sometimes the logic around here seems to imply that anything successful or popular involves a conspiracy of MSM motives and control mechanisms...it's rather simplistic and reminds me of being in college and talking about bands: if it's popular it sucks and if they aren't making any money and no one knows about them they're brilliant and groundbreaking.  One doesn't have to buy what the media pushes, but you don't have to not buy it either.  Indeed, I supsect even the most pure-hearted anti-MSM individual buys many things the media pushes.  We all have to eat...we all breathe "polluted" air.

        by hollywood politcaljunkie on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:12:03 PM PDT

      •  Anyone can be "huge" after they've been "hyped"

        If the media was hyping Joe Biden, he'd be up in the 20s in Iowa.

        THE POLLS TREK TELEVISION COVERAGE.

        Look at the national polls.

        They tend to show something like Clinton 36%, Obama 24%, Edwards 13%.

        Look at Pew Research's media coverage numbers that showed how many Democrats knew that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were running based on media coverage.  They were Clinton 82%, Obama 68%, Edwards 31%.

        Most people get their information from the television set.

        I didn't even read most of your post, since you told me first what you were disputing.  

        Information from the television set.
        Polls do nothing but reflect what people HEARD about candidates.

        It's pretty simple.

        by framecop on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:51:30 PM PDT

•  in this context

  the use of "thang" seems jarring, to me, in a way that's, at best, condescending, and at worst, racist.

  by condoleaser on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:22:06 PM PDT

  •  I'm wearing my 'hood right now.