Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 20, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

First Solar Bread Oven Takes a Bow
Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Arts and Culture

Oprah Stumps for Obama at S.C. Stadium Rally

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 10, 2007
Obama and Oprah
AP photo / Gerry Broome

Obama-o-rama:  Barack Obama fires up the crowd in Columbia, S.C., as Oprah Winfrey looks on.

If Oprah Winfrey can do for politicians what she’s done for books and for any number of consumer items on her “Favorite Things” lists, Barack Obama might have a serious shot at the White House next November.  Oprah held court on Sunday at a South Carolina stadium filled with nearly 30,000 Obama supporters, a giant pep rally that “had the feel of a rock concert,” according to Associated Press reporter Seanna Adcox.


AP:

Winfrey, who also campaigned for Obama on Saturday in Iowa, offered a touch of talk show-like advice during a 17-minute speech. “There are those who say it’s not his time, that he should wait his turn. Think about where you’d be in your life if you’d waited when people told you to,” she said.

“I’m sick of politics as usual,” Winfrey said. “We need Barack Obama.”

A recent AP-Pew Research poll has New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton leading in South Carolina with 45 percent of likely Democratic primary voters, followed by Obama’s 31 percent. The two candidates break even on the black vote here, and that’s where Winfrey’s appeal could become a factor—along with her pull among women.

Obama, during his address, criticized the Bush administration and took several veiled swipes at Clinton, though never referenced his rival by name.

Read more


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Crackerjack, December 27, 2007 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

I just hate playing this whole race card thing b/c it just sucks all the way around.  But if Obama were a white man (i.e. John Edwards) Oprah wouldn’t give him the time of day.  This is not about Oprah’s fight for the middle class.  This is all about Oprah needing a black man to be the President.

Report this

By cyrena, December 16, 2007 at 11:34 pm Link to this comment

#120506 by Alex


Alex,

I really DO get you on this. There are lots of articulate people of color, if that’s all this was about. I agree on the Oprah part as well.

Meantime, I didn’t know about this..from Jimmy Johnson…

#120443 by Jimmy Johnson


•  Dr. Paul’s suggestion that we withdraw as the world’s policeman, and put 15 U. S. military bases in each of the 50 states, letting those millions of dollars circulate in our economy sounds very attractive economically.

I didn’t know about it because I do my very best to avoid anything connected with Ron Paul. (One can only take so much, without becoming totally nauseated)

But THIS!!! oh my God. I had no idea he was planning on setting up 15 US bases in EACH of the 50 states!! You’re trying to give me another heart attack Jimmy!!

Well, that takes care of all of those articulate people of color we were talking about. OMIGOD. Is this tied-in to the detention centers that are currently being constructed for all of us? The ones that are supposedly for illegal aliens, but will actually be for any people of color, articulate or otherwise, and any of you white folks that dare to defy Dr Paul, or anyone else via civil disobedience?

Shit! It just keeps getting worse. Nope, we don’t need 15 US military bases in each of the 50 states. We just need to bring our troops home, and try to mend the ones that we can. If he wants to put some extra military HOSPITALS in some states, we’ll do that. Now, how does he plan to fund them? He against these sort of ‘social welfare programs’, like taking care of our troops when they return. He’s against ANYTHING that will benefit the ills of our society at large.

Well, that takes care of all of those articulate people of color we were talking about.  Is this tied-in to the detention centers that are currently being constructed for all of us? The ones that are supposedly for illegal aliens, but will actually be for any people of color, articulate or otherwise?,

#120110 by Martian


•  I’m pretty sure we’re gonna be held responsible for assisting this newly freed country so, my question is, “for how long?”

Martian,

The plan by Biden is just another imperialistic plan, that will NOT assist the Iraqis, since it’s already made them hate us more. It’s the arrogance of the US having already decided, (based on Bidens plan) how to divide them up. That’s NOT a plan.

The only plan, for any assistance to Iraq, is to LEAVE THERE, and then let THEM tell US, what help they may or may not want. It’s such an arrogance on our part, (and Bidens) to decide what’s best for them, and there’s no way to consider them a ‘newly freed’ country, if we’re calling the shots. And, more than enough Iraqis have made that crystal clear, if anybody would LISTEN to them.

So, since they aren’t stupid, and since they know how to manage their natural resources well enough without us locking them up in little mini Gaza’s, (like Israel long ago did to the Palestinians, and what the US has already built in Iraq) we need to let THEM put their country back together. And, that’s the ONE reason that I can think of, that Biden is such bad news, which I realized as soon as he introduced HIS ‘plan’ for them. (and so did they – once those cement structures started closing in on them).

So, if you actually are concerned about the ‘how long’, it’ll be forever, even with Biden.

I think we have to get away from this claim of ‘assisting’ them. We haven’t yet. If it comes down to them needing money, let Oprah give it to ‘em.

Better if we just let them keep their own oil, and sell it as an independent nation to whomever wants to buy it.

Report this

By Alex, December 16, 2007 at 1:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When Mr. Obama begins to talk about the repeal of: bankruptcy law, no child left behind law, patriot act, military commisions act, doing something about the crime of New Orleans/Katrina, ending the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately/support the troops by bringing them back to USA, impeachment, THEN and ONLY then will I pay him any attention. So far, he talks and talks and says nothing. So he is an articulate man of color. I am USED TO SEEING ARTICULATE PEOPLE OF COLOR- so I am not impressed by that.As for Ms. Winfrey, she interests me on no level.

Report this

By Jimmy Johnson, December 15, 2007 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It seems to me, that black or white, Dr. Ron Paul has more answers than all other candidates about Iraq!.  We should never have gone to war there, and now that we recognize our huge mistake, get out and bring our troops home.  Dr. Paul’s suggestion that we withdraw as the world’s policeman, and put 15 U. S. military bases in each of the 50 states, letting those millions of dollars circulate in our economy sounds very attractive economically.

Report this

By Martian, December 14, 2007 at 12:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What bothers me about Both Clinton and Obama is their potential to draw voters who are going to vote for them simply because either she’s a women or because he’s a Black man.

Neither Obama nor Clinton talk of what we (U.S) are going to with Iraq after we withdraw.. It’s the same message.. Bring the troops home, bring the troops home.. But then what? I’m pretty sure we’re gonna be held responsible for assisting this newly freed country so, my question is, “for how long?”

As a Black man, Obama is interesting. But as much as I would LOVE to see him in the white house, I just may end up voting for another white man. And it appears that Biden is the only candidate who is at least offering a long term solution for Iraq/US.

What’s interesting about Oprah’s “we need change!” statement is that I’ve NEVER heard her voice any political opinion on her show or elsewhere.. So, what kind of “change” is Harpo speaking of exactly? By campaigning for Obama without any record of political activism sort of confirms my fears.. That Black people and (white) women are going to blindly casts their votes for candidates simply because they represent “one of our own.”

It’s as if ‘making history’ is more important than seriously addressing the issues of this country (as well as others) and considering which candidate is more qualified for the job.

Report this

By robert m puglia, December 13, 2007 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

james frey for president

Report this

By bg1, December 13, 2007 at 11:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

OBAMA=ROVE’S DREAM OPPONENT The GOP and its big-money supporters are spotlighting Obama, pushing his nomination, to sink the Dem’s in ‘08. Obama has NO chance of winning the general election. As a black (product of an interracial marriage between a black man and a white woman), yuppy lawyer, DLCer (‘free-trader’), and glib Clintonesque BS artist, he represents everything that white working people hate, fear and despise, and will line-up with the GOP to vote against, as they did with Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II. The naivety and gullibility of the Democratic rank and file is truly amazing.
Isn’t it curious that the first media pundits to broach Obama’s name were conservative (e.g. David Brooks)? And look at the media buildup the guy gets. The only Democratic presidential candidates that are acceptable to Wall Street are either corporate shills or unelectable; Obama meets both criteria.
The guy doesn’t even have a real track record at winning elections for national office. His senate win in 04’ was against another black candidate who was even weaker than him, namely Alan Keyes who was a complete wacko.
See NYT’s story 3/7/07: Jared Abbruzzese – supporter of Swift Boats and Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Report this

By cyrena, December 11, 2007 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment

Oh my! All of your comments are entertaining, (as usual…at least I enjoyed them). But alas, I truly did fear this for Obama, as soon as she revved up, and joined in. In short, I was afraid of this very reaction, (the NEGATIVE influence that Oprah would have on THINKING voters). And well, here is proof of it, right here in your comments, and I can’t find fault with any of it, because….it’s ALL TRUE!! Besides, it’s even worse, since I could, (though I won’t) run down even more of how really sorry Oprah is, and how she in on the opposite direction of the CHANGE that is the motto for the Obama campaign. In other words, if CHANGE is what we’re about, then Oprah – AIN’T THE ONE - !!
In reality, what Oprah has represented over the past 2 decades, (and her influence on a large swatch of middle class America) is at least in part, why we’re so messed up now.

HOWEVER, that said, I’m going to ask my fellow bloggers here, to try to look beyond Oprah, and check into Obama, since HE’S the one running for the office, and I personally believe that he does represent a positive change, IN SPITE of her. Now any one of you could fairly and reasonably call me out on that, and even suggest that I’m being hypocritical, in light of how I have previously exposed Ron Paul as a racist by the ‘company he keeps’. (consistently supported by the likes of the JBS, and multiple white supremacist organizations). So, I’m already conceding to that – up front. But, it’s not as bad as it ‘looks’.

In reality, this is all about the real politick and it represents the reality of the flaws in our election system. On the one hand, it takes tons and tons of money to run a successful campaign. Obama himself is NOT a gazillionaire, (no matter how many of his detractors would like to put him there) and there has been, (as we all know) the serious backlash against any candidate that is so obviously nestled deep within the even deeper pockets of the Corporate Money Machine. Big Oil. Big Pharma, VERY BIG Lobbies, and just Big Business – period. Barak is aware of that and so has conscientiously, (and from the beginning of his campaign) AVOIDED taking those kinds of funds, from those kinds of sources. However, without SOME means of gathering the funds, he could be the great potential leader that he is, (like Kucinich) and get nowhere in the hyped-up race that our election system has become. And, that’s the reality of it, as much as I dislike admitting it.

Now we could say that Oprah is just as representative of the same “Big Money” machine as all of the others. And, that would be true, to an extent. Maybe that’s why she claims that she isn’t using her ‘platform’ (TV show and Magazine) to support him, but rather her “personal voice’. (yeah, I think it’s more BS, but what can I say). The larger point, IMO, is that at the end of the day, her ‘personal voice’ – at least to the people who have been idolizing her for decades, does at least bring these people into the process, which is what we see here in SC

IOW, how many of these people, (who apparently came from miles around) would otherwise have NOT even voted, or made themselves the tiniest bit aware of the issues that shape our collective existence? How many of them would have voted for Hillary, just because she was once a First Lady, or because she’s a woman, or because she’s just part of the oligarchy? So, this does (or can) serve a legitimate purpose, to reach a positive end, even if the “means” (in this case Oprah) are less than desirable. It brings me back to all of the hyperbole that has surrounded the famous incident when Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat. Was it because she was an old black woman tired from a day of scrubbing floors? No, she wasn’t old, and she hadn’t been scrubbing floors. She was the executive secretary to the NAACP chapter in Birmingham. Still, her action set off the change that was drastically required to eliminate segregation in the South.

So, that’s a thought for now. More later.

Report this

By ERICUUS, December 11, 2007 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The question isn’t how big the bump will be for Obama thanks to Oprah.  I think Rich Harwood has it right when he asks, “Now what, Oprah?”: http://www.theharwoodinstitute.org/ht/d/Blogger/pid/185

Report this

By QuyTran, December 11, 2007 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment

Re: Thomas Billis # 119326

Dr. Phil is backing his “Undersold Vitamins” !

Report this

By Sharon Ash, December 11, 2007 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oprah had not, in the past, thrown her support behind a candidate.  She should have left well enough alone.  This is not a time for dreams in our country.  This is a time for facing the hard realities. This is a time for a seasoned person in our government (i.e. Biden and Hillary). We are involved in wars in the Middle East which have hemmoraged money to the tune of currently more than a trillion dollars with no end in sight to the bleeding.  We have had many of our constitutional rights which we believed to be impregnable, stolen from us.  We have lost the respect of most everyone in the civilized world because of the actions of the Bush Administration.  We are trillions of dollars in debt to China and Japan.  We have gone from a nation which loans to a nation which borrows.  Our economy is in a very precarious position with millions of Americans losing their homes in foreclosure.  We have 40 million people living in poverty.  We have 45 million people with no insurance.  This list goes on and on.  Winds of change are blowing in this country but we do not need a hurricane.  We need an intelligent and capable leader to steady our ship until we can get back on course.  I love Oprah and like Obama, but this is not about who we love or like, but about who is qualified.  Because in case anyone has failed to notice, we have serious issues facing this country. We should never give up our dreams but we should never be so foolish as to sit around dreaming while the wolves are baying at the door.

Report this

By squeekcat, December 11, 2007 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

If the world’s most unworthy gazillionaire (who genuinely believes that you can harness the power of the universe to do your personal material bidding if you wish really, REALLY hard) can’t lose 30 friggin’ pounds and keep them off, for christ’s sake, why should I put any stock in anything she says or endorses?

Does one have to surrender the power of critical thinking to get on Oprah’s gift list?  And if she can’t deliver the Presidency to Obama, will everyone who voted for him get a free car?

This is just beyond embarrassing.  When did thinking for one’s self become such a burden?

Report this

By Marjorie L. Swanson, December 11, 2007 at 4:50 am Link to this comment

Well if Oprah says Obama is the “one” then it must be so. Because the only thing stupider than choosing a president because you’d like to have a beer with him is choosing one because some damn talk show hostess says “he’s the one”. Maybe this country really does deserve to go down. If we are really this foolish natural evolution will slowly and surely weed us out.

Report this

By Thomas Billis, December 10, 2007 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

Oprah campaigning for Obama.More bullshit in our political discourse.I know that the people who watch Oprah cannot figure out what to read unless it has the Oprah seal of approval but are they so sluggish mentally that they cannot figure who to vote for without the seal of approval.Well I am going to remain undecided until I hear who DR Phil is backing.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.