I think the Oprah effect is really overblown.  Oprah is asking someone to buy a book or watch a show.  We are talking about picking a President.

You'd have to have a pretty dim view of the people who watch Oprah's show to believe they will simply be sheep and vote for someone not on issues, but because Oprah so it is a good thing to do.

As I pointed out earlier past endorsements haven't really helped.   Springsteen is the close thing a 40 year white guy has to an Oprah type celeb.  I thought, as many did, that Bruce would help Kerry close the gap with Bush among this group of voters (white males).  It didn't happen, despite prolonged, active campaigning by 'The Boss' (w/ sold out shows to boot).

Hillary's sit down with Charlie Gibson may sway more voters than 1 Oprah event with Obama.   Its substance vs. sizzle.

Clinton w/ Gibson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjkpHNubo os&eurl=http://www.hillaryhub.com/

It will help, and I'm putting my unbiased cap on for this prediction.

Charisma, new crowds and people to get the message out, and a lot of free publicity/media coverage.


Most of all, I hope Oprah has fun, that is really the important thing to me.

--Nicholas

It looks like the Iowa events have not been sold out and some media outlets are reporting that Oprah is less popular in Iowa than in other places -- these numbers would seem to contradict that.

Also, in a major and unexpected blow to Senate Democrats, both top recruits in Kentucky's Senate race (Luallen and Stumbo) now appear unlikely to run: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/in-blow-to-senate-democrats-top.html  

It's strange to see how the media has festered around the Oprah Obama story...I think Hillary has been looking for an Oprah like endorsement... http://enewsreference.wordpress.com/

More fawning prose and hype...Here's a different take;

Oprah can't help Barack Obama nail Hillary Clinton in Iowa, New Hampshire, or even South Carolina. The throng of Oprah groupies that pitched camp in front of the Obama campaign headquarters in Columbia, South Carolina to get free tickets to her and Obama's appearance at the Colonial Center in that city were there to ogle, and if they are lucky, touch the garments of America's favorite TV earth mother at the auditorium.

But after the ogling and touching Oprah, it doesn't mean they'll vote for Obama. A Pew Research Center poll after a big Oprah fundraising bash in September found that by a crushing margin respondents said that Oprah's tout of Obama won't sway them the least bit. And it shouldn't, at least not because, Oprah says so. Despite all the talk about Oprah being a transcendental force that supersedes mere celebrity mortals she's still just that, a celebrity. The thousands that clawed for tickets to rub shoulders with her at her Obama pep rally in Columbia, South Carolina were there precisely because of her star power and the insatiable celebrity mania that grips far too many star struck Americans.

Yet, celebrities fail miserably every time to do much for their political picks. Willie Nelson, Madonna, Jon Bovi, Martin Sheen, and in reverse, George Clooney are big money celebrities and virtual household names. They all endorsed Democratic presidential candidates in 2004. Nelson endorsed Dennis Kucinich. Bon Jovi endorsed John Kerry. Sheen endorsed Howard Dean. Madonna backed Wesley Clark. One of their picks went down to flaming defeat. The other three never came close to getting the Democratic presidential nomination.

As for Clooney, he publicly declared that he hoped that his non-endorsement of Kerry probably helped him at the polls. It didn't. Though Clooney now backs Obama he's still very mindful of the potential liability of celebrity hood and has publicly said that he thinks campaigning for a candidate hurts a candidate. Clooney recognized a political truism that's etched in stone. That's that a celebrity pump of a presidential candidate does little to boost the candidate.

The one group that Obama hopes is the rare exception to the rule is black women. He banks heavily that Oprah can help him smash through the Hillary fest that many black women have with Clinton. In South Carolina, black voters make up nearly half of the Democratic voters, a greater proportion than any other state, and black women make up a significant proportion of that vote. Though most adore Oprah and are well aware of her long standing backing of Obama, that hasn't shaken their support of Clinton the least bit. Nearly three times more black women say they'll back Hillary over him, and that's especially true among lower income, working class black women. She is a woman, mother, and most importantly is regarded by many black women as a strong advocate for health care and women's interests.

Selling Obama is not like selling one of Oprah's handpicked authors that the mere mention of on her show will send their book hurtling to the top of the charts. Voters make their decisions about politicians on a combination of factors, party affiliation, their stance on the issues, their political beliefs, and their experience at getting the job done. Few will rely on Oprah's word that Obama is the best to handle global warming, tax policy, the Iraq war, terrorism, job creation and inflation, failing public schools, criminal justice issues and judicial appointments.

A candidate, and only the candidate, has to sell his or herself that they have a sound grasp of the issues, and can forcefully and clearly articulate them, and most importantly, are the most experienced. That's the glaring Achilles Heel for Obama. In every poll, even the most rabid Clinton loathers, rank Hillary at the top of the pile in experience in dealing with foreign and domestic issues. Voters got burned badly with Bush. His gross inexperience in statecraft before grabbing the White House cost Americans dearly in eight years of his disastrous bumbles and fumbles on everything from the Iraq war to domestic policy. Many voters won't make that mistake again.

That's not to say that endorsements don't help a candidate. But they have to be the right endorsements. The right ones come from seasoned politicians and respected industry, labor, or public interest groups that have the trust and confidence of voters, and a solid track record in fighting for legislation and public policy change. That's also not to say that Oprah's endorsement will hurt Obama. The hype, promotion, and allure of Oprah have some value in bumping even higher Obama's media visibility.

The O and O show has caused the tongues to wag, eyebrows to rise and they will draw legions to their campaign stops. But that won't be the knock out wallop Obama counts on to floor Hillary. Celebrities simply don't and shouldn't pack that kind of political punch. And neither does Oprah.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press)
hutchinsonreport@aol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/oprah-cant-help-obama-na_b_75786.html

Slant IS everything in political reportage, and fair and balanced is the 1984-ish slogan of the most biased , "news" agency in history.  Aswini Anburajan should report at least one story about how Obama (to her surprise and dismay) can't walk on water.


Van

I think this Oprah thing might get overplayed a bit.  Tread lightly, Obama.

I think this Oprah thing might get overplayed a bit.  Tread lightly, Obama.

No one will vote for Obama merely because Oprah supports him. Obama himself acknowledges this. Can she help bring people out this weekend? Absolutely, but Obama will have to make his own case. I'm quite sure he's up to it.

Van,

I'm surprised you could write so many words attempting to refute a premise not even put forward by the artcle and then mistake a neutral numbers-driven piece for some sort of Obama boosterizing by the author.

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 11:29 AM)

Van,

I don't care how many people Oprah convinces to vote for Obama. They shouldn't be basing their vote on what she tells them they should do. In my mind, the big thing about her endorsement and campaign stops is that she will be able to bring thousands of people together at one place. Sure, it may be because they want to see her, but they will also hear Obama speak. That's pretty good publicity bang for a tiny buck.

We're talking percentage points here. Most of the polls show a close race in Iowa, 5-10 points in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Can Oprah get a few percent to vote for Obama, or get a few percent of non-voters to actually go to the polls. Just that few percent can make a big, big difference in these early states and I think that is the thing to watch. I don't know how you could measure it, as most polls have a margin of 5%, but I think that Oprah very well might make that 1-2% percent difference.

Maybe their opinions matter to some voters but I personally think all the celeb endorsements get much more attention than they deserve.

I know that you can't get accurate numbers for this: but  just about every time I go to see a doctor, dentist, mechanic, or other "service" businesses, I sit in the lobby somewhere between 4-5pm and Oprah is on. Almost every waiting room! It doesn't fail. And the demographics there are decidedly more mixed. Just a thought as to who also sees Oprah.

One problem with some of the above posts, Obama takes nothing for granted.  I guarantee his strategy for winning does not depend on any large sway Oprah has with her followers.  It's merely a benefit if some take her highly respected opinions and decide that they, too, appreciate a new kind of politics that offers a better America.

The largest benefit is simply from the media coverage.  It's putting Obama's name out there and reaching people who have previously never heard of him, or only heard of him in passing.  It will surely help decrease the safe "name recognition"-vote that's artificially keeping Clinton's numbers a bit higher than they are.

Steve-

I'm even more surprised than you, as I DIDN'T write the piece that is clearly authored by Earl Ofari Hutchinson and from today's HuffPo, WITH a link to the story.


Van


Van

The most important thing in campaigns is media coverage.  Oprah brings that.  I personally love Obama.  However, I am not a big fan of Oprah.  I really can't stand her frankly.  But this means media attention for the Obama campaign and that is good.  

Obama's strength is that he is smart, articulate, and right on the issues.  His weakness is that many people don't want to give him a chance and so they don't listen to what he says.  If Oprah makes even 8 % of Democrats listen to Obama's message, just listen, then she will have an effect.  

I think people are misunderstanding the purpose of Oprah.  The mission for oprah is to bring out the people who don't normally pay attention to politics.  They aren't into the speeches, who's running, what policies are going to affect them and why should they care.  These are the people Obama is trying to bring into the process of being active in their government.

Oprah will bring out the crowds, Obama will give them his message and if they feel convinced, they'd get involve and exercise their constitutional right and vote.  If he sparks their interest in politics again, they'll see they he is the right man for the times and get out and vote.

Oprah alone isn't going to convince people to vote for Obama, she's going to get them out to hear and see for themselves.

I think that saying that Celeb's have no effect on voting is incorrect, saying that they did not help in 2004 is rather disingenious as we all know that what happened in that election is that the Bushies, and GOP in general, cheated the system.  The whole firing of Attornies General because they would either not prosecute trumped up voting charges against the Democrats, or because they would not help to protect loyal Republicans that HAD committed criminal voting irregularities.  Between that and the whole electronic voting machine thing, in which they were scandalously  misused in states that had GOP-run Voting Offices....like Ohio.

 So, considering the amount of actual criminal activity surrounding the 2004 elections that REALLY changed who won or lost I don't see how anyone can say that having the support of Celebrities makes no difference.  The fact is, the Bushies thought they had wormed their way into a much bigger victory for the GOP than it actually turned out. Even with all of their law-shattering cheating.

As a qualifier here, I don't watch hardly any tv, nor am I a regular attender or watcher of movies, so I myself am not celebrity driven, just thought to toss that in.

J-

While I don't disagree with you, and you have previously stated that celeb endorsements shouldn't really mean much to the voters, you seem to be saying two things at once here. If they're coming out to see Oprah, it probably doesn't matter to them who's 2nd on the program, and if they come out to see Barack, he didn't really need her cache of celebrity to rope them in.
It will be very successful at filling the newshole for the weekend, and if Obama has to choose between coming back to vote on the energy bill and sharing the stage with Winfrey, it will also have a little drama too. Can't be bad for Obama either way. It's really a no-lose situation for him and it probably comes at the perfect time.


Van

Folks,

For people that are saying Oprah doesn't matter, I’ll suggest you fold your arms and watch the effect.

Here is what I observed yesterday while picking up my ticket in Obama's campaign office located in Manchester, NH. I met an elderly woman along the way and she told me she was undecided even though she has been to Clinton's campaign event several time. She said, Hillary is capable but Obama makes her think about the future. I sense this woman is about 58-62 years.

She was very excited about the coming of Oprah and told me she is looking forward to hearing what she has to say about Obama.

Here is my take; combination of Obama & Oprah is good for Obama's campaign. Since Oprah knows Obama very well, all she needs to do is to make a case for why she believes in him. I am very sure those undecided voters that have doubt about Hillary will surely switch to Obama if he can close the argument

I do not pretend to be objective, but I am a lot more impressed by Harry Belafonte's endorsement of Edwards than I am by Oprah's endorsement of Obama!

Who's Harry Belafonte?

If they're coming out to see Oprah, it probably doesn't matter to them who's 2nd on the program, and if they come out to see Barack, he didn't really need her cache of celebrity to rope them in.

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 12:12 PM)

I agree with Part II of your sentence, but I disagree with Part I. I have no statistics or anything to back it up, it's just an opinion.

Granted, the following analogy is not a perfect fit, but I will state it anyway. I feel like it's kind of like the Super Bowl. Lots of people watch just for the game (Oprah). But some people watch just for the commercials (Obama). And some watch for both. But the people who are watching just for the game still see the commercials and find a lot of them entertaining, and often remember them long after the game is over.

This is BIG.
With the crowd that Oprah has drawn to see her they will also get to see and hear Obama.

This is great!! With this strategy he can now let the American people jude for themselves that he is what he says he is, a man of change.
A least he is not throwing/slinging mud and lies as some other candidate (HRC) is doing.

Van darling, I didn`t know you cared.

Go Obama 08'

Van and Dickie---If Oprah was doing this for Hillary Clinton, would you two be SO against it?  Did the two of you ever stop to think that people MAY attend this event and come to the conclusion that Obama isn't ready to be president? They people MAY even decide that Clinton is more capable.  I'm an Obama supporter and I get someone NOT wanting to vote for him. What I don't get is detesting him or simply not liking him. To me, that just doesn't make any sense!!

To James in MN who asked "Who is Harry Belafonte?" Belafonte is a musician, actor and social activist. He is well know for his advocacy for civil rights and humanitarian causes. I believe that he was the first African American to win an Emmy, and that he has been awarded the Kennedy Center honors, the National Medal of Arts, and Grammy Lifetime Awards. He also has been an outspoken critic of Bush. Maybe you have to have been around awhile (oh to be young again) to know about him, but he and people like him are the probably a big part of the reason that Oprah is where she is today. She has celebrity, Belafonte has solid credibility in civil and human rights advocacy (also is a great singer -- check him out!).

Oprah makes a lot of social conservatives angry.
This could backfire on Obama.

Dickie Flatts Charlotte, NC:

Do you mean like all the people who acted like "sheep" when they voted for Bush because they would rather have a beer with him than with Gore??

It would be nice if people would vote on the issues.

Lewis-

I'm not sure if it's that you don't actually read my posts before you comment, or that you don't understand them when you do...


Van

Interesting article!!

While Clinton maintains her lead in national polling among Democrats, in direct matchups against Republican presidential candidates, she consistently runs behind both Barack Obama and John Edwards. In the recent national Zogby Poll (Nov. 26, 2007), every major Republican presidential candidate beats Clinton: McCain beats her 42 percent to 38 percent; Giuliani beats her 43 percent to 40 percent; Romney beats her 43 percent to 40 percent; Huckabee beats her 44 percent to 39 percent; and Thompson beats her 44 percent to 40 percent, despite the fact Thompson barely appears to be awake most of the time.

By contrast, Obama beats every major Republican candidate: He beats McCain 45 percent to 38 percent; Guiliani 46 percent to 41 percent; Romney 46 percent to 40 percent; Huckabee 46 percent to 40 percent; and, Thompson 47 percent to 40 percent. In other words, Obama consistently runs 8 to 11 percent stronger than Clinton when matched against Republicans. To state the obvious: The Democratic presidential candidate will have to run against a Republican.

Clinton's inherent weakness as a candidate shows up in other ways. In direct matchups for congressional seats, Democrats currently are running 10 percent to 15 percent ahead of Republicans, depending on the poll, while Clinton runs 3 percent to 7 percent behind -- a net deficit ranging from 13 to 22 percent. No candidate in presidential polling history ever has run so far behind his or her party.

To look at Clinton's candidacy another way, Clinton runs well behind generic polling for the presidency: In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted Nov. 1-5, 2007, voters were asked, "Putting aside for a moment the question of who each party's nominee might be, what is your preference for the outcome of the 2008 presidential election -- that a Democrat be elected president or that a Republican be elected president?" By 50 percent to 35 percent, voters chose "Democrat" -- a 15-point edge. Thus, Clinton is running 10 to 15 percent, or more, behind the generic Democratic candidate. This is not a promising metric nor the numbers of a strong candidate.

Look at Iowa: It is neck-and-neck, with Obama, Clinton and Edwards running close among the first tier of Democratic candidates. But Clinton is the only woman running against seven men, yet polls only around 25 percent. When you have been in the public eye for 15 years and are well-known, when your husband was a popular president and remains perhaps the most popular Democrat in America, when you are the only female candidate in a race against seven men, but you are polling just 25 percent, you are not a strong candidate.

Oprah makes a lot of social conservatives angry.
This could backfire on Obama.
J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY
-----------------------------------------------------

Could you point to the social conservatives Oprah made angry? Is it Sean Hannity or Bill O'reily? I am looking forward to hearing from you.

I know I don't care who celebrities endorse.  I follow the issues and form my own opinion, so it doesn't matter what they think as they don't think for me.  I'm sure a large number of the people showing up at the Oprah/Obama event really want to see Oprah and probably couldn't care less about politics.  

I have to agree that they are making far too much out of this than needs to be.  On a side note, I don't know anybody that watches Oprah, reads her magazine, or has any other "involvement" with her.  As for the waiting rooms always playing Oprah at those hours, everywhere I go plays the news on their TVs. =)  

It is truly amazing how much media attention this has gotten.   Why is everyone worried about how much an Oprah appearance is going to effect the election?   Most of the Pundits say it will not do anything.   No one is making any remarks about all of the high profile celebrity endorsements Hillary Clinton has gotten and those that appear with her.  

The media is constantly telling us Oprah's  appearance does not mean anything, then why is there this much buzz around it?

Are people really worried out there that it just may do something to really boost Obama's campaign?

Van,
Apparantly, I just don't understand them, because I think you're pretty anti-obama---I guess that's just me though!

I think that anyone who thinks Oprah as no effect on Obamas run for the White House is barking up the wrong tree. She has a commanding presents in TV,and will have all the free spots on TV over the week end. People are nuts if they say she will not sway peoples mind if her speech is a good one which i think it will be. Clinton being interviewed by a new caster wont have the same effect this week end for Obama is a home run for him. Oprah will put a book at number 1 on the best sellers list and she will do the same for him. No one has gotten as much money at one event as she got him at her party in calf. So nay sayers beware of a home run for Oprah.

Most of you understate the power of Oprah and these are the people who are full of fear and wouldn,t vote for Barack anyway. But what these people don't seem to understand is that it's not her job to help people decide who to vote for but more importantly, get large amount of people to these events to hear Barack and it will be his reponsibility to close the deal not Oprah's. Many people are afraid because they know in these types of venues this plays to Baracks strenghts large crowds not BS,staged debates.

Yes Lewis it is.


Van

Dante (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 1:15 PM)

What's most interesting is the A-Lack of attribution, B-Usage of an internet poll when you can find ALL of the recent polling (but not that one as the methodology of internet polls renders them virtually meaningless.)

Here, for the umpteenth time and 2nd or third time today is the link to realclearpolitics.com Republican vs. Democrat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

You are sure to find the results there interesting. Please be sure to fill me and everyone else here in on your opinion.


Van

Oprah will draw the crowds.  But will they listen.  Obama has to do his own work of selling his lines.  I  to, am only concerned with the issues.  When will we hear about attainable goals.  Concrete plan to end this War , actual Civil War which I have not heard in a long time from our Press.  Our men are dying for what.  Bushies folly of Lies. Don't think Clinton is interested in ending this fiasco.  We are spending money to support this folly that we must borrow from China.  We are in debt folks, our ecomony is in the pits.  Listen I voted for Bush twice.  Now I am ashamed to call myself a Republican.  I am now Independent I vote both sides of the ticket.  

Van, there are several polls out there. I don't dispute the poll that you presented with Hillary up, so why dispute the Zogby poll with Hillary down. The main part of the article that I found particularly interesting was:


"When you have been in the public eye for 15 years and are well-known, when your husband was a popular president and remains perhaps the most popular Democrat in America, when you are the only female candidate in a race against seven men, but you are polling just 25 percent, you are not a strong candidate."


What is your take on that?

Van, there are several polls out there. I don't dispute the poll that you presented with Hillary up, so why dispute the Zogby poll with Hillary down. The main part of the article that I found particularly interesting was:


"When you have been in the public eye for 15 years and are well-known, when your husband was a popular president and remains perhaps the most popular Democrat in America, when you are the only female candidate in a race against seven men, but you are polling just 25 percent, you are not a strong candidate."


What is your take on that?

OPRAH OPRAH OPRAH, ho humm, celebrities need attention, attention breeds more money, money makes them more respected, more respect equals more attention from the media, a self-perpetuating cycle of entertainment over issues, Boring.
I still am waiting to see who Tony the Tiger will go for, HEEEES GREAT!

If they're coming out to see Oprah, it probably doesn't matter to them who's 2nd on the program, and if they come out to see Barack, he didn't really need her cache of celebrity to rope them in.

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 12:12 PM)

I agree with Part II of your sentence, but I disagree with Part I. I have no statistics or anything to back it up, it's just an opinion.

Granted, the following analogy is not a perfect fit, but I will state it anyway. I feel like it's kind of like the Super Bowl. Lots of people watch just for the game (Oprah). But some people watch just for the commercials (Obama). And some watch for both. But the people who are watching just for the game still see the commercials and find a lot of them entertaining, and often remember them long after the game is over.
CitizenJ (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 12:45 PM)



CitizenJ not sure I can improve on that analogy.  One additional thouight Van you are starting to sound as petty and shrill as Hillary.

Van, there are several polls out there. I don't dispute the poll that you presented with Hillary up, so why dispute the Zogby poll with Hillary down. The main part of the article that I found particularly interesting was..."
My take is that conclusions based on non credible information are not credible. I thought that my first post to you made that very clear.

Because your poll isn't a credible one. I'm not referring you to A poll, I'm referring you to ALL THE POLLS. You'll find that it isn't me discounting the zogby internet vote poll, it's RCP Polling.com and all of the outlets that compile the various polls. That there are several polls out there is an understatement.
To cherry-pick a poll that has no credibility to the agencies that compile polls, to highlight and call interesting, results that are at odds with every other credible poll, and then to openly wonder why, I, the "poll guy", would question YOUR posting, I will gladly leave to others to explain.


Van

Dickie Flatts Charlotte, NC:

Do you mean like all the people who acted like "sheep" when they voted for Bush because they would rather have a beer with him than with Gore??

It would be nice if people would vote on the issues.
Connie, Tn. (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 1:08 PM)


That's Chris Matthews from MSNBC, one of the worst journalist on TV for a long time. He loves Presidents who can have beer and do shit in office for 8 years.

Chris Matthews should look back 8 years and say "I was a dumbass 8 years ago for supporting Bush for a beer".

Will Matthews ever remorse that he played in part in destroying America?

Here's the story.  Anyone who hasn't been to see Obama speak doesn't understand the power that he has on stage.  The man has rock star status because he has earned it.  Like JFK and Reagan, he is able to speak to people's hearts and talk about what is good about America.  But uniquely, he speaks without invoking fear and without demagoguery, without divisiveness.  He makes the crowd feel enthusiastic about what they can be contributing to this great land of ours.

As a volunteer for his campaign (I want all cards on the table - but people on these sites already know how biased I am), I saw him speak in Claremont NH (I already wrote about it) and the effect on this small crowd (about 500 people) was electrifying.  Several older women (had to be my age -55- and older were swooning.  All made the JFK comparison.  One said to me "I saw Hillary and she was good but Obama is remarkable".

The point is, Oprah isn't going to sway people for Obama (as some people here have already pointed out), it's just that people, not ordinarily politically involved, will turn out to see her.  Then Barack will be able to reach them.  Believe me, to hear him speak, is an event in itself.  It really makes one think that we, the little guys, can truly take this country back and function more like a democracy in the framework of our republic (I know, very idealistic for a nation of 300 million).  Oprah is a conduit who can bring people to hear Obama.  He will close the deal.  That is how it works.  Dickie Flatts, the reason, that it didn't work as well with 'the boss' is that Kerry (I actually love Kerry) couldn't close the deal.  

Finally, I just want to say again, that for me (sort of an old guy), Obama's candidacy is a unique opportunity that comes across every so often in our history (Lincoln, TR, FDR, JFK, Reagan - and obviously I was not a Reagan supporter).  It's an opportunity where Americans can get together and, under the leadership of an individual with charisma and integrity reweave the fabric that makes us united as Americans.  I work with some die-hard Republicans, in upstate NY, and where they are willing to do anything in their power to prevent a Hillary-Bill presidency (and truly, their reasons for disliking them so, are incomprehensible to me and so different than mine) but when we talk of Obama they see him as a reasonable alternative to this administration - because they say he evidences integrity and engenders hope (obviously they don't say it in those words).  The point is, that they would listen to him.  

As for me, I became a fan when I read his speech given at Hyde Park in October of 2002 and since then he has rarely (and he is not Jesus) failed to disappoint me with his thinking, proposals and behavior.  The war is my main thing and from the beginning, he was against this war!
Good Luck Oprah!  Bring them out!  Barack will close the deal!
Obama '08

Most of you understate the power of Oprah and these are the people who are full of fear and wouldn,t vote for Barack anyway.
Anthony (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 1:26 PM)

Actually, Anthony, I am not at all full of fear.  But way to make a sweeping generalization that has no basis in fact!

Hm...so making 50+ year old women swoon is apparently a relevant qualification for president.  Who knew?

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY

Good post, as usual. I don't think anyone denies Senator Obama's stage presence or the fact that he is an amazingly moving speaker.  In that respect, he reminds me of President Kennedy.  I am moved by his speeches and inspired by them.  But the issue of experience in dealing with national and international policy is extremely important to me, and I have yet to be convinced that he has been in government long enough to have acquired the seasoning that a President needs.  Some of that lack of experience can be mitigated by selecting skilled advisors, and perhaps his relative youth (vis a vis some of the other candidates) would bring with it fresh ideas, I just don't know.  But, from my perspective, I think someone like Senator Biden, who has met many of the leaders of countries around the world, my have a better handle on foreign policy.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):