Election Central Morning Roundup

Comments (39)

Karen wrote on September 5, 2007 10:17 AM:

I saw Oprah on the "Ellen" show the other day and when first asked about the race, Oprah made a mild Obama endorsement and it seemed like she didn't want to say much. Then, a second question and she came out with a very strong statement for why she's supporting Obama. She really wanted to say it and she did.

There are so many Clinton surrogates on TV all the time who constantly talk up this very problematic candidate (Clinton) as though she is a strong candidate. When the Republican nominee is clear, he'll get a huge boost in the polls and a lot of money.

Corinne wrote on September 5, 2007 10:32 AM:

Here's what should scare people about Oprah Winfrey's involvement with the Obama campaign: Voters will substitute her judgment for their own.

How can we have an informed electorate that doesn't want to do the work of learning about a candidate? She's only going to present him in the best light and do the voters benefit from that?

Given that Oprah has made a few political blunders of her own, most notably using her program to market the Iraq war, is her judgment any better than our own?

CalD wrote on September 5, 2007 10:37 AM:

Why did it take Rudy Giuliani to make this point. The politically driven cock-up that was the Homeland Security act has faded into history with people trying their best to make do with it ever since, but if intervening events have proven anything it's that it still desperately needs to be fixed. In typical Giuliani fashion though, he's got it ass backwards (again).

FEMA was only included in DHS as one of the ways to take a Democratic idea and turn it into an idea so bad that Democrats could not in good conscience vote for it, thereby enabling Republicans to point fingers and claim Democrats didn't want to "protect America." FEMA (with its focus on bolstering civilian first responders) needs to be taken back out of DHS (sorry, Rudy) and put back the way it was when it worked really well. I really think all the Democrats could be missing an opportunity to claim some high ground on national security there. This is a fight we ought to be having.

NCSteve wrote on September 5, 2007 10:38 AM:

It amazes me that this story managed to avoid mentioning a basic fact: Oprah's audience overlaps the demographic segment where Obama is weakest and Hillary is strongest--women with less than four years of college. If Obama doesn't move a big chunk of that segment from her column to his, he is going to have a hard time beating her.

But I wonder (i.e. truly don't know but would like to) how many of Hillary's key supporters within that demographic, i.e. single and divorced working women without a college degree, actually watch Oprah. If they have day jobs, they'd have to timeshift it. I also have to admit that I understand Hillary's appeal to that segment of the electorate--if I were in their shoes, she'd be my hero. I've got to wonder if they can be pursuaded to switch by anything.

No doubt Obama and Edwards people have been doing a lot of polling and focus grouping on that very topic, but we'll probably never get a look at the data. We can probably only make guesses about the findings based on what the candidates do, unless the campaigns leak it.

elrapierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 10:48 AM:

You can always tell a Hillary supporter, they attack the messenger every single time.

Surely, Oprah supporting the troops, cannot be spun as her 'marketing the Iraq war' not when it is Hillary's vote that is the reason we are even at war.

Had Hillary excerised her national platform of 'experience' as a First Lady she could have rallied the nation to oppose the war and she could have outed the lies the administration was telling if she had read the NIE report.

No one has marketed the Iraq war more than Hilliary who actually supported the Bush meme of 'stay the course' who told us that the 'surge is working' and who said 'america is safer'.

If Oprah marketed the war...Hillary was the PR company who created the national ads promoting Bush's policies and who chose fearmongering over leadership.

I will vote for Oprah and Obama over the warhawk fearmongerer Hillary Clinton with all that First Lady experience, she failed to represent this country in the Senate and all that First Lady experience will not represent this country in the WH.

Hillary is a loser. A sore loser at that.

Whereas Oprah knows what it is like for someone not to back you based on them believing you lack experience. Oprah was hired to take on Phil Donohue who was the leading king of talk shows and they refused to pay her a salary that was competitive to the market she was taking on. So Oprah bet on herself, she accepted their lousy salary on the condition that she receive 10% of the syndicate revenues and rights in every market her show was broadcast in. They agreed.
The rest is history...she is a billionaire.

A billionaire because she bet on herself when the 'experts in broadcasting and talk shows' wouldn't.

Barack is up agains the same thing...he is a winner up against the Clinton machine and based on experience he is said to not be ready.

Oprah knows potential when she sees it, and has a track record of doing so....she knows Barack is ready and that all of Hillary's experience is no match for his judgment and leadership. Barack is a visionary and experience is not the bar to measure that.

Oprah has visionaries on her show weekly, they do wonderful things in the country and around the globe.

Oprah has not voted to fund the war nor has she voted to send this country to war...Hillary did...and the only politician with the vision to know it was a DUMB war was Barack.

Obama is the future and Hillary is the past.

elrapierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 11:12 AM:

NC Steve,

The reason women of that demographic follow Oprah is because she beleives in empowerment of women and she tells them how to take control of their lives and derive emotional satisfaction no matter what the hurdles are in life.

Not to mention it is typically women of that demographic who Oprah helps. Remember how she gave all those cars away? Those were to working and primarily single parent females. She did several shows about Your Wildest Dreams and most of those women who were recipients of their wildest hopes and dreams coming true were again, women who worked hard for a living and to support their kids.

BTW the biggest reason they can watch her show is that it is rebroadcast at around 10-12midnight daily as well as being on the Oxygen channel....and if nothing else you can get your Oprah dose by using your VCR!!

Women love Oprah, Oprah backs winners, and she calls out hypocrites. I do not think it would be too far fetched to say that while Oprah loves Bill Clinton...she is not all that enamored of HRClinton. They might be married but they are NOT the same people at all, particularly when it comes to matters of the heart, giving and empowering the spirit of others.

HRClinton just falls far short of those lofty attributes and Barack has them in spades.

Oprah reaches kindred spirits and her audience knows that. Folks can call it followers if they like but what it is that Oprah's messages resonate with them spiritually just like Obama's messages do.

There is no other candidate who brings out the masses like Oprah with 10 and 20 thousand people showing up to listen. Obama alone has that visionary leadership and the oratorical ability to inspire the masses.

He knows how to fight for what he believes in and if America will just give him a chance he will fight for all those things that our embodied in our US Constitution and Bill of Rights...integrity, justice, liberty, freedom, dignity and the right to pursue happiness.

Hillary has not even gone to New Orleans on the anniversary of Katrina...which is a glaring issue to folks who watch Oprah.

hadenough wrote on September 5, 2007 11:14 AM:

"elrapierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 10:48 AM:
You can always tell a Hillary supporter, they attack the messenger every single time."

You can always tell an obamavangelist, nothing is too dumb to type in.

Austin Cooper wrote on September 5, 2007 11:18 AM:

Winfrey's strong endorsement of any candidate would not be a positive factor in the candidate's favor, to me.

Oprah Winfrey supported the invasion of Iraq, and used her particular media pulpit to sell it. I thought that was represhensible. People died as a result.

But, it's true; she does have her money. Perhaps she could give the family of each serviceperson killed in Iraq an automobile?

Corinne wrote on September 5, 2007 11:18 AM:

Anyone who sings Oprah's praises should remember this example of her "good judgment":

Bush was trailing Gore in the polls by 10 percentage points, and struggled particularly with women voters. Then he went on "Oprah" and the rest, as they say, is history.

Barack Obama, since being elected to the Senate, never met an Iraq funding bill he didn't like and his voting record is nearly identical to Hillary Clinton's. Nor has he been a regular profile in courage for bringing the Iraq War to an end.

Although he and Hillary did vote against a war funding bill in May neither one was exactly out in front leading the way, either:

"Both were among the last dozen or so to vote; Obama slipped in quietly onto the Senate floor at close to 8:45 p.m., said hi to some colleagues, approached the desk, quietly said "No," and left."

Oh yeah, he's the future.

Daniel wrote on September 5, 2007 11:29 AM:

Thompson reminds many observers of Wesley Clark in '04. He was pushed in the race by people who thought their party's field was weak; he was surrounded with intense speculation starting in the spring, but chose to stay put until the fall, leading many to question whether he had passed his window of opportunity; and he finally entered the race when voters were already started to commit to other candidates and feel more comfortable with Dean, thereby reducing the Clark campaign's rationale. Thompson appears to have the same problems at this point: Why did not enter sooner? At this point, many conservatives feel more comfortable with Romney than they did at the beginning of the summer, and Giuiliani has spent a few more months on top, with the advantages front-runner status brings you.

More analysis at Campaign Diaries.

zk0sm0 wrote on September 5, 2007 11:43 AM:

corinne: forgive me if i find it impossible to take your 'concern' seriously. while an uninformed (and easily manipulated) electorate is a persistent challenge in our democracy, i fail to see how oprah's endorsement of and campaigning for a particular candidate is any different from anyone else endorsing and campaigning for a particular candidate. the whole point and purpose of endorsing and campaigning for candidates is to influence those voters who might be influenced by your position, stature, and values. those who would be persuaded by oprah to vote for obama are no different than those who would be persuaded to vote for clinton based on who endorses and campaigns for her.

sounds to me that your concern has more to do with who she has endorsed and just how influential her endorsement can be.

Eric Kleefeld wrote on September 5, 2007 11:46 AM:

elrapierwit:

The reason women of that demographic follow Oprah is because she beleives in empowerment of women and she tells them how to take control of their lives and derive emotional satisfaction no matter what the hurdles are in life.

If you need somebody to tell you how to take control of your life, how much autonomy can you really achieve?

zk0sm0 wrote on September 5, 2007 11:56 AM:

eric:

telling someone HOW to take control is educating, not controlling.

zk0sm0 wrote on September 5, 2007 12:01 PM:

if i need someone to tell me how to use judo for self-defense, would you question how well i'd really be able to defend myself??

(not to belabor the point or come to oprah's defense any more than i already have.)

NCSteve wrote on September 5, 2007 12:05 PM:

elrapierwit,

didn't know Oprah was on at night. That's useful info. Thanks.

Corinne,

Funny how you failed to mention that Hillary waited to see how Obama voted on that bill before casting her own vote.

Erik,

What zk0sm0 said. But, also, doesn't your comment tend to call into question the primary motivation of a lot of Hillary's supporters in the demographic slice we're talking about?

DonnaG wrote on September 5, 2007 12:09 PM:

Eric Kleefeld said, "If you need somebody to tell you how to take control of your life, how much autonomy can you really achieve?"

Sorry, but that is such a bizarre statement.

How much autonomy can be achieved in any other life endeavor after being taught process steps and after being inspired by a good teacher? How different is it to teach the steps in algebra, say, than to teach the steps in self-awareness?

zk0sm0 wrote on September 5, 2007 12:23 PM:

full disclosure: i have for many years now openly shared my conviction that oprah is in fact a cyborg created by a covert entity within the united states gov't to gain the trust - and ultimately the slavish obedience - of a large enough segment of the american people to (when the time is ripe) swing the balance of power toward an unseemly end (something on the scale of say, the third reich's final solution). not sure though how obama fits into the plot...

;)

kjoe wrote on September 5, 2007 12:34 PM:

Has Oprah ever interviewed Juanita Broaddrick?

I wonder if she ever thinks about some of the serious issues of Bill Clinton's sexual aggression---and the look the other way attitudes of Al Gore and Hillary.

elrapierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 12:37 PM:

Austin,

What exactly are you saying Oprah did to promote the war?

corinne wrote on September 5, 2007 12:39 PM:

NCSteve I think you need your eyes checked, son:

"Although he and Hillary did vote against a war funding bill in May neither one was exactly out in front leading the way, either"

But since you want to get technical, "Only seconds later, Clinton did the same."

Doesn't change the fact that he's not the paragon of virtue people like to think he is.

elrpaierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 12:56 PM:

Corinne,

Hillary's voting record now matches that of all the people in Congress who voted against the war.

No one switched to Hillary's position.

Hillary switched to the winning and right position.

Obama did not need to switch as he was right from the jump.

Hillary lacks leadership her position on the war runs parallel to the polls. If the majority of the public was for the war based on lies, Hillary saw nothing wrong with supporting the war. Hillary could not be bothered to have a manifest conscience and use all of her First Lady experience to oppose the war with her national platform as a US Senator on the Armed Services committee. Not Hillary, she simply looked to see what way the polls were leaning and she voted accordingly. Which is what First Lady's do. They follow what is the politically correct for their spouse's administration. They are not leaders.

Just as she is doing now with the funding.She followed Barack, she waited to see how he would vote before she cast her vote. You see the people who were opposed to the war understand that even if you are pro-choice, once the baby is born...it has to be supported fed and clothed. Our troops cannot be the scapegoat for Hillary's misjudgement...we have to fund the troops and support them, even if you were against the war to begin with. Not doing so would be irresponsible. Like Hillary was from jump by not reading the NIE report. By not standing up for the American people and opposing the war and telling the nation it was a pack of lies. She did not use her First Lady experience in the best interest of the nation. She used it to further her political ambitions. The lives of those Americans did not matter to her.

You see Hillary simply lacks leadership...she only follows the polls. All of that First Lady experience she touts simply means more of the status quo..cause Hillary has not once been a leader on anything.

Oops, that's right she was given a leadership role in her husband's administration. She took on the massive complex problem of universal health care and she failed miserably. Why? Because she lacks leadership skills and the courage of conviction to stand for what is right. To fight for what is just even if it is not popular. Hillary is a follower. And now she wants us to put her in the WH. So, she can use that First Lady experience to tackle another massive complex problem, bringing our troops home, securing the peace and engaging the ME in diplomacy. Only an idiot would beleive she is capable of managing anything.

It is so obvious she lacks the ability to do that. Her track record in the Senate, her failure to do anything of substance as a First Lady all show us that. When she was in ARK she was not even president of the PTA, but she sat on the WalMart board. The board required no leadership but the PTA would have.

First Lady experience is not what this country needs in the presidency. She is even whinning to Bill about how he was 15 years younger when he was on the trail..well I am with Bill's reply...'no one told you to run girl' only I would put it more succintly .'sit your ass down. The whole nation will be better off.'

We need leadership, courage and conviction. Three things Hillary has not shown she is capable of doing.

We want a future not nostalgia and we need someone with the vision to do so not a conventional wrong thinking First Lady experienced follower in the WH.

elrapierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 1:00 PM:

Corinne,
Barack has not claimed to be a paragon of anything.

Hillary claims to be strong on experience, so how come she needs to follow Baracks lead when it comes to voting?

After all, Hillary is the SENIOR senator, Barack is a rookie that she considers 'naive and inexperienced'

So why the heck should she have to follow his vote at all.

Barack showed her up is what he did, he waited deliberately to exposure her lack of leadership to the last few moments to vote. Knowing she would have to be monitoring and have a proxy there to cast the vote for her that went with his.

I suppose she does have a record like Baracks now when it comes to voting...she follows his judgment...as she knows not to trust her own.

sam224n wrote on September 5, 2007 2:15 PM:

I look forward to seeing Hillary become the first woman president. She will not become GOD, only president. Meaning there will be missteps and mistakes made. All of her decisions may not be "perfect" but at least I think she will be honest with us and work in America's best interest. Hillary has her strengths and weaknesses, so does Obama. At this time I choose Hillary. Why all this talk about lack of leadership and who followed who in voting. If she didn't have leadership skills, she would not be where she is today. She may not be your choice but at least tell us what your candidate is for instead of trying to tear another candidate down. You will never convince me (or a lot of others) to vote against Hillary but you may convince me to vote for someone else.

Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 2:21 PM:

elrapierwit, watch the Bill Moyers' documentary, "Selling The War". That would be a good place to start.

No offense, today I'm not in a mood to do anyone's research for them. Winfrey lent a very powerful voice to spreading the administration's utter lies about WMD's and nuclear weapons -- not just through a single program (which Moyers shows in the documentary), but several.

Winfrey's never said, "I was mistaken... I was wrong... I contributed to the government selling a war with lies". Never recanted her behavior. From that, I have to assume she's still a supporter of the war.

My opinion, she's reprehensible. I'm very tired of the cheerleaders, especially the richest ones, walking away from their public acts, scott-free.

...And I'm still waiting for her to start giving away those automobiles. She could start with specially-equipped ones, built for multiple amputees.

Austin Cooper wrote on September 5, 2007 2:23 PM:

elrapierwit, sorry; the Anonymous above is me.

evan wrote on September 5, 2007 3:35 PM:

elrapierwit wrote:

Hillary switched to the winning and right position.

Obama did not need to switch as he was right from the jump.

Argh! I'm not a Hillary supporter (I support Edwards), but it drives me CRAZY when Obama fans claim he was anti-war from the start, whereas Hillary voted for the war. It's a cheap trick - like comparing apples to oranges. Obama wasn't in the Senate when the vote took place, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to conclude that he would not have voted for the war. Do you honestly believe that a new, young, untested senator would have taken such a stand when so many of his collegues didn't? I can't say for sure that he would have voted FOR the war, but at the same time, there is no legitimacy to the assertion that he would have voted against it either. Politicians consider numerous factors in deciding how to vote on particular bills, and don't always vote based solely on what they believe in. Sad, but true. So please stop with the self-righteousness. Obama may have some good qualities, but geez - his supporters (particularly the ones on this forum) make it sound like he is the most honest, sincere, do-gooding politician to ever roam this planet. Please. Look at his voting record so far. He's just like all the rest.

elra[pierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 3:42 PM:

Anonymous

I was not asking for research. I was asking for some actual evidence to support the assertions being made. Nonewithstanding your mood.

No one can claim to have promoted this war more than Hillary who actually voted for it.

I know that Hillary will NOT be accusing Oprah of promoting the war when Oprah is backing Barack and she most certainly won't be bringing up Oprah issuing any apology of saying it was a mistake. That would just be too hypocritical..Hillary would be laughed at.

Oprah has enough money to show every single soundbite that Hillary made on the lead up to the war and all that she failed to do to prevent going to war. Including read the NIE report.

The most reprehensible people are the candidates who voted for the war and that means Hillary is the number one ringleader.

Given that no one on the thread is providing any evidence of the scurrilous accusations about Oprah 'promoting' the war I will have to consider it nothing but inflammatory rhetoric from TeamHillary.

BTW, You must not watch Oprah. She gave away the automobiles at the opening of the season last year or year before last..I forgot which..it was headline news.

elrapierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 3:45 PM:

Austin
I have no clue what you and anonymous are talking about. I goggled Oprah 'selling the war' and this is what I found:

The few public figures who had the guts and brains to oppose the war before it happened deserve credit for it because at the time it truly did require bravery for a public figure. - Ian

I found this fascinating information on-line:

Oprah did more to try to prevent America from going to war than anyone else in mainstream media. As early as the Fall of 2001 she did a show called "Is War the Only Answer?" Unfortunately that shows sparked the worst and most vicious hate mail of her career. Then a few months later when she declined an invitation to go to Afghanistan with Bush, people were furious that she would defy a sitting president during a time of war. All of this made her extremely fearful to dissent and for a while her show was extremely careful not to be seen as unpatriotic and she even allowed pro-war voices to appear on her show. But in October 2002 a woman in her audience questioned the propaganda the media was feeding them. At first Oprah thought the woman was a bit nutty and dismissed her, but a few weeks later she decided the woman was right.

By November 2002, Oprah gathered enough courage to do a show challenging her audience to question their government's foreign policy. The show was praised by anti-war activist Michael Moore and he was so impressed he begged Oprah to run for president. Then on February 6 & 7 2003, while the rest of the media was praising Collin Powell's United Nation's speech, Oprah told her audience that now more than ever was the time to speak out. It was a crucial time to speak out because public opinion had been against the war prior to Powell's speech. Oprah showed clips from average people all over the world begging America not to go to war. She showed clips of Nelson Mandella & Pope John Paul II denouncing war. She interviewed the founder of Patriots for Peace. She hosted a debate between Thomas Friedman and anti-war activist Jessica Mathews who informed her audience that there were no links between Saddam and Al Quada & even Friedman conceded that Iraq was not a security threat to the U.S. And the end of the debate Oprah agreed with Mathews that the case for war had not been made. The show was so anti-war that it was allegedly taken off the air half way through in some markets.

Amazingly Oprah continued to air dissent right up until 2 days before the war began. On March 18, 2003 she invited anti-war Middle East professor Fawaz Gerges and spent an entire segment showing shocking antiwar clips from Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine followed by anti-war commentary from Moore.

Oprah did everything in her power short of career suicide to prevent a war. Donahue spoke out against war too, but he had a tiny audience on MSNBC. Oprah was the ONLY major media to join the anti-war movement and she deserves an enormous amount of credit for that. Not only is she a symbol of the American dream and the most philanthropic African-American of all time, but she was on the right side of history too.

Karen wrote on September 5, 2007 4:07 PM:

kjoe wrote on September 5, 2007 12:34 PM:
"Has Oprah ever interviewed Juanita Broaddrick?

I wonder if she ever thinks about some of the serious issues of Bill Clinton's sexual aggression---and the look the other way attitudes of Al Gore and Hillary."

This is a good point. People who are supposedly advocates for women, even organizations, go along with this bizarre, "Bill Clinton is so irresistible any woman would throw herself at him" notion. Ergo, the woman must be telling a lie and its never necessary to even ask Bill Clinton for his version. What is his version of the incident in which Paula Jones claims he sent a state trooper to bring her to his hotel room where he propositioned her for sex? Clinton has never had to recount his version of what happened yet people have written books claiming that something "consensual" happened (and thus, its perfectly OK for a governor to send a state trooper to bring him a young state employee).

If Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were really champions of women's rights and opportunities, they'd have demanded to know the truth, too, as would all of the Democrats in the Congress.

elrapierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 4:11 PM:

Evan,

Please read what is being contended. No one, and certainly not I, suggested Obama voted for the war. However, others are trying to assert that because Hillary has switched her voting to support the same thing as the REST of Congress who DID vote AGAINST the war, that somehow means that Barack also would have voted for the war.

The truth is that Hillary has switched her position and her voting pattern reflects that. Hillary is following the lead of those who got it right the first time. She is the follower.

As far as Hillary having leadership skills making it possible for her to be where she is that is completely false. Hillary is only where she is because she is MRS. William J, Clinton...period. Otherwise, she would not even be a contender. That is not called leadership skills it is called 'who you marry'.The role of FirstLady is no experience for the Presidency and certainly not a showcase for leadership. Even if we discard the FirstLady years there has not been any leadership from Hillary as a US Senator. So, it is who she is married to and not her leadership on any issue that enables her to be a presidential candidate. Hillary could have gone on Oprah and opposed the war when Oprah aired shows questioning the war. Not Hillary, you see, that would have been leadership.

No one has contended that Obama is a do-gooder in this forum. What you read here is that Hillary has not demonstrated leadership which is in direct response to the ad she just released touting that she will lead us. And that happens to be the thread topic.

Hillary has not lead on any issues, whether it is Iraq, energy or healthcare which were all in that ad. It is fair to question the dubious and wholly false claims she is making by pointing to her lack of a track record of leading on any issue. Particularly, those she is talking about in her new 'change' ad.

Telling us that Hillary's record of voting matches Obama is not saying anything other than she is trying to make up for her repeated errors in judgment by now voting with all the votes who were right to the first time. Hillary is trying to piggyback on all the others who were leaders and who did have good judgment.

This is no cheap trick, all you need to know is that Obama had the same information as Hillary since Hillary failed to read the NIE report. The individuals who read the NIE report in the Senate voted against the AUMF. John Edwards sat on the intelligence committee at the time and he voted for the war as well.

No cheap trick at all. The cheap trick was Hillary with her grandstanding letterwriting to Gates and trying to coerce Senator Levin to back her to demand for an exit strategy for the war from the Pentagon FOUR YEARS LATER. It is a real cheap trick to ask for an exit strategy AFTER voting for the war. It is an even cheaper trick to vote against the committe chair Carl Levin, and then turn around and try to score political points today by demanding he use his power as chair to support her letterwriting campaign.

The only person playing cheap tricks is Hillary as well as those people who do not know what all she has failed to do to represent this country and how she has extremely incompetent leadership skills. Hillary is nothing but a powermonger. She works for political power, not right or wrong, just power. If it wasn't so impolite I would say she IS a cheap trick.

pacc wrote on September 5, 2007 4:18 PM:

People who live their lives according to the gospel of Oprah, need to get a life. She's a talk show host, for goodness sakes, and a bit of a flake at that.

Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 4:33 PM:

elrapierwit,

Right.

Try this (FMG On Demand):

http://www.fmgondemand.com/PortalViewVideo.aspx?tid=13751&loid=45785

And This (A Tiny Revolution):

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001441.html

And, if you can, please annotate your sources -- not always possible, but...

elrapierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 4:47 PM:

I just wasn't in the mood to provide links, Anonymous...you know how that is, right?

DonnaG wrote on September 5, 2007 4:56 PM:

Kudos to you, elraplerwit, for cleaning up the smear Austin Cooper [aka Anonymous] tried to inject.

Austin said, "No offense, today I'm not in a mood to do anyone's research for them.", after you asked for information to back up his unsupported claim against Oprah.

I suppose that Austin is not 'in the mood' to do his own research, either, now that you have countered him so well with facts. My guess is that he popped in to do an attack, but isn't interested in dealing in facts.

elrapierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 5:01 PM:

Hey annonymous,

Here is the blurb from Moyers show:
Bill Moyers Journal: Buying the War
Selling the War on Oprah (01:02)

In 2002 Oprah Winfrey dedicated an episode of her popular television show to warn America of Iraq's threat to the United States. During the program Winfrey interrupted and dismissed a guest who tried to express doubts about the Iraqi threat.

This incident was covered in the post previous to this by me, the last 2 sentences in the 4th paragraph.

Oprah did dismiss the woman at first as a nut and then decided she should air a show and in November of 2002 she did so. She had simply been frightened by the unprecedented amount of hate mail she recieved after airing Is WAR the ANSWER in the fall of 2001

So your meme about Oprah selling the war, is being distorted out of context...and even Moyers did not follow up on what Oprah did subsequent to that day.

I think you should retract your assertion and you should send Moyers a letter telling him how he distorted Oprahs' position on the war. She opposed the war from the jump just like Barack.

Unlike Kristol, Krauthammer, Safire, Woolsey and Beinart who were wrong and still are used as experts on the war on TV.

Oprah and Obama were right...neither of them supported the war EVER!

kjoe wrote on September 5, 2007 5:08 PM:

Thank you Karen. I want you to know, I am not some right-wing nutcase----If Hillary is nominated, I will vote for her. I think Edwards is being dishonest with his healthcare plan, but I will vote for him if he is nominated.

Obama is the one I will vote for in the primaries, and his lack of focus regarding healthcare disappoints me.

The right wing is holding back on Hillary until what they are assuming will be her nomination. They will hit her hard, they will hit her dirty, and they will probably have some things of substance.

What they will not do is engage her very much on issues like education, health, and the environment. They will be forced to do that a lot more with Edwards and Obama.

elrpaierwit wrote on September 5, 2007 5:22 PM:

Anonymous,
This is from your second link:

Today, Oprah Winfrey started a two-part series focusing on the impending U.S. war on Iraq. About halfway through the show the broadcast was pre-empted by coverage of Pres. George Bush, with Colin Powell at his side, reading a prepared statement on Iraq. The coincidental timing of this pre-emptive press statement raised immediate questions about the motives of the White House war strategists.

Students of the Civil Rights Movement will recall an incident in 1964 when activist Fannie Lou Hamer sat before a live television audience and gave a riveting account of the oppression she and other Blacks faced in the South. President Lyndon Johnson was so convinced of the power of her appeal to undermine his own political/racial agenda, that he hastily called a press conference to pull cameras away from Hamer’s impassioned revelations. Though the networks pre- empted Hamer’s testimony to cover the president, the newscasts later showed her entire presentation.

The pre-emption of Winfrey’s show today should be seen in the same light. Oprah’s audience is a vast and powerful—but largely apolitical—force of middle-class white women. It is likely that most did not watch Colin Powell’s live testimony at the U.N. yesterday. In fact, it is likely that this huge audience was being oriented to the issues of the Iraq war for the first time. It is unlikely that they treated this show with anything but intense propaganda interest.

The first 30 minutes of the show was decidedly anti-war and highlighted not only worldwide unanimity in opposition to the war but presented many of the heretofore unheard voices of ordinary people speaking forcefully against Bush’s motives. CNN assisted the Oprah Show by presenting overseas confirmation of this from Great Britain and Iraq. For instance, the British correspondent said at one point that it was hard to find anyone in Britain EXCEPT TONY BLAIR that supported the war. Other voices repeated their conclusion that the war is “for oil,” not “against terrorism.”

Those familiar with the Bush administration’s network cheerleaders at ABC, NBC, and CBS would, no doubt, view this expose’ with raised eyebrows. Then, without warning or introduction, Bush is seen at the podium reiterating Powell’s statement at the U.N. yesterday! One immediately had to assume that Bush was actually declaring war on Iraq, given the urgency of this interruption.

Soon, however, it became clear that OPRAH herself was the target of this sabre-rattling and not Saddam Hussein. Bush simply summarized Powell’s presentation for Oprah’s audience, hitting key emotional points for this afternoon women’s gathering. He said nothing more of any import at all. Returning to the show, 15 or so minutes later, found still more impassioned, but reasoned, anti-war input from members of Oprah’s audience.

There was indeed a balance of pro-war input but the net effect of the show—in spite of Bush’s strategic Johnsonian interruption—was to embolden the anti-war voices and to make opposition to the war as “patriotic” a position as that of the warmongers. What we just saw was a replay of an old propaganda ploy of an ol’ Texas politician, Lyndon Baines Johnson, against the scarecropper’s daughter from Mississippi, Fannie Lou Hamer. In 1964, enough of Hamer’s message was heard to force Johnson into acting against his own political desires. Bush’s ploy in 2003 may have backfired as well.

bjobotts wrote on September 5, 2007 8:01 PM:

So Craig orchestrated the whole "intent" to resign as a media ploy. Can these creeps be any phonier?
The more his personality comes out the more pathectic he shows himself to be.

It's refreshing to know that whatever the Democratic candidates come out with Kucinich has already been there and done that. He's the perfect candidate the other candidates pretend doesn't exist because they can't compare with him on records, issues, or ideas. The man is just amazing and I'm glad there is finally a candidate out there that typifies the American ideal. And since "electability" is not an issue in this presidential campaign, thanks to the Horror of the Bush administration and the ridiculous Gop yahoo hopefuls, whoever wins the democratic nomination will be the next president, we can finally get a candidate based solely on his abilities and qualifications and not popularity. Just in time we get Kucinich...excellent.
Kucinich/Edwards '08...the truth ticket. They don't owe any lobbyists and can't be bought.

Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 9:54 PM:

Evan,

When the guy was running for Senate, in a year when anyone who even dared to suggest the war might be a mistake was being called "insane" and "America hater" and all that other crazy crap the Republicans were smearing around, Obama said this:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

(A speech, by the way, that is perfectly consistent with the positions he's taken in this campaign, even the ones that the left wing of the Party have attacked him for.)

Did he take a risk in that election by giving this speech? Possibly not given the meltdown of his opposition, but he took a huge risk in terms of his long term political prospects. It was a risk Hillary was unwilling to take.

Is it possible he would have voted differently if he'd actually been in office at the time? Anything's possible. But if he had, it wouldn't have been because he was scared of what it would do to his long term political prospects.

Maybe those who believe Hillary's vote for the war was an act of triangulating calculation rather than conviction do her an injustice. But she has yet to show me anything that makes me believe it was anything but that.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)