Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Oprah: the Un-Hillary

Posted by Russ Wellen, AlterNet at 7:03 AM on December 15, 2007.


In contrast to Hillary, Oprah, whatever her flaws, is endowed with a bounty of humanity.
d6bc0129bdc441f6b6878252e271de5ems
Oprah and Obama

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

As more and more people are beginning to sense, the Democrats may have missed the boat with Hillary Clinton. If she's nominated, winning the election will be no promenade up the gangplank of the ship of state. Instead, it will be a flying leap from pier to deck, hands grasping at the railing.

The sitting Republican president's poll numbers are lower than his cardio-buff sitting pulse rate. As for America's pulse, none of the 2008 Republican opponents seem to have a finger on it. That Democrats, with victory theirs for the taking, would settle for a candidate only capable of winning by the skin of her teeth beggars credulity.

If the Democrats go the woman route, it's too deep in mid-stream to change horses. But they might have been better off riding the woman who, as Howard Fineman wrote at Newsweek, just made "her maiden campaign trail voyage," appearing with Barack Obama, "and yet already she was better -- more cogent, more effective, more convincing -- than anyone out there."

He refers to Oprah, of course, who shares with Hillary (and Madonna) the privilege of being the only women known to almost all Americans by her first name. But, in contrast to Hillary, Oprah, whatever her flaws, is endowed with a bounty of humanity.

As the most successful black woman -- or woman, period -- in American history, it goes without saying how tough Oprah is. Hillary, on the other hand, labors under an inferiority complex about women being the weaker sex. She continues to concentrate on projecting toughness about national security, thus obscuring whatever compassion she may have.

Meanwhile, to party hacks, nominating someone with as little political experience as Obama is a stretch. Considering someone with no political experience whatsoever, even though her constituency comes built-in -- her candidacy in effect, turn-key -- is not just outside their box, it's beyond the space-time continuum.

Still, bloggers and columnists can't resist speculating on Oprah using Obama's candidacy as a springboard for a future presidential run. (Even if, as one said, it would "involve a really big pay cut.")

At Huffington Post Robin Gerber writes, "Don't get me wrong, I'm not cynical about Oprah's support for Obama." In fact, it's because she doesn't do ulterior motives that Oprah boasts a "base," if you will, as sprawling as it is solid.

"But there's no one she believes in more than herself," Ms. Gerber continues. "And she's certainly capable of multiple motivations." Perhaps it's not just her motivations -- supporting Obama this year and running in the future -- that are multiple, but also the political positions to which she aspires. On Democratic Underground, a poster named Quinnox wonders if "Obama is going to offer her a spot in his cabinet or something for her support if he wins?" Meanwhile, Gerber reminds us that "if Obama wins the presidency, there will be a U.S. Senate seat open in Illinois."

Or, if she can't wait, how about chairperson of the Federal Communications Commission?

Finally, Oprah may have considered backing Hillary before she chose Obama: Should I support the first woman with a chance of being elected president or the first black?

It might seem like throwing her lot in with Obama was a decision to make history with her race rather than her sex. But, in fact, by backing Obama she has a shot (however long) at having her cake and eating it too.

Should she one day run and actually win the nomination, she'd become the first (or second black president if Obama wins in 2008) and, with Hillary defeated and unlikely to run again, also the first woman president.

Digg!

Tagged as: obama, election08, oprah, hillary clnton

Russ Wellen is a senior editor at Freezerbox.com and Nuclear Deproliferation Editor at OpEdNews.com.


Democratic Senators: Franken Won't Be Seated with New Class
Fallout from the surreal political scandal in Illinois has now wafted into Minnesota.
Post by Sam Stein and Ryan Grim. January 6, 2009.
Update: Al Franken Declared Winner; Coleman's Options Dwindle
"Today, the Supreme Court once again affirmed the validity of the rules under which this recount was conducted."
Post by Steve Benen. January 5, 2009.
Franken Winning Vast Majority of Wrongly Rejected Absentee Ballots
Norm Coleman's lawyers tried to stop the counting of hundreds of wrongly rejected absentee ballots and now we know they had good reason.
Post by tremayne. January 3, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A New Day
Posted by: JonA on Dec 15, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is a new clean sunrise for America. What we have experienced with our present administration, these past six years, has been a bad bad trial of continued blundering and corruption on a worldly scale. The rest of the world will accept Obama with open heart. Why don't you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A New Clean? Day Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: A New Day Posted by: hilaryuk
Get real...
Posted by: Purple Cheese on Dec 15, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagining that Oprah wants to be President of the US is about as logical as imagining that Al Gore secretly wants the same role. Because she has deliberately avoided politics for so many years, I am left to wonder what it is about a President Hilary that motivates Oprah to act. Perhaps many of us simply share her innate, professional fear and dread over 4 years of reruns of the Bill and Hilary Show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Get real... Posted by: johnp
Interesting Thoughts, but...
Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE on Dec 15, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if the author ever considered that perhaps Oprah is backing Obama simply because she truly believes he is the best hope for honest change in the White House? I'm not convinced yet. I'm still behind Edwards, as I was this same time four years ago, until Obama shows he can be an effective leader, and not just a good speech maker. Hillary is too much of the same old, same old for me. Time for out with the old and in with the new, and I want a democratic candidate that can beat the Repukelicans - bottom line, otherwise I'd vote my true conscience and go with Kucinich.

Still, the article quotes Robin Gerber at The Huffington Post as saying, "Don't get me wrong, I'm not cynical about Oprah's support for Obama." And then the author says, "In fact, it's because she doesn't do ulterior motives that Oprah boasts a 'base' if you will, as sprawling as it is solid." I think they're both right. I don't think Oprah has an ulterior motive. I just think it's curious that the author doesn't take her own advice and continues to look for one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do y'all think we have to react
Posted by: drmimi94954 on Dec 15, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Typical narrow view to think that Oprah is supporting Obama as a reaction to Hillary's candidacy. Perhaps her choice is proactive rather than reactive.
Frankly she has the props and the money to support anyone she damn pleases without any need for justification or hidden agenda. She is a pop culture icon popular with more women (of all races) than any left icon could ever hope to be. She is a brand and and a "fame maker" Whether that is a good or bad thing is open to interpretation.
Speculation usually leads to misinterpretation...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Very Dangerous Deception
Posted by: riotoustanpdx on Dec 15, 2007 11:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So we are poised to choose Glamor over Substance once again.

The choice of Hillary does not mean Substance; there are many reasons, all with Substance, to reject Hillary as the Democrats nominee. We do not Hillary in the White House, or representing the Party of Substance.

So enters Oprah, as if this was a late decision to back Obama rather than a long term plan going back years. We set ourselves up for a big Deception if we believe this union doesn't go back to the planning stages of the Obama campaign.

Should we nominate Obama, with or without Oprah's endorsement? No, not any more than we should nominate Hillary, although for different reasons.

We are too soon to forget that Oprah took on the cattle industry in Texas, and caved in to the pressures of the Big Dollar Advertisers that meant millions for her network and her personal gain. She caved in to those special interests rather than expose the negative side of the massively horrific practices of the beef and cattle industry. She failed to bring forth the truth about the environmental and health consequences for all consumers of chemically injected beef. She failed to pursue the case when the time was right, when the American public needed to know the truth, and she failed to use her "platform" to bring about a needed review of the deeper issues that extend beyond the superficial level of "freedom of choice in business practices that do not violate laws."

Oprah is a child of Big Business, and has proven to be incapable of cutting herself off from the stream of millions of dollars earned year after year that she no longer needs to grasp. When abundant money no longer fills the need, people turn to Power to satisfy the craving to be separated from the ordinary man or woman.

What we can expect from Oprah is another grasp for power, another Deception in the making. We seem willing to accept a generic term, "Change for the sake of Change," without asking what those changes will be.

Oprah has already proven that Perception rules over Substance, and this is why we are being sold Obama. I cannot emphasize enough that this is a selling job. It is, like Oprah, largely a con job, to accept that this unproven candidate, who repeats the words of others in the candidate pack as a substitute for original ideas, represents the broad spectrum of Thinking Americans who want substantial change.

Oprah could well be the Dick Cheney of the Democrats, the hidden force who seeks to wield power from the back rooms once that power has been officially transferred to a President Obama.

"Change" is not the primary or Critical Issue of the presidential election of 2008, and we are being led to believe that Change is the issue. There is one Great and Unifying Issue in the 2008-2012 election period, and that is The Environment, and that means the Environmental Issues that go much further and deeper than "global warming." There are environmental issues that permeate every aspect of the lives of people and the economy that supports us, whether local or global in scope.

It is this failure to speak out on the issues of substance, and the true nature of Oprah's quest for power, that makes me exceedingly skeptical of the Barrack Obama candidacy.

Thomas A Nagy, Global Cooling Initiative

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oprah Winfrey's Contribution to the Rush to Iraq War
Posted by: left_libertarian on Dec 15, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqVtRJeXxXM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd rather see a good candidate "win"
Posted by: johnp on Dec 15, 2007 2:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One more piece of evidence, that the democrats are intent on losing another election. It would be a healthy change, if the Left were willing to accept a candidate like Hillary, in exchange for winning the election. But like the writer of this piece, there is a half of the Left that is too shortsighted, too stubborn, too elitist and snobbish, to sense the positive intangibles in a Hillary presidency, to permit it to happen. When this half of he Left finds an enemey remotely on its side, it attacks with all its might. This attack, together with the attack from the Right, may end Hillary's hopes, and give another presidency to the Right wing. Hillary is the best we have, that can win. But the Hillary-haters won't let it happen. They'd rather lose the presidency to the republicans, than allow Hillary to be nominated. So be it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ah, electability ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Huh? Posted by: asilsfable
The Clinton Connection
Posted by: angelofdeath on Dec 15, 2007 2:02 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE TORRES-VIGNALI CONNECTION is explored in detail in a congressional report that resulted from Pardongate, when revelations surfaced that President Clinton granted clemency for Carlos Vignali Jr. — convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison in 1995 — along with other convicted criminals and one-time international fugitive Marc Rich. The granting of clemency occurred after payments were made to Clinton’s brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham, the brother of former first lady, New York state senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Released in March 2002 by the congressional Committee on Government Reform, “Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House” details Hugh Rodham’s involvement in the Vignali affair, as well as the long business history Vignali once shared with George Torres.

The report takes to task top L.A. elected officials, including county Supervisor Gloria Molina, then–state Senator Richard Polanco, then–state Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa and U.S. Representative Xavier Becerra, among others, for lobbying on behalf of Vignali Jr., in light of his drug conviction and the fact that DEA agents long suspected Vignali Sr. to be involved in drug trafficking — along with Torres. While a member of the California state Assembly, Villaraigosa wrote the first letter on Vignali’s behalf on May 24, 1996.


Saying Hillary Rodham Clinton was a leader who offered a new path, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today formally endorsed the New York senator and former first lady in her race to become president of the United States.

Villaraigosa will also serve as one of the four national chairs of Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, it was announced.

At a televised news conference from the UCLA campus in Westwood, Villaraigosa praised Clinton’s approach to domestic issues, particularly education, and her pledge to help end the war in Iraq. The pair earlier toured the preschool at UCLA’s Krieger Center. — La Times

http://mayorvillaraigosasdemons.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Clinton Connection Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The Clinton Connection Posted by: anna132
maegabby
Posted by: maegabby on Dec 15, 2007 8:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great, now even on alternet we're getting the same old mindless dumping on Hilary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

worm in wolf's clothing
Posted by: mammamaia on Dec 16, 2007 6:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as a woman, feminist, and mother of 6 daughters, i'm appalled and greatly saddened that the first viable woman presidential candidate in us history has to be this power-hungry dame who was too weak and stupid to even object to her husband's outrageous public philandering... and we're supposed to trust her to be strong and smart enough to run our country and lead the world?... give me a break!

love and hugs, maia
www.saysmom.com
for 100% free writing help: maia3maia@hotmail.com

"You must BE the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: worm in wolf's clothing Posted by: hilaryuk
Forget 'em both!!
Posted by: Landbaron on Dec 17, 2007 10:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards is the man!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]