Jokester

Back in the old days, when Kamala Harris was a U.S. Senator, having been promoted from Attorney General of the State of California, she supported not only an assault weapons ban but a mandatory buyback of the weapon. She explicitly stated her support for procuring such weapons from owners if an assault weapons ban were re-enacted. Senator Harris was running for the Democratic nomination for President on each of those occasions: 9/16/19, on The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon; 10/2/19, at an MSNBC gun safety forum; and on 10/31/19 at a public television forum in Ankeny, Iowa.

                .

One can only hope that the Senator expressed those views not because she was competing for the support of Democratic primary voters but because of her experience as a district attorney in the city of San Francisco and an attorney general in the state of California. 

Harris has not now renounced her prior position. When she was asked during her debate with Donald Trump about her shifting positions on issues such as prior support for "mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons," Harris niftily avoided the question. Nonetheless, she is now singing a different tune.         

                  .

National Review explains

During a live-streamed rally hosted by Oprah Winfrey on Thursday, Harris mentioned being a gun owner and said, “If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.”

She then laughed and acknowledged she probably “should not” have said that, but said her staff could “deal with that later.”

She then laughed and acknowledged she probably “should not” have said that, but said her staff could “deal with that later.”

Gun violence is now a laughing matter. Not being psychic, the presidential nominee could not have known this would happen:

 

        

 

But these things do happen and, arguably, with increasing frequency. And this, from the very political campaign Ms. Harris is engaged in:

        

The NR continues

“It was a joke, and she knew that we would still be talking about it today, but I think it‘s important that people know that the vice president respects the right to bear arms, that she supports the Second Amendment, but she wants responsible gun ownership and she wants our communities to be safe,” (Harris strategist Keisha Lance) Bottoms said.

The former Atlanta mayor claimed Harris’s comment “humanizes” her.

Disturbingly, it probably does. On Real Time with Bill Maher Friday evening, the host, who is skeptical of Harris but will vote for her, offered his support for Harris' comment. Democrats will not question their candidate; Republicans will not criticize someone who wields a firearm, unless it's in a Black Lives Matter or pro-Palestinian protest.

As Vice President and now as a presidential candidate, Harris enjoys Secret Service protection. Thus, there is no reason that she currently owns a weapon. However, as National Review notes, Senator Harris previously explained that she possesses a gun "for personal safety," because she had been a "career prosecutor" in San Francisco.

Appearing on CNN on Sunday, Harris' spokesperson dodged a question about when Harris acquired the firearm. Nonetheless, Harris' one-time claim that she owns a weapon because of safety concerns as a prosecutor is plausible.

However, that's not good enough, and not only because we don't have confirmation that the Vice President owns a gun to blow away an intruder, as she boasts she would do.  California law on retaliating against intruders is governed by the Castle Doctrine, which gives a homeowner or tenant more latitude than is given in many states, but less than is allowed under "stand your ground" rules prevalent in some states. Whether a resident would be prosecuted for responding as Harris promises would depend upon various factors.

Kamala Harris was a prosecutor, as she reminded us during her debate with Trump, as she has on other occasions. Yet, she didn't offer any caveats in her remark to Winfrey, no recommendation that individuals understand the law in their particular state about gun use and- less surprisingly- no condemnation of burglary or other street crime. I

It's easy to understand why Ms. Harris was an irresponsible Attorney General. As a comedian, she's even worse. 

 

Share |

Options With Consequences

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jenice  Armstrong admits to being a longtime fan of Oprah Winfrey, who brought to prominence Dr. Mehmet Oz, now the Trump-loving, conspiracy-mongering, outwardly right-wing GOP nominee for the US Senate from Pennsylvania.

In her piece written on May 20, when results of the Republican primary hung in the balance, Armstrong noted she watched Winfrey's "show religiously and subscribed to her magazine. She's my friend in my head,"  She believes "Winfrey couldn't have predicted that Oz would become a dangerous threat to Pennsylvania by peddling pseudoscience amid a pandemic and election conspiracy theories. However, Armstrong concluded by writing "But she can use her enormous influence to make sure that voters know where she stands now. It’s time for Oprah to denounce Oz."

Though right about Mehmet Oz and the responsibility of his mentor to speak out in this critical Senate contest, Armstrong makes a common, albeit subtle, mistake (also made by the narrator in the video below) when she remarks

Her early endorsement of then-candidate Barack Obama helped turn the tide in his favor during the 2008 presidential election and helped America make history by electing its first Black president. Four years later, she turned out for Obama again in a big way during his reelection campaign. Winfrey also campaigned for Hilary Clinton and even considered a run against Trump in 2020.

Armstrong linked to an article, written by Annie Karni and published by Politico in January of 2018, which undermines Armstrong's suggestion that Winfrey actively worked for the election of Clinton. Evidence suggests that Winfrey offered only tepid, indirect support for Clinton in 2016 after having fervently opposing her in 2008. Karni wrote 

Where the heck was Winfrey in 2016?

Busy with her own business interests that made a full-throated Clinton endorsement too much of a conflict, is part of the answer, according to former campaign aides. And she was simply not as personally invested in Clinton’s candidacy as she had been in the historic run made by her personal friend and fellow Chicagoan eight years earlier — when some economists credited her with helping Barack Obama secure 1 million votes in the Democratic primary alone.

But it wasn’t for lack of trying from Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters.

In June of 2016, the task of wooing Winfrey was handed over to Minyon Moore, one of Clinton’s longtime advisers, who had recently taken a leave from her consulting job at the Dewey Square Group to work as a senior adviser on political strategy for the campaign.

Winfrey had initially raised hopes in Clinton’s camp by telling “Entertainment Tonight,” during a red-carpet interview, that “I’m with her” — a quick-hit endorsement that buoyed spirits at campaign headquarters, especially because the campaign operatives had not helped Winfrey craft it, or planted it.

Moore was dispatched for some quick follow-up to see what else the country’s biggest motivational speaker and celebrity might be willing to do for Clinton, as the candidate began turning her sights from the never-ending primary against Bernie Sanders to the general election against Donald Trump.

But there was disappointment in Brooklyn when it was reported back that an occasional “I’m With Her,” sprinkled here and there in television interviews, would likely be it, according to multiple former campaign aides.

Moore was well-known as one of a fiercely loyal inner Clinton circle of African-American women whom the former first lady had surrounded herself with and promoted since her days in the East Wing. She also came with a few of her own Oprah-world connections, which originally made the campaign hopeful of more Winfrey kudos to come.

“I knew one of [Winfrey’s] top producers,” Moore said in an interview on Thursday. “We tried to figure out if there was a timing or scheduling match. We tried to figure out what type of interview could work, what kind of event she might do.”

But nothing worked. “It was a timing issue,” Moore said, noting that Winfrey was launching two shows that summer on the Oprah Winfrey Network — “Queen Sugar” and “Greenleaf.”

“She was doubled down on that,” Moore said. “I appreciate the fact that she had a big piece of business she had to deal with. I never took offense to it, and I don’t think Hillary ever took offense to it. She was grateful any time she saw Oprah’s positive comments.”

"It was a timing issue," claims Moore, who, contrary to legitimate suspicion, did not proceed to argue for the existence of the Easter Bunny.  Clinton was grateful for Oprah's sort-of positive comments because she had no reason to believe Winfrey would even imply any preference for the Democrat in the general election.

Only Oprah Winfrey knows Oprah Winfrey's private thoughts.  However, we do know that she endorsed, and avidly supported, Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, then did little or nothing to help Barack Obama once he obviously would be the one facing the GOP ticket in the general election. Four years later she resisted efforts to do anything more than the bare minimum for Barack Obama's preferred successor, Mrs. Clinton

Ms. Winfrey has several options. She could criticize Oz and endorse Democrat John Fetterman, combining it with an endorsement; offer kind words for, but not endorse, John Fetterman; criticize Oz but avoid an endorsement; endorse Oz; campaign (however briefly) for the candidate she selects; explain that she is remaining neutral; remain neutral and silent. There may be other options.

Few people if any know how Winfrey will go in this pivotal election. However, control of the Senate, even the future of democracy, is in play and failure to use her immense influence to  help erode the destructive power of Trumpism would be an odious decision.

 

Share |

Not Quite Yet

I confess that I do not like Oprah Winfrey. I have never liked her, don't like her, and probably never will like her. 

Winfrey, or "Oprah" as an adoring media calls her, has never seemed to embody principle or a firm set of values. Money and image appear to be her guiding principles. There is no clear ideological reason that (as the video below reminds us) she endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. The dirty little secret (for which the elite would substitute "wonderful" for "dirty") is that she yearned for a President who would "make history," whatever benefit or harm he would bring to the country.

I posted yesterday two excellent tweets. Today, I reverse that and post tweets from one clueless, and one almost clueless, individual about arguably the most popular American celebrity of the past decades.

Every powerful person has a responsibility to speak when they see injustice in general, but especially when they helped set the injustice in motion.

Oprah should have campaigned relentlessly against Oz. I don’t believe she did.

Silence at injustice = support for injustice. https://t.co/aRTU4cWBBn

— Dr. Thrasher (@thrasherxy) May 18, 2022

"Oprah" is more than a "dialogue starter." As of 2021, she was considered the fourth most admired woman in the world. Reportedly worth approximately $2.6 billion, Winfrey is held in such esteem that the Smithsonian museum in 2018 dedicated to her an exhibition entitled "Watching Oprah: The Oprah Winfrey Show and American Culture." With such great influence and wealth comes great responsibility.

Winfrey did indeed launch the media career of Dr. Mehta Oz, who thereby became simply the far more marketable "Dr. Oz." She chose to promote his career despite the widespread belief in medical circles that Oz  stood upon a platform of quackery (video below from 12/21).  Winfrey promoted Dr. Oz- and his growing popularity in turn contributed to Oprah's own phenomenal success.  She commands a microphone more than almost anyone in this country, and if she were to choose publicly to deny responsibility for Dr. Oz' rise, she has every opportunity to do so.

Nonetheless, there was no reason heretofore for Ms. Winfrey to "campaign relentlessly against Oz."  Mehta Oz was running in a primary, not a general election.  If Winfrey had spoken out against Oz, she would have been aiding the candidacy of either David McCormick, a far-right hedge fund executive, or Kathy Barnette, apparently a far-right participant in the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2020. Though Oz would be a terrible US Senator, there is scant evidence that either of the other two wouldn't be at least as dangerous.

As of this writing, the race is sufficiently close that a recount is likely. If Oz does not prevail, Winfrey's silence will prove to have been irrelevant. If Oz does prevail, there is plenty of time for Ms. Winfrey to explain not only that Oz would not be a wise choice in November but that his opponent, John Fetterman, is far more dedicated to the democratic process and to the values of a free people.  

Patience, patience.  Tweeter Thrasher recognizes that powerful people should speak out against injustice, particularly when the individual (albeit lacking prescience) indirectly helped bring it about. But if there is a time for everything, the time for Oprah Winfrey to criticize Dr. Mehta Oa was not during a primary race but during a general election contest. It would be an invaluable part of her legacy.

 

Share! |

Not By Accident

President Donald Trump has a plan. It's a plan for the old people, especially ones in elder care facilities; for the elderly; for individuals with underlying health conditions, especially compromised immune systems.  We learned Monday from The New York Times

As President Trump presses for states to reopen their economies, his administration is privately projecting a steady rise in the number of cases and deaths from the coronavirus over the next several weeks, reaching about 3,000 daily deaths on June 1, according to an internal document obtained by The New York Times, nearly double from the current level of about 1,750.

The projections, based on modeling by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and pulled together in chart form by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, forecast about 200,000 new cases each day by the end of the month, up from about 25,000 cases now.

The numbers underscore a sobering reality: While the United States has been hunkered down for the past seven weeks, not much has changed. And the reopening to the economy will make matters worse.

Of course it will. But for Donald Trump, that is not a bug but a benefit.  It is why, as Illinois governor JB Pritzker pointed out four weeks ago "what the White House has done is created—you know, they call this the air bridge, where they're bringing stuff back from China to the United States, and then they're delivering it to private companies in the United States, not to the states."

It is why that after he was warned throughout January and February (maybe learning as early as November) in daily briefing papers and digests from the Office of the DNI and the CIA about the coronavirus, President Trump fifteen times from January 22 through February 29 praised mainland China for its handling of the pandemic.

And now it is why that as he is being told it is likely that deaths from Covid-19 are likely to surge over the next few weeks, the President is urging governors to reopen their states, thus helping to make that projection a reality.

The individuals most likely to die are those whom Donald Trump has never preferred to live.  "This is where luck comes in," Trump said in 1988, "you have to be born lucky in the sense that you have to have the right genes to go out and if it's in my business, if it's making deals...."

So many people don't have the "right genes," especially among the approximately 70,000 Americans who thus far have succumbed to SARS-CoV-2.  Donald Trump has a plan. Thus far, it is being executed nearly flawlessly.

Share |

An Entertainer Trump Can Relate To

We read in Raw Story

The View” co-host Meghan McCain warned Georgia’s Stacey Abrams should “be careful” accepting campaign assistance from Oprah Winfrey — and pouted when her fellow panelists unanimously disagreed.

I don't see any pouting but you can be the judge:

The Democratic gubernatorial candidate got a boost this week when Winfrey knocked on doors to campaign for her and delivered a powerful speech to encourage black and other minority voters to head to the polls, but McCain said that might actually hurt Abrams.

“Nationalizing yourself is always tenuous territory, because you don’t want to look like you’re someone who celebrities and East Coast elites like, and you’re not going around your constituents,” McCain said.

Co-host Joy Behar immediately pointed out a flaw in her logic.

“One of the biggest East Coast elites, Donald Trump, won,” she said.

Good point from Behar, who through the years has been the most lucid liberal on the program. However

McCain insisted the president was a unique case, and she warned other candidates not to accept help from celebrities.

“Donald Trump is a different case,” she said. “I’m telling you traditional candidates — I think it’s something Beto O’Rourke should be concerned right now, as well. I think when you look like you care too much about celebrity endorsements, especially after you haven’t been elected for first time, you see people like Eric Cantor, Wendy Davis, Kelly Ayotte — these are people who nationalize themselves too much.”

McCain is right, if she is suggesting that in the long term, support from pop stars helps reinforce the naive perception of the Democratic Party as elitist. However, in the short term, a widely respected (however unjustified) Oprah Winfrey helps in fund-raising and in bringing out the vote.

Disagreeing with McCain (and myself)

“I think Oprah is in a class by herself,” (Ana) Navarro said. “So many of us grew up with her in our living rooms. What made Oprah so successful is how relatable she is.”

Winfrey is not in a class by herself. She is in the Donald J. Trump class of fabulously wealthy television stars able to get over on a whole lot of people. Nonetheless, Abby Huntsman maintained

It motivates people to get out and vote. That story that she told, that moved me. That would get me off the couch. I agree with all of you guys that Oprah, it's different than a Miley Cyrus or a Katy Perry, who I love, but they're not going to get me out to vote. What's different about Oprah, we let her into our home for decades.

Huntsman and others let Winfrey into their home and thankfully, by the miracle of video, we can now be let into one of the star's six homes:

Relatable, indeed. For that matter, it appears Winfrey can relate to the uber-wealthy star in the White House. Already spectacularly wealthy, Winfrey in 2015 bought a 10% share of Weight Watchers, began doing commercials touting (without mentioning her ownership) her own success on the diet, and watched as the company's profits soared. Not surprisingly

"I could sense, maybe I'm wrong, but I could sense from Donald Trump's body language even when he came out for the acceptance speech, that brotha has been humbled by this whole thing,” she said of his election victory.

She added: “I think it's a humbling process that now you literally have the weight of the world on your shoulders.”

Don't be shocked. In the past 10-12 years, Winfrey has extended her endorsement to a few office-seekers, but working (for whatever reason) only for Barack Obama, Cory Booker, and Stacey Abrams.

Even now Oprah Winfrey claims that she's a political independent, denying that she is a registered Democrat. In that, she is honest and reliable.

Share |

The Divine Miss W

When 6-7 weeks ago there was a groundswell of support for Oprah Winfrey running for President, Vice's Eve Peyser wrote

Trump isn't wrong about Oprah, but being an "inspiration" doesn't mean someone should run for president. Trump himself was "inspiring" to many Americans who voted for him despite all his obviously disqualifying traits. We don't need any more "inspirational" politicians, we need people who have actual experience governing.

The Los Angeles Times editorialized

Maybe not, but there is more to being president than the ability to deliver a stirring speech. Also, as the first year of the Trump presidency demonstrated, there are colossal risks in electing a political neophyte to the most demanding public office in the world. Just because the Republicans were foolish enough to travel down this dangerous road — in the process sacrificing many of their party's best qualities and most valuable principles in a desperate, craven hunt for votes — doesn't mean the Democrats should follow suit.

Admittedly, the best reason to pass on Oprah Winfrey is that she is another largely inexperienced, largely ignorant (in the case of Trump, thoroughly ignorant) celebrity  Additionally, Ms. Winfrey discovered politics in 2008, endorsed the least (among Edwards, Clinton, and himself) economically progressive Democrat for President, then largely fell silent until she allowed in October, 2016 that electing Hillary Clinton would not be a bad thing.

But there is another similarity between Ms. Winfrey and Mr. Trump.

Evangelicals and Pentecostals, once skeptical of Trump, quickly adhered to him once he secured the GOP nomination for President. He has declared  his devotion to them ever since, and they have clung to him more closely than Barack Obama believes working-class whites cling to their guns or religion.  At an event in July 2017 sponsored in Washington, D.C. by his church, Reverend Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas proclaimed "millions of Americans believe the  election of President Trump represented God giving us another chance- perhaps our last chance to truly make America great again."

Religion News Service in December quoted three Trumpists who believe God put his hand upon the billionaire businessman. One stated "I do believe that he (God) picked him. Because he puts people in office and he takes them out." Another argued "the odds of him becoming president were so overwhelming the only way he could have made it is with divine intervention." A third contended "I believe that maybe this was in God's divine plan. This is potentially God's way of giving us a chance to repent for all the wrong we have done in the world."

There are many people who believe God puts presidents in the White House, and they have done us no favors. Yet, The Hill reports

Oprah Winfrey said she’s had billionaires offer to fund her presidential campaign if she runs for the White House, but said she’s waiting for a sign from God. 

“I went into prayer,” she said of calls for her to run for president.

“’God, if you think I’m supposed to run, you gotta tell me, and it has to be so clear that not even I can miss it.’ And I haven’t gotten that yet,” Winfrey told People Magazine in an interview published Wednesday.





We've seen this play before, in which a billionaire with a sense of entitlement believes there is no need to serve in any public office, from school board member to US Senator, before running for President. The last guy made it- and we (except his fellow billionaires) all are suffering.

Fortunately, Oprah Winfrey is no Donald Trump.  But her previous foray into electoral politics- appearances for Barack Obama in 2008, after which she vanished from the fray- do not qualify her.

The Democratic Party can do better.  It especially can do better than a candidate who is ready to pronounce her candidacy as one straight from God. Though stated more subtly, the message would be clear,: support me or oppose God.

"Nobody reads the Bible more than me," Trump told GOP voters in February of 2016 and now many evangelicals believe that his candidacy was heaven-sent. Beware: the Democratic Party may get its own version of Donald Trump coming to a primary near you.









Share |

The Itch For Oprah

Oprah Winfrey's powerful Golden Globes speech, Politico's Annie Karni realizes, "led to a wistful question, posed by Hillary Clinton fans watching the Oprah 2020 frenzy play out this week: Where the heck was Winfrey in 2016?"

Winfrey was not invisible, for she

had initially raised hopes in Clinton’s camp by telling “Entertainment Tonight,” during a red-carpet interview, that “I’m with her” — a quick-hit endorsement that buoyed spirits at campaign headquarters, especially because the campaign operatives had not helped Winfrey craft it, or planted it....

A month before the election, she had added

 “You don’t have to like her. Do you like this country? Do you like this country? You better get out there and vote. ... Do you like democracy or do you want a demagogue?” 

Karni reports "that comment further deflated the Brooklyn-based Clinton crew," as well as it should have.

By contrast, longtime Clinton confidante Phillip Reines argued “The excitement triggered by celebrities might not be as transferable to a political candidate as it is to a sneaker or hotel chain. Hard to argue that a Kim Kardashian tweet would have flipped the outcome.”

Sorry, but comparing national superstar Oprah Winfrey to Kim Kardashian is like comparing the popular and extraordinarily accomplished Tom Hanks to a pornographic film star.  Kardashian is not a porn performer but she appeals to a certain segment of the electorate while alienating a larger number.  Vox's Constance Grady notes that Janice Peck, author of "The Age of Oprah," recognizes

that Oprah’s ability to connect with her audience is in and of itself political. Part of the secret to her enduring appeal, Peck says, is her ability to keep white women — her biggest demographic — from thinking of her as black. “You have all these white fans who have historically talked about her as if she is a personal friend of theirs, as if she could come into their homes,” Peck said, “which of course she did, on their TV screens.”

Fifty-three percent of white women voted for Donald Trump. That percentage probably would not have dropped dramatically had Winfrey campaigned for Clinton as she did for Senator Obama in 2008 but as Peck notes, “She understands how to connect with audiences and give them what they want at a particular time. She’s always been very smart at figuring at who her audience is and how to resonate with them.”

Supporting Reines' perspective, Karnie argues "even a joint Beyoncé-Jay-Z concert and rally for Clinton in Cleveland in the homestretch of the race didn’t deliver the bellwether state of Ohio to Clinton’s column on election night."

That's accurate, and a huge, seemingly successful, rally in Philadelphia with the Clintons, the Obamas, and Boss Springsteen the night before the election culminated in an unexpected Trump victory in Pennsylvania the following day.

But we didn't know all this at the time, and neither did Winfrey. Conventional  (and nearly unanimous) wisdom held that properly targeted celebrity endorsements- such as by beloved black figures in the city of Cleveland and in the city of Philadelphia (with a gigantic white star)- can only help a Democratic candidate.

Consequently, the question arises: where was Oprah? Karnie points out that longtime Clinton adviser Minyon Moore, who has contact(s) in the Winfrey camp, reasons

Oprah has a brand that is built on a capitalist society. Any time someone like that opens their mouth to support a political candidate, they have something at risk. Most of them do this based on their own value system. I have learned to be grateful, because they have empires of their own.

That was from an apparent admirer. Publicly, Oprah Winfrey was apolitical until she endorsed candidate Obama in September 2006, then again in October 2006 and May 2007, followed by her first campaign appearance with the candidate, in December, 2007.





Following her fellow Chicagoan's acceptance speech at the convention, the new-age television superstar, still an actress, commented "what I saw with Barack Obama was something that was transcendent and I felt transformational for me as a human being and for this country."  One researcher maintains that Winfrey's support of Obama's bid "does appear to have been a decisive, if not a deciding, factor." All in a good cause, at least.

And yet, Oprah's support of the Democrat who was striving to replace Obama and to continue most of his policies was tepid at best.  Largely apathetic pre-Obama and post-Obama, Oprah Winfrey has excited Democrats- including pols- from coast-to-coast. It is thoroughly understandable, given the Party's yearning for a glamorous superstar to replace the business giant in the Oval Office.

Nevertheless, given her apparent centrist bent, disinterest in Democratic races for President and Congress, and complete absence of qualifications for the position, the hankering for Winfrey is borderline reprehensible and threatens the effort to reverse the damage undertaken by the alliance of President Trump and congressional Republicans.




Share |

And Let's Stop Assuming She Makes Any Sense

Salon's Mary Elizabeth Williams is displeased about Oprah Winfrey's response to legendary swimmer Diane Nyad about God/spirituality at "Super Soul Sunday."    More people should be highly skeptical, and not only for this.  Williams notes that last weekend

Winfrey took strong issue with Nyad’s assertion that she’s “not a God person, but a person deeply in awe.” It’s true that perhaps appearing in a venue with the word “soul” in it might seem an unusual choice for a self-described atheist, but Nyad explained. “I don’t understand why anyone would find a contradiction in that,” she said. “I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity — all the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt and suffered. So to me, my definition of God is humanity and is the love of humanity.”

Oprah quickly stepped in with some semantic disagreement. “Well, I don’t call you an atheist then,” she said. “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery, that that is what God is. That is what God is. It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.” But Nyad, who knows a thing or two about being undeterred, pressed on, explaining her skepticism of a “creator or overseer.” Later, Oprah, still trying to pin Nyad down, asked her if she felt she was “spiritual,” Nyad replied, “I do. I think you can be an atheist who doesn’t believe in an overarching Being who created all of this and sees over it. But there’s spirituality because we human beings, and we animals and maybe even we plants, but certainly the ocean and the moon and the stars, we all live with something that is cherished and we feel the treasure of it.”

Presumably, Nyad had to cop to being "spiritual" rather than suffering the ignominy sure to come to someone bold enough to deny it. Williams remarks

Even if Oprah seems to have pushed her into saying it, Nyad can call herself “spiritual” if she wants. It doesn’t have to mean the same thing it means to someone who practices a religion. It’s her word and her interpretation of it. And no atheist on the planet needs a believer to tell her that she is wrong, or that she secretly clings to the concept of God after all.

Winfrey evidently stopped short of telling Nyad the latter is wrong about God, though telling an atheist that God exists should be no more offensive than an individual herself professing to be an atheist.  Still, Winfrey's suggestion that the existence of "awe and wonder" is evidence of God's existence simultaneously demeans both non-believers and believers.  One can be overcome by the overarching talent and performance of Peyton Manning and LeBron James without being a deist.  And surely the evidence of God's existence goes well beyond the trite suggestion that beauty in the universe ends the argument.

But neither Nyad nor Williams ought to be surprised that Oprah Winfrey is among those, as Williams suggests, who are "unyielding and unquestioning and determined to make everybody see the world exactly as we do."  Winfrey is the celebrity who in 2008 did "a happy dance" for Barack Obama, breathlessly promoting his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, then was less active following his nomination. In 2012, the sole opponent of incumbent Obama was a Republican, and she fell silent.

In New Jersey, Ms. Winfrey endorsed neo-liberal Newark mayor Cory Booker for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. However, once he was nominated, she said nothing, as she has about the race progressive State Senator Barbara Buono has run against GOP governor Chris Christie.

To be fair, President Obama also endorsed Cory Booker while assiduously avoiding endorsing Barbara Buono.  To be accurate, that does not count in Winfrey's favor.

Oprah Winfrey's judgement is seriously flawed. But we stand in awe and wonder of the business acumen of someone who amassed a billion dollar-plus empire.  And of her "spirituality."



Share |

Be Careful What You Wish For


Progressive/liberal blogger and Hillary Clinton enthusiast Taylor Marsh has noticed Oprah Winfrey on the sideline and believes OWN "is missing history."     She asks

at a time when women are utilizing power to move policy and politics in America, with Democrats depending on women to win in November to keep the Senate, what’s the network’s contribution to the discussion?

As far as I can tell it’s silence.

Nodding to her own book about former Senator Clinton, Marsh notes

Secretary Clinton’s former presidential campaign unleashed the Hillary Effect, with female ambassadorships in Washington growing dramatically once she came to State. But long before that the Hillary Effect helped put a woman on the Republican Party’s national ticket, which ignited a conservative women’s movement that lit the Republican Party on fire, with Sarah Palin’s Tea Party power, before it collapsed, leading to huge wins in 2010 and historic victories for the right across the country in state legislatures. In media, it catapulted women across network and cable shows, from morning shows to evening news.

While "women are leading in ways that seem revolutionary, from reproductive demands to economics and Occupy," Marsh notes "on Oprah’s OWN network it’s as if time has stood still or remains viewed from a pillow."       Nevertheless, she states, Winfrey "has the power and money to bring the best of liberal, conservative and independent thought to her network, putting together a political division that could be unique."

She could, but she won't.     An enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama in 2008, Winfrey campaigned for the Illinois senator in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.  Wikipedia cites a study by two economists who, without considering Texas, Michigan, North Dakota, Kansas or Alaska  (to which their methodology was inapplicable), concluded that Winfrey's efforts netted Obama 1,015,559 votes toward his nomination.      The researchers argued that the then- talk show host boosted the campaign's coffers and was especially influential in Iowa, in which Obama scored a critical, early victory.

Marsh, a solid progressive and staunch feminist (not in that order), clearly believes Oprah could join the "women(who)  are leading in ways that seem revolutionary, from reproductive demands to economics and Occupy."     But those issues do not seem to be at the top of the Oprah Winfrey list of priorities.    At the Democratic convention, she declared

And what I saw with Barack Obama was something that was transcendent and I felt transformational for me as a human being and for this country. And I only pray in the deepest part of my being that America will rise to this moment. And I feel that what he was able to offer us as individual citizens and as a united country was something that we have never seen before. I really, I think it's the most powerful thing I've ever experienced. I often wondered what it would be like to sit and listen to Lincoln speak or Roosevelt speak or what it would have been like to have been old enough to understand what Martin Luther King was saying 45 years ago today. And what he did brought that home in a way that I could never have imagined.

Barack Obama was nominated- and Winfrey disappeared, choosing not expend her political capital  in the race between the Democratic nominee and the McCain-Palin duo.   While in 2010 Republicans "shellacked"  (as Obama later put it) Democrats and set back the goals of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and King, Winfrey tended to her entertainment kingdom.     Predictably, she now is back on board, telling CNN she is "100%" (points for not saying 110%; or 200%; or 1,000%) behind Obama, calling him a "masterful leader" and vowing ""If he or his office called me tomorrow and said that they needed me I would do whatever I thought would be of service."  

Progressives yearning for an activist Oprah Winfret might  ponder how reliable an ally she would be.     We know she cares about Barack Obama.     Not so obvious is whether she is  a Democrat (not necessary, but germane) and a progressive.    And it is even less clear that she cares about the women's movement, the security net for the elderly and the poor, or the stranglehold the ultra-wealthy have on American government.  





Share |

Barack Obama, The One


Four years ago, Hollywood was exuberant.     Halle Berry said she would “collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear," therein recalling Barnabas' cousin who two thousand years earlier quoted Isaiah predicting "the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’”

Oprah Winfrey, as usual, could not be restrained and announced "He is 'The One'," recalling the assurance given by a man skilled in seamless shoe analogies, who told the skeptics "I baptize in water but among you stands One whom you do not know."

Other Hollywood stars were at least somewhat less effusive (and biblically literate) than Berry and Winfrey, the latter of whom was curiously quiet after the Democratic convention. But as with those of us who preferred Edwards or Clinton, we all should have known better. New York Magazine reported on December 22 of an incident 9-10 years ago:    

On June 11, 2002, as a state senator, Obama and fellow state senator Rickey Hendon nearly threw down on the Senate floor. At issue was a bill that would close a child-welfare office in Hendon’s district. Obama voted in favor of the bill — accidentally, he claims — but Hendon was irate. “There’s a rift between the African-Americans on the West Side and South Side here in Chicago,” says David Mendell, Tribune reporter and author of an Obama biography.“They’re competitive, and [Hendon] was saying that Obama voted against his project because he wanted to placate some fiscal conservatives, and it was a West Side–South Side thing.” Obama at one point put his hand on Hendon’s shoulder as a friendly gesture, but Hendon slapped it away. It didn’t take long before both men were engaged in a heated shouting match on the floor of the Senate. When they took their argument to a different room, Obama allegedly had to be restrained. “According to people I interviewed who were there, they said Obama was ready to throw some punches,” says Mendell.

Yes, a "friendly gesture."     And Mitt Romney merely wanted to soothe a nervous Rick Perry:




Admittedly, as this Wikipedia entry suggests, Hendon may be a guy whom it's easy to be tempted to slug.      But as Isaiah prophesied the coming of the Lord, the vote may have portended the presidency of Barack Obama, at least as notable for disregarding his liberal allies as for the lack of  courage reflected in his "present" votes as state senator             Still, how comforting it is to know that this November we'll probably have a choice between a patronizing right-winger and a patronizing centrist.






Share |

The Power Of "O"

Craig Garthwaite and Tim Moore of the Department of Economics at the University of Maryland have prepared a study to determine the impact of Oprah Winfrey's endorsement in May, 2007 of Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president.

Garthwaite and Moore reviewed areas with high per-capita circulation of Oprah magazine and of high per-capita sales of books in Oprah's Book Club, reasonably assuming that those are areas in which the talk-show host is most popular. They controlled for various other factors and developed several mathematical models. Analyzing both the effect on voter share and on participation, they concluded that the votes for other candidates "slightly increased" as a result of the endorsement and that the effect on voter participation is greater than that on voter share. Turnout increased by approximately 2,196,300 out of a total of 33,386,184 votes cast. (Forty-five states and the District of Columbia were studied- excluded were Michigan, in which Obama and a few other candidates were not on the ballot; Florida, in which alll candidates agreed not to campaign; Kansas, North Dakota, and Alaska , which do not report county-level voter information; and Texas, in which one can vote in a primary and/or caucus, "creating different incentives in voting behavior.")

But as for the main conclusion: the academics concluded that Winfrey's endorsement "was responsible" for 1,015,559 (net) votes for Obama, with a 95% chance that the effect was from 423,123 to 1,596,995.

One million-plus votes out of a total of thirty-three million-plus votes may not sound like that much. But it was extraordinary and, arguably, pivotal in a race won by the now-presumptive nominee by far fewer than one million votes (and won only if Michigan and Florida are not counted, truly a bizarre calculation given that the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC eventually imparted legitimacy to the vote by accepting partial allocation of their delegates). And in the 45 jurisdictions included in the study, Obama gained only 278,966 votes more than chief rival Clinton.

Unfortunately (given the candidates), the researchers argue that the impact of an endorsement is significantly smaller in a general election than in a primary contest, inasumuch as in the latter (and especially in this contest), the ideological positions of the candidates differ relatively little, with voters more concerned with policy positions in the general.

Still, being responsible for the votes of over one million Americans- far more than any other endorsement could be- is truly impressive and remarkable testimony to the influence of America's paramount celebrity. No surprise, though, that John McCain chose to try to tie Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears rather than the woman known by her first name and, to herself, "O."

Oprah: Apathetic No Longer


Step aside, Iraq; destruction of CIA torture tapes; health care; mortgage crisis. The big news on the campaign trail, Democratic or Republican, is the Big O. Oprah. Goddess.

After drawing 8500 souls to Verizon Wireless Arena (now say that five times fast) in Manchester, New Hampshire, Ms. Winfrey drew over 29,000 people to a football stadium in Columbia, South Carolina for Barack Obama. Reports confirm that she was inspiring. In N.H.: "He understands that he can bring us all together as one United States of America. Not the red states and the blue states and the left and the right, but the United States of America....Apathy is believing that disappointment is normal; what Barack Obama has taught me is that disappointment doesn't have to be normal." In South Carolina: Barack Obama has “a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth” so “Dr. King dreamed the dream, but we don’t have to dream the dream anymore; we get to vote that dream into office.”

But here is the most interesting thing the queen of daytime television noted: "For the first time in my life I stepped out of my box, stepped out of that TV box and supported a candidate for president."

That's right. When Bill Clinton- he of the balanced budget, Family and Medical Leave Act, Brady Bill, assault weapons ban, effort to reform health care, expansion of breast cancer research and Earned Income Tax Credit- stood for election and reelection, Oprah Winfrey stood on the sidelines. When Al Gore, already a pioneer in environmentalism and poised to build on Clinton's generally progressive record, ran against George W. Bush, Oprah Winfrey stood on the sidelines. And when John Kerry challenged President Bush, already a manifestation of failed right-wing policies, Oprah Winfrey stood around.

Now Ms. Winfrey has decided to endorse. There are several reasons to support Barack Obama. Oprah Winfrey is not one of them.