Oprah Is to Iraq as Cronkite Was to Vietnam

It's the war, stupid.

That's what came to mind as I watched Oprah Winfrey stump for Barack Obama this weekend. It's not about whether a star who can make a book a bestseller can also make a primary candidate the nominee, as the media are framing it. It's about reassuring the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq that they are, in fact, an overwhelming majority. It's also about giving courage or cover to every Democratic member of Congress who is tempted to swallow The Surge Is Working™, to take Iraq off the table, to forget that, more than Katrina, more than the mortgage meltdown, more than healthcare, it's the war -- the Cheney Libby Chalabi Blackwater WMD Abu Ghraib Wolfowitz Rumsfeld Feith Perle Yoo Waterboarding Walter Reeding Oedipus Bush war -- that looms over everything else casting lawless shadows across our country.

How do people know what other people think? The sad truth is that it doesn't come from talking to one another; it comes from the media. And the media, for reasons ranging from mercantile to ideological to laziness, frame every issue, including the Iraq war, as (at best) a battle between two plausible sides, or (at worst) as a crusade of the Right against the Wrong.

That's why no journalist can today occupy the place that Walter Cronkite did when, at the end of a CBS documentary about the 1968 Tet offensive, he said the U.S. was in a stalemate in Vietnam and should get out. That moment, it's said, caused LBJ to tell an aide, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." But today there's no MSM journalist who channels Middles America. Whatever their other virtues are, the ABC, CBS and NBC anchors are paid their multimillions not to tell the truth, but to sell the truth-has-two-sides story, which is also how you maximize audiences. (Drop a coupla zeroes from the salaries and viewerships, and it's true of PBS, too.) Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert actually do tell the truth, and they mercilessly deconstruct the biases of "fair and balanced" faux news and fatuous "narrative" narratives, but their audience sizes limit their impact, and their matter is more than matched by Republican media anti-matter.

But Oprah -- well, in an age that has thoroughly blurred the boundary between news and entertainment, Oprah may actually be the twenty-first century's de facto national anchor. She really does channel -- and change -- Middle America.

And as I watched Oprah introduce Senator Obama in Iowa, the two-by-four that hit me on the head wasn't: Oprah is for Obama. It was: Oprah is against the war.

Maybe, just maybe, Oprah's audience will take from this the message that their own opposition to the war isn't a betrayal of the troops, as the Republicans claim; isn't giving comfort to the terrorists, as the administration asserts; isn't moral cowardice, as the Right's bile-spewing whiner intelligentsia insists. And maybe the message that current and aspiring members of Congress will take from Oprah's unembarrassed anti-war message is that it's not political suicide to stand with the decisive majority of the American people, that being called bad names by your opponents will not kill you, that if as canny a businesswoman and brand manager as Oprah doesn't think it's a fatal risk to tell the truth about Iraq, then maybe you can afford some campaign candor, too.

I don't know whether Oprah's endorsement will give Obama an edge over Hillary Clinton. But I do know that it gives a lift to every candidate and every citizen who rejects the "finish the job" neoconjob. Whether you think Senator Clinton's record warrants that mantle is a separate question. What's not in question is the message that Oprah's endorsement of the anti-war message sends to the country: If Oprah can feel it and think it and say it, then you can feel it and think it and say it. What's not in question is the message to Democratic politicians, especially incumbents, still weaseling on Iraq: If you've lost Oprah, you've lost Middle America.

Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan

Comments

[HereticalPolemicisit]

Oprah as not only the carnival barker who got the curious to enter the Obama tent-show (OBTW, he could have given a more inspired speech than the re-hash of his old stump speeches), she became another muse for not only you the viewer and listener, but an existential standard challenge for Barack, besides his wife Michelle, whose formidable talents may be taken as too partsan to be totally credible for Barack.

That existential challenge goes back to how we perceive them. Barack and Hillary-more Hillary than Barack-suffer from not trusting that inner-child that was the progenitor of their present personna. John Edwards touches on it often, which explains his support. Barack could validate his eloquent words and Hillary could put an emotional face to her intellectualizations by tuning back into the emotional energy of their childhood that fed their politcal consciousness and activism.

To use the Gay-genesis analogy. None of them, hopefully, woke-up and decided to be what they are. It was a process from their experiences of their visceral reactions to life events that brought them to the affirmations that are today's declarations.

[e-mail]

[olo]

All the above is True or Not? So what!
Amerikans elected & re-elected Noxin regardless of Cronkite - & that war continued.
As of now, the demz are too busy pissing their pants to have any impact & the pugz are still tossing gas on the flames.

Installing corporate approved demz next year will fundamentally alter nothing.

Better start heading for a nice hill, in a northern latitude.

[strangelet]

With all due respect to Oprah (and I mean that -- the woman is a marketing genius and a charismatic personality), it's silly to compare her to Cronkite. I'm sixty; I can remember Uncle Walter in his prime. He was, possibly, the last genuine media journalist. He reported the news (and occasionally his opinions -- carefully separating the two) day after day. People trusted him because they learned to believe that he was telling them the truth.

Oprah is trusted because people believe that she is *sincere*. Sort of like Ronald Reagan, she truly believes what she says at the time she says it, and folks respond to that. I don't know about the beef commodity crash, but I certainly remember when she endorsed Airborne, which is sort of a fizzy, herb-based cold remedy (that I must admit I personally think is worthless). It was sold out for months, until the manufacturer could gear up for the increase in demand.

So, her viewers trust her. I hope that in her political endorsement she has exercised some discretion (this is the same person who thought James Frey could change peoples' lives). Personally, I'd be more impressed if her recommendation included references to specific policy proposals, rather than "vision". BTW, this remark holds true for ALL celebrity endorsements of anything -- give me some reason to believe you understand what you are endorsing.

It's entirely possible that Oprah can deliver millions of votes. I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing. My generation trusted Uncle Walter because we knew he wasn't trying to sell us anything; Oprah's fans appear to trust her because they believe that she believes in what she's selling them. I think that's a significant difference. As best as I recall, Cronkite never endorsed a political candidate. I suspect he would have considered it an abuse of trust.

[JohnSmart]

nonsense. oprah has had no effect on this campaign. she made a splash over the weekend that is fading form view already.
the analogy that is correct is GORE/DEAN in 2003. It did dean no good. oprah's effect will be nominal at best.
we are electing a President not the class president.
Obama will win Iowa. and illinois. and that is all. Thank God.

[Garvagh]

I hope Kaplan is right. Clinton is too likely to play toward what is "safe", and leave tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for her entire term or terms (should she get to the White House).LBJ knew he could continue to deceive the American public, month after month, if the network newcasters played along. Bush has done a variation on this theme, which I doubt would have happend, had it not been for the fact the promoters of Israeli annexation of the West Bank think a large US military presence in Iraq helps their scheme advance.

[outnow]

Marty,

By 1965, I knew that the war in Vietnam was wrong. Middle Americans know only what they are told by the TV and Oprah helped sell the war.

Have you read the Pentagon Papers? The Downing Street Memo? We're not talking about football here, unless you include political football as a sport. Keep hope alive is not the issue - confronting the neocons is. Not compromising with them.

Turning to Oprah and middle America - she was in favor of the war although the courageous people in this country spoke out against it. She was not one of them. The fact that we are not winning - whatever that is currently defined as - is not the point. There is a much larger battle brewing right here at home.

Obama has the same agenda as many Republicans. He wants to reach across the aisle to accomplish many of the free trade agendas of the Republicans such as tort reform and sending more jobs overseas for the benefit of his Wall Street clients.

The keep hope alive concept is not what America needs. I have hope when Democrats represent working people and the middle class, not Wall Street or even Middle America.

Hillary and Obama are two peas in a pod. Obama is further to the right in many ways that even Hillary. It is incredible that anyone would fall for the "false center" in this country. You are either for the middle class and what is morally and legally a war crime in Iraq.

Threaten the neocons with socialism and then negotiate with the extreme right. The more Hillary and Obama seek to "hog the middle," the more the right moves to the extreme right to distinguish their positions from the "liberals."

An inconvenient truth is that real wages for the rank-and-file wage earner in this country has risen by only one cent in the past four years, as controlled for inflation. That's what Obama's free trade policy is doing to the Middle Class. That's what Oprah and he should be talking about.

[jpshotwheels]

Marty, I read your columm yesterday and was going to comment, but I said no, I will wait till I hear the speech. By a stroke of my fingers, I switched over to CSPAN online and watched it. As to most of the comments here, I guess they should have watched it also. This is the problem with America, we make comments before we see the what we are making comments about.

I found Oprah very sincere and very concerned, with the direction of America as we are right now, where we are headed, but most important where we should be headed in the future. She is asking people to wake up, pay attention, and become active. Barak is an opportunity for that.

Then Barak spoke, he was super in his message, and touched some topics I have been waiting to hear his views on. The housing crisis, climate crisis, division in America, Poverty, Education, the Iraq War, Habeaus Corpus, and restoring the Constitution. These are serious issues that have to be faced. Quickly with immediate attention and immediate solutions.

If it took Oprah, to bring the best out of Obama, well her Mission Succeeded. I found them both very inspiring and if we need one thing in this Country right now is Hope & Inspiration, lets get America back where we want it.

[kjg25171]

Read Bill Richardson's Dec. 7 post at this site.

"Iraq, the Elephant in the Room"
The following is just a clip.

No other single problem is as crippling to this country right now as the war in Iraq. Our ongoing troop presence is preventing a real Iraqi reconciliation. Maintaining 170,000 troops in Iraq not only stretches our military to the breaking point, it keeps us from having the troops available to deal with other emerging crises -- whether it is peace keeping or disaster response.

It is folly to believe we can continue on this path and conduct the necessary overhauls to children's insurance, health care, and our schools. It will be almost impossible to deal with global warming and lead the world in a new energy revolution while weighed down by the financial and diplomatic costs of the on-going war in Iraq.

We can't let ending the war become the "forgotten issue" in this campaign, and we can't let it continue. The costs are just too high.

Unfortunately, my fellow candidates seem content with leaving the issue behind. Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards still mention ending the war - but will not unequivocally commit to getting all troops out quickly (and lets be clear - all troops includes non-combat troops, combat strike teams, or any other spin-variation of "troops" falling under our military command in Iraq).

And they will not commit to getting all of the troops out by 2013. Six more years is too long to wait.

Our new website www.2013istoolate.com

[Bluetiger]

The real question is, if Mr. O does not win the nomination will Ms O go out and campaign for the winner. I think not!

[janmB]

Getting out of IRAQ is still more important than which one of the Democrats will be elected President (we hope and pray)
Georgie would keep our troops hostage in IRAQ til kingdom come rather than withdraw and admit it was a mistake. Too many have died--too many wounded---too much destruction to admit it was a mistake. His loyal--republicans bear now as much responsibility for additional deaths in IRAQ for supporting GWB instead of the troops and what is best for the USA.

[ElkoJohn]

`
''Maybe, just maybe, Oprah's audience will take from this the message that their own opposition to the war isn't a betrayal of the troops, as the Republicans claim; isn't giving comfort to the terrorists, as the administration asserts; isn't moral cowardice, as the Right's bile-spewing whiner intelligentsia insists.''

How 'bout Obama, you think Obama will get it ??
.

[HarlowGal1960]

Had to add this, although it has run here before, by Larry Gelbert, under the title "Lest We Forget:
Iraq
Iraq
Iraq
Abu Ghraib
Guantanamo
Unwarranted Phone Taps
Unprecedented Powers
Unmatched Incompetence
Unparalleled Corruption
Governor Bob Taft
Representative Tom Delay
Representative Roy Blunt
Representative Ken Calvert
Representative John Dolittle
Representative Tom Feeney
Representative Katherine Harris
Representative Jerry Lewis
Representative Gary Miller
Representative Marilyn Musgrave
Representative Richard Pombo
Representative Rick Renzi
Representative John Sweeney
Representative Charles Taylor
Representative Curt Weldon
Representative J.D. Hayworth
Representative Don Sherwood
Representative Bob Ney
Representative Duke Cunningham
Representative Tom Reynolds
Representative Chris Cannon
Jeff Gannon
Representative Mark Foley
Representative Dennis Hastert
Senator George Allen
Senator Bill Frist
Senator Conrad Burns
Senator Rick Santorum
David Safavian
The Vice Presidential Energy Task Force
Three bucks a gallon
Record oil company profits
Anwar Pipeline
Anbar Province
Adelphia
Merck
Halliburton
Arthur Anderson
Qwest
Tyco
WorldCom
Global Crossing
Global Warming
Global Boiling
Exxon
Enron
Abramoff
Adam Kidan
Timothy Flanigan
Ralph Reed
Rita
Katrina
Fema
Terri
Condi
Harriet Miers
The Supreme Court
Diebold
John Bolton
Florida, 2000
Ohio, 2004
North Korea
Iran
Darfur
Stem Cell Research
Scooter Libby
Valerie Plame
Golden Parachutes
Shrunken Pensions
Bernie Kerik
Eminent Domain
Social Security
Habeas Corpus
Ahmad Chalabi
The Baghdad Museum
Tora Bora
Taliban Resurgence
Iraqi Insurgents
General Eric Shinsecki
General Anthony Zinni
Mission Accomplished
Illegal Immigration
Intelligent Design

Kenneth Tomlinson
Claude Allen
Swift Boat Hit Squads
Ari Fleischer
Scott McClellan
Tony Snow
Ann Coulter
Expiration of Assault Weapons Ban
John Ashcroft
Alberto Gonzales
George Tenet
Paul Bremer
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Kissinger Redux
Duck Cheney
Donald Henry Rumsfeld
Turd Blossom

And finally, the Uniter-Decider-Reader of Camus, Shakespeare and "My Pet Goat," who describes the party that successfully prosecuted two world wars as people who cut and run.

[happy4506]

Oprah or no other "celebrity" is going to change my mind on whom to vote for. In fact I think Oprah is a big "goof" so she sure wouldn't sway my vote.

[BlueBoomer]

Oprah has done a lot of good for many people, BUT to compare her to Walter Cronkite is ludicrous.

Oprah is a pop culture icon.

Oprah never had to tell the country that our President had been murdered...that his young wife was now a widow...that his young children were fatherless...
Oprah never had to report, night after night to Americans as they ate their dinner the horrific body-counts of Viet-Nam.

Oprah gives away stuff and tells stay-at-home moms how to buy jeans that fit.

How dare compare the two.

It just illustrates why, in an election campaign that is so critical, that it's the candidates with the best media back-stories that are the "front-runners", despite emminently more qualified candidates...why the campaign has been the tail wagging the dog.

It's appalling and it pisses me off, and it actually makes me embarassed and ashamed for our country.

What crap!
Oprah = Conkrite
BullShit!

[wndrwrthg]

orca is to Mr. Cronkite as georgie bush is to intelligence. Walter Cronkite is an admired journalist and news anchor who was willing to go where there was news and put his life in jeopardy. orca is a hack, a shill to the brain dead that make up daytime viewers. Her success is based on the gullibility of those who watch her to whom she gleefully leads by the nose.