I Tried To Tell You: Why Oprah Matters

Back in October of last year I posted a piece here on HuffPo after I had watched a then, undeclared, Senator Obama sit with Oprah.

"Oprah is talking to Obama about the possibility of him running for President in 2008. And I'm ignoring the cries of 'WHERE IS SPONGEBOB!' to hear the answer.

A daytime talk show host is pushing politics on her show...and this mother is not only listening intently, but sitting on the edge of her seat to hear the banter.

Welcome to the new spin on campaigning, and the new breed of Mom voter. Get used to politicians and their wives on Oprah being watched by educated homemakers with tattoos and outspoken opinions. Get used to this making many people uncomfortable."

Now we see Ms. Winfrey and the candidate stumping and it's working.

Go ahead and shake your head that some talk show host is making a difference in the '08 election. Go ahead and roll your eyes that these mothers and women care.

Fellow BlogHer Morra Aarons-Mele writes:

"If you follow politics, you've no doubt heard that unmarried women represent a holy grail of voters: 50 million or so likely Democrats that year after year, flirt with voting and political activism, but don't commit. This cycle, they're dubbed the 'Sex and the City voters.' To woo these women, the establishment provides celebrities, and catchy spots laced with sexual innuendo -- ooh, winking about their first time! Voting, that is.

My friend and Democratic pollster Margie Omero sent me the post about the Single Anxious Female frame. She noted to me, 'Women, across marital status groups, vote at a higher rate than do men. But the coverage stemming from concern about 'Single Anxious Women' (even called the 'Sex in the City Voter') not only doesn't reflect the data, it trivializes women.' Even in 2007, women are pitched civics lessons as if we can only relate to global affairs if the issues are dressed in sexy shoes, just-folks style dishing, or are at lunch with Samantha, Carrie and the girls."

I suppose there is an argument to be make about gimmicks and celebrities being busted out for votes. I also think there is an argument to be made that Oprah is trusted and speaks to most women.

Marty Kaplan writes, "...Oprah may actually be the twenty-first century's de facto national anchor. She really does channel -- and change -- Middle America."

A national anchor that has the ear of just about every American woman I know.

Go ahead and laugh if you want, or be disgusted by "some celebrity" making a difference. Maybe you don't care for her charity work or maybe you don't like that she is wealthy and powerful. Maybe you don't like that she does it with women top of mind. Whatever the reason, I suggest you take notice. As I mentioned in October,

"According to Women's Voices. Women Vote. 20 million women did not vote in the last election. That's 20 million women.

I'm guessing Oprah can reach a few of those 20 million women. I'm guessing Mommybloggers can reach a few of those 20 million women. I'm guessing the honesty and hopefulness of a young Senator can reach a few of those 20 million women.

I'm guessing YOU had better redefine that tiny box of yours to include 20 million different kinds of woman. We're not clear cut. We're not all Donna Reed. We're not all what you think a woman should be. What a mother should be. What a sister should be. What a daughter, aunt, girlfriend, or Oprah watcher should be.

But we sure as hell can vote."

I caution you to realize this does not only apply to Obama. As BlogHer's Catherine Morgan points out, there are over 300 women discussing politics in blogs. Even my much-ridiculed Mommyblogger circle is educated and in on the act.

I'm tired of the snickering from those who find this less-than-serious politics. I'm tired of the feeling women voters are "cute" and entranced by Oprah or Hillary's new hair-do.

I suggest the mainstream media and other writers, political campaigns, and candidates themselves learn a lesson from the Oprah effect. As I've heard BlogHer Co-founder Lisa Stone say many times about many different things: "ignore us at your own peril."

Erin Kotecki Vest also blogs at Queen of Spain blog and BlogHer.com

Comments

[radmul]

Oprah having GWB on her show and softballing him helped that moron look acceptable to the populace. If she can help polish that turd she should be able to sell an actual competant candidate with ease.

[bach]

I think when it comes to endorsing a book or a product vs. endorsing a political candidate, the American people hopefully have more sense than to simply take the word of Oprah.

[MagisterLudi]

Opra would be as helpful to Obama, as Michael Moor was to Kerry--not at all.
Media is happy selling copy, but its all a lot of hot air,but no nomination.

[Lazslo]

I saw Oprah's appearance with Obama in Iowa Saturday on C-Span. I have to say that it was quite an electric event. Both Oprah and Obama gave very good speeches. I was curious to see how Oprah would approach the position that she found herself in, and I was most impressed by her thinking, and I'm a white male (who never watches Oprah's television show). It was evident to me that if she gave a speech exhorting Iowans to vote for Obama that it would have a backlash effect. But she very wisely did not do that. Instead, she spoke about why she thought Obama would be a good president at this time, and the fact that she had a lot to loose by coming out and supporting Obama in a political arena. It was all about Oprah, not "do this Iowa". Her intelligence came through and she kept the large, mostly white audience, tuned in and upbeat. She is a great public speaker, a great communicator, and it seemed to me that what she does is not tell someone else what to do, but rather she says what she is doing and why, and people resonate with her logic and choices. It's not that she is a persuader singing a tune to mindless masses who agree with her; it's that Oprah has the ability to precisely communicate something that is true and important for millions of people. I think she will have a big effect on the voters, but the effect is still unquantifiable. Obama then spoke and his speech was dynamic. He's probably the grandest speaker I have ever heard in my life (I was just a child when Bobby Kennedy was shot). You really do get a sense of being part of something new when listening to Obama, and something that is possible if acted upon. As he said, the time is now for this something new. I support Richardson and think his policies and experience are simply better and wiser than Obama's, but this was a dynamic political event, I have to say.

[Qbear]

Oprah also introduced Obama to Donnie McClurkin....how'd that work out for Obama's campaign? "Uniter not a divider"...He can kiss my queer a$$!

[lwaxanatroi]

Elephant in living room alert! Hasn't anyone noticed that Oprah is black? A black celebrity endorsing a black candidate is waaaayyyy different from Barbra Striesand or Chuck Norris showing up at rallies. I've read some posts on other blogs, and the racism of the rants against Oprah didn't bother disguising the resentment felt against a really rich African-American woman. I was going to finish that sentence, but let's stop there for a moment. There is a large, albeit ugly, group of people who in their heart of hearts really thinks there's something majorly wrong with the universe if a black person could become as rich and influential as Ms. Winfrey. They resent her, and they fear that her influence used for an African-American presidential candidate will, first of all, cause all black voters to fall in line like sheep, and second, cause all women to fall in line like sheep. They believe this because down deep, they think both blacks and women are sheep, lesser beings without their sterling powers of thought. Now, it's not as if these trolls were ever going to vote for Obama, but how many people who are less trollish but still uncertain about trusting nonwhites and nonmales might be put off by what they see as Oprah's Pied Piperism. The Oprah Effect will, I think, spark a backlash this time. The question is: which will be larger, her effect in bringing out voters for Obama, or her effect in bringing out voters determined to "save us" from Obama?

[Balzac]

I never was in doubt of Oprah's persuasiveness.

That's why I was so pissed at her for sucking up to Bush before the election in 2000!

Oprah ought to make up for that, and for speaking favorably of the invasion of Iraq.

Barack Obama would be much better than Hillary Clintush.

Nevertheless, Barack is a chump and a politician.

Barack has pissed me off by speaking negatively of impeachment.

Harry Belafonte just endorsed John Edwards, and that's who I had in mind of the big three.

But the top three candidates are all chumps and Kucinich is the man.

[jdm58]

Oprah is not just a "celebrity", she is an influencial voice. Many people, male and female, find her to be wise, trustworthy, and inspirational, even if they don't like her, or what she promotes. I remember the suit brought against her by cattlemen here in Texas a few years back, when she was cautioning against eating beef. She won the suit, mostly because those same cattlemens WIVES were on her side. I doubt Obama would have as much influencial clout behind him from anyone else, celebrity or otherwise. The results may be similar to when DeGaulle claimed in the '50s, "je vous ai compris ("I understand you", or "I know where you're coming from"). Everyone, on all sides, thought he was talking to them, were touched personally, and he won the election by a landslide. Oprah's endorsement will certainly make things interesting, of that we can be sure.

[bethinCary]

We all know pundits and msm are doing the bidding of govt. propagandists.
So why would we not believe what Oprah says?
At least after the James Frey fiasco-Oprah has the grace and dignity to come clean-(or else put Frey back on her show to do it!)
Oprah has a trusted history with her viewers of not manipulating them-and will admit error if she does-something the msm does not get, as they continue to lie and manipulate to promote war, torture, illegal wiretapping...
A little honesty goes a long way careerwise and in life in general.

[Doofus]

'Go ahead and shake your head that some talk show host is making a difference in the '08 election. Go ahead and roll your eyes that these mothers and women care.'

Of course they do. Oprah will buy them a car!

[SeanGardner]

Hi Ms. Vest. GREAT POST!!!

You have completely hit the nail on the head! Oprah's stumping for Obama "in theory" allowed bloggers and pundits to put forth their ideas about why Oprah's support of Obama will or won't work. But as you noted above, now "we see Ms. Winfrey and the candidate stumping and it's working."

Yes it is working: 18,500 people on their first stop, and 10,000 people on their second stop. And today they go New Hampshire where crowds will again be in the tens of thousands, and then on to South Carolina where the crowd could swell easily to 50,000 to 80,000!

I am tired of people writing this off as "just another celebrity endorsement". They are mistaken. Oprah is a celebrity. No doubt. But she is famous for the empowering, inspirational topics she has tackled on show. She is famous for her viewer-driven generosity and philanthropy of her ANGEL NETWORK, and, for the fact that seperately gives $50 million a year. She is famous because she put her money where her mouth is: she paid hundreds of thousands to viewers to turn in the most wanted fugitive pedophiles, and she personally donated millions for the realization of a school for young girls (from impoverished communities) in South Africa. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

I've had my issues with Oprah over a few things. But, I don't have to agree with her on everything. I just proud of her awe-inspiring achievements, and I know that just calling her "just another celebrity" is an attempt to cheapen her influence and impact. It won't work.

Like yesterday, people will come out today and cheer wildly because Obama is being introduced by a media titan, business pioneer, cultural icon, intellectual warrior, and an action-oriented, philanthropic visionary. People will cheer wildly because Oprah and Obama both believe that it is not a contradiction to address and understand both the color-specific differences that make us unique, and, the color neutral commonalities that bring us together.

Obama baby! Fired up and ready to go!!!

[cloudy]

OK, I admit. I'm biased. I support and have already made several modest donations to Obama's campaign. I think of those Democrats who might possibly get the nomination he is both the strongest candidate and would make the best president.

So I am totally content with Oprah's stepping forward. If I supported another candidate, would I hypocritically be whining as so many are? I like to think not.

Celebrities endorsing politicians running for office is old old old political reality. No one ordinarily complains -- it's routine. None of the people attacking Oprah now for having had W Bush on her show (she also had Gore) in 2000 seem to have raised the issue then.

In short, she has a powerful influence and has exercised her basic Constitutional first amendment right to use that influence. All the complaining about it is only an indirect tribute to the kind of influence that she has developed. Me, I don't care about makeovers and am no devotee of Dr. Phil's 'scarlet letter' school of psychotherapy. But her show (which I have very occasionally watched) is sometimes interesting, and in this election I believe she has made the right call.

People may disagree about the latter, but NO ONE has any substantive basis to question her legal or moral right to speak out.