Doth Protest Too Much On Oprah's Behalf

This is silly. Atrios writes:


After all these years I still get surprised at the fact that every single bit of pointless right wing manufactured horsesh!t becomes part of our elite media conversation.

Atrios links to Media Matters complaining that Tom Brokaw incorrectly stated that Oprah hosted Obama after he announced his Presidential candidacy. Of course Oprah did much more than that, she endorsed and campaigned for Obama. And this was a big Media story at the time. It is disingenuous to now pretend Oprah is not a big story this campaign season. Oprah has a perfect right to act in a partisan way, but please stop with the whining when that is pointed out. Oprah injected herself into the political campaign. And now she has to take her lumps for it, as would any other media figure who did what Oprah has done. More . .

Similarly, Tristero complains:

Later, in the same post, Seelye writes:

...it is clear that Ms. Winfrey doesn’t want [Palin].

That is simply untrue and Seelye knows it. In short, Seelye's lying.

TRUE: Winfrey did express intense interest in interviewing Palin. After the election.

Tristero calls this "lying" by Seelye. Well, I call it disingenuous of Tristero. That Oprah does not want to interview Palin until AFTER the election is the point. She does not want to aid any politician but Obama in this election is the point. As I said, that is her right, but let's not fly into high umbrage when this is pointed out. Oprah made her bed this political season. Now she has to lie in it. This outrage on behalf of Oprah is simply absurd.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Media Pressure Works: Palin to Be Interviewed by ABC | Maryland Considers the Risk of Wrongful Executions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Whining (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:00:53 PM EST
    is becoming the new national pass time.  

    Just ask Phil Gramm. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:17:10 PM EST
    New? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Faust on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:40:29 PM EST
    First block quote... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:03:23 PM EST
    might could read horse[hockey]?

    Heard about this on Friday. She's going to take some flack from her audience if she's not careful.

    It's all part (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:32:23 PM EST
    of Oprah's No-Book Club (if you get my play on words).

    "elite media conversation" (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:03:46 PM EST

    Get with the program: (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Teresa on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    FISA? now good
    The Surge? worked
    "War on Terror"? we are definitely in one
    Moving to the right during the GE? Smart
    Meeting with Murdoch? now a brilliant tactic
    Going on O'Rielly? fine and dandy

    etc, etc..

    Just to add, I have no problem with doing (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:06:31 PM EST
    what you have to do to win. I do admit it, though.

    It's call political prostitution - (none / 0) (#98)
    by blcc on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:22:42 PM EST
    and EVERYBODY does it right?  Even in the "post-partisan" era!

    (Gasp!) No?!


    General response (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:11:10 PM EST
    I do not understand what interest anyone would have in defending Oprah against charges of partisanship when she has vocally and prominently endorsed one of the candidates for President of the United States.

    That ship sailed when she decided to become a prominent spokesperson for Obama last fall.

    If I were to give a fig about defending Oprah, I would argue that out of respect for Sarah Palin, she is not going to ask her on as she is a prominent supporter of Barack Obama. That makes more sense than arguing she wants her AFTER the election as a way to argue Oprah's actions are not partisan. OF COURSE they are partisan. Oprah is a partisan in this election.

    Why deny that which Oprah herself has stated unequivocally?

    specific response :) (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:14:01 PM EST
    Atrios is using a baaaad word in that first block quote.

    I offered a suggestion further up.


    I replaced the "i" with a ! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:16:26 PM EST
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:19:35 PM EST
    I missed it.

    ahhh... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:31:45 PM EST
    the old upside down i trick :)

    Pleeease!!! (none / 0) (#44)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST
    Even the Religious Right would use the "i".

    But the filter software (none / 0) (#47)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:38:55 PM EST
    thingy is very sensitive...

    Interestingly enough (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:16:25 PM EST
    This story is not the only example of such reflexive and defensive behavior. And the Republicans are going through the same thing over Sarah Palin and John McCain, it seems.

    I'm not sure why this happening but I did notice how, immediately following Palin's announcement, the polarization and partisanship in the blogosphere became almost unbearable.

    At this point, it seems more and more like the wholesale "our guy good/your guy bad" is the only game in town.

    And every little thing gets endlessly spinned to fit into this back-and-forth.


    Because then her objectivity ... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by davnee on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:16:56 PM EST
    ...  in anointing Obama "The One" might be questioned.  I don't get it myself.  I guess they don't want women to wake up and stop blindly following the word of Oprah.  We only object to stupid voters when they stupidly vote Republican.  But when stupid voters vote Dem for stupid reasons like a celebrity endorsement, that's great.

    The demographics of Oprah's audience (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:26:19 PM EST
    says that many of them are or were Hillary Clinton supporters. Long before Oprah publicly endorsed Obama, she had Hillary on her show and encouraged Hillary to run this year. At least on the audience's part, there was an inferred belief that Oprah would support Hillary. After she gave Obama the "star treatment" and said that he was "the One", the comments on her blog got viscerally negative and they were directed at her. I'm sure her audience would love to see Palin interviewed in a "woman friendly" environment, but I agree, Oprah should stay out of it. I haven't watched Oprah in years, but several of my friends pointed out what was going on in her blogs because they couldn't believe people could be that mean and nasty. I sent them to some other places for comparison. ;^)

    I remember when she was psuhing (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:31:15 PM EST
    Hillary to run.

    Palin should go on Ellen.


    In her identity, Oprah has never (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:18:04 PM EST
    put female as her first identifier. She would not have encouraged Hillary to run if she had known Barack was going to put his hat in the ring so early in his political career.

    Oh, and Palin (none / 0) (#36)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:32:08 PM EST
    should also avoid The View if she's smart.

    EH is over the moon about SP (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:39:11 PM EST
    caught a snippet on Fox where one of the guys was interviewing her at the convention. Serious Palin KoolAid in action!

    yes, but Elizabeth is the lone (none / 0) (#66)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:54:30 PM EST
    conservative on the show, and sometimes the other ladies make her cry.

    That should be the line (none / 0) (#80)
    by lilburro on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:11:59 PM EST
    Oprah's team takes, really.  Maybe now they're realizing how dumb her decision to support Obama was.  But then again, you must be a fool to think she was ever a reporter or anything of the sort (I imagine she has made political donations before).

    This says it all.

    Also, note in the NYT article:  

    The campaign of Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, declined to comment, but Ms. Winfrey's rejection of the Republican vice presidential nominee is playing right into the storyline being advanced by Republican operatives -- that the media is biased against them.

    McCain may not have started it, but that doesn't mean he isn't chuckling gleefully about it.  Are opponents can be just as cynical about Obama, the blogs, and Keith Olbermann, for instance.  And of course, they are.


    Not only that, (none / 0) (#113)
    by Iphie on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:12:43 PM EST
    but why does anyone think that the owner of one of the largest media empires in the country needs to be defended at all? It's not as if she doesn't have numerous outlets through which she could launch her own vigorous defense should she feel it warranted.

    I seem to remember (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by suki on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:12:33 PM EST
    reading a link to Oprah's site and flames coming off it from fans dissappointed with her endorsement.

    Maybe I was just having a flashback from some 70's experimentation....

    Oprah is afraid that if Sarah Palin goes on the (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    show she will be a huge hit with her audience, not only on the set but in TV-land as well.  Oprah is partly to blame for the celebrity of Obama.  And she's afraid that Palin just might outshine him.  And if Obama loses some will try to blame her.  It's a viscious circle....

    (I was proofreading this and saw that the first time I typed "Oprah" I typed "Obrah.")

    She does not want to help Palin (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:18:21 PM EST
    And good for her for that. But that is a partisan act.

    But it is no secret that Oprah has a dog in this fight. She is an extreme Obama partisan.

    For the first time in her career, she took a side in a political matter. On Obama's behalf.

    It is not surprising she does not want to help Palin. But why protest this obvious fact? I do not get it.


    Because on our side, the you know what (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:21:32 PM EST
    don't stink.

    Only if there's a really big fan (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:29:42 PM EST
    and a whole lotta enviro-friendly air freshener ;-P

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM EST
    the McCain campaign will use it to buttress the "biased media" talking point?

    Even though they don't seem to be running short on examples anyway.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:23:56 PM EST
    In Oprah's case, that is a hard argument to refute. She is biased. In the extreme.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:28:18 PM EST
    But I'm curious whether or not you think it would be better if Oprah simply continued to support Obama openly and campaign for him?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    I think it is much better that she is off the campaign trail.

    The celebrity thing you know.


    Agreed. And I meant that the viscious circle (4.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:21:39 PM EST
    is bad for Oprah because she wants to have it both ways and she can't.  She's responsible for this, and for her to whine about it is hysterical.  And for anyone to try to make excuses for her is pathetic.

    Is Oprah protesting something? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:23:10 PM EST
    I just see people arguing in this bizarre fashion that Oprah's act is not partisan when it clearly is.

    Defend first, ask questions later. (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:27:22 PM EST
    For what purpose? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    To look like a fool? And I say it openly, Atrios looks like an idiot here imo.

    Every single liberal pundit should criticize the (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by bridget on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:06:12 PM EST
    mainstream media and each other for getting it WRONG again and again whenever they are discussing Big Dems. Making Dems and their candidates look bad has been the goal of the GOP with the help of the MSM and liberal pundits for decades now. Oprah  won't get a break either. She is supporting a Dem.

    Somersby should have a field day with Tom Brokaw's whining here about something that didn't take place. What else is new?

    The DailyHowler just spent a couple days taking the liberal pundits to task for never stating the real reason re Palin's  Bridge to Nowhere comment  (a lie) and he will blog about it again tom. Don't miss it. Like always again in this case the liberal pundits and reporters are either completely clueless or timid and fearful as can be.

    No wonder the Dems lose elections time after time. They don't fight back and don't fact check. And if they do they get the obvious stuff completely wrong or "disappear" the important stuff. To protect themselves?

    It really is hopeless. Dem leader Dean didn't watch Cable so he didn't know about all the gender bashing ./. Hillary Clinton? Pelosi didn't think it was worth paying attention to ... while the liberal pundits, journalists, and bloggers joined the Hillary Clinton bashing.

    This will not happen to Palin because the GOP will fight back. And the liberal pundits will join them because she is a Republican candidate.



    Agreed (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:32:57 PM EST
    The attitude is that no one who agrees with me on a candidate choice is likely to be wrong about anything.

    Wrong! (none / 0) (#59)
    by bluegal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:48:33 PM EST
    Sigh. You are missing the whole point about this Oprah situation.

    You clearly do not understand why Atrios and others are making a big deal about this. If you understood what was going on instead you would understand why Tom Brokaw and ABC are out of line for making an issue about Oprah.


    Whatever (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    You really are a blind partisan imo and I have no interest in discussing this with you.

    You do not even understand what Atrios said anmd why it is ridiculous.


    Think about what you're saying (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:37:42 PM EST
    She made a pledge that after she personally endorsed Obama she would have none of the candidates on her show.
    It wasn't about backlash she had decided on this from jump.

    Oprah could just as easily have said what she meant quite directly: I am supporting Obama and that's that. No one else will be given a platform with my name on it to present themselves to the voters.

    This is the first time in her celebrity that she has chosen to endorse a candidate at all, and she did it with gusto. Her fan base, at least those who hadn't already figured her out, learned a lot about her with that decision. Her ratings went down, and she has not recovered.


    huh? (none / 0) (#123)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:21:33 AM EST
    So, what did they learn about her?  That she has opinions?  That she's a Democrat?  I don't get it.

    you are misrepresenting what Atrios said (none / 0) (#23)
    by progrocks on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:25:49 PM EST
    Obama has not been on the show since he declared himself as a candidate.  All of Oprah's advocacy on his behalf has been independent of her show. She is entirely consistent and this is a non-story, except in that the media likes this inside baseball crap and bring it up.

    Misrepresenting? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:29:22 PM EST
    I quoted him.

    How in blazes can you say I misrepresented him.

    I took issue with his silly, indeed, bizarre argument that what Oprah did vis a vis this political campaign just became a Media obsession.

    It is a ridiculous argument from Atrios and silly of you to ignore what I was responding to.

    Now, iff you are actually referring to Tristero's argument, I repoly again, I QUOTED him and found his argument disingenuous in the extreme.

    Oprah does not want Palin until AFTER the election because she is an Obama partisan. No one in their right mind in the Media would NOT want Sarah Palin for an interview, unless you ahve a partisan agenda.

    And Oprah's partisan agenda is patent - she CAMPAIGNED for Obama.

    This is so obvious I can not imagine it needs to be explained to you.


    BTD, again agree.. (none / 0) (#84)
    by alexei on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:21:19 PM EST
    of course the "newest, brightest, shiniest, new toy" is Palin and no one in Media (not just news) would ever not have Palin on their show unless they have a partisan agenda.  Absolutely, you can you believe her ratings would go off the charts - Palin is the new Obama as far as that goes.

    Palin as the new Obama (none / 0) (#89)
    by davnee on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:34:47 PM EST
    Will it hold long enough to change the trajectory of the election?  As someone who has never been impressed with the Obama brand, I must confess to a touch of wicked amusement (though the stakes are so high it is difficult to root against him) that he might be undone by the same forces that created him.  Question remains to be answered whether Palin is as powerful a product of hype as Obama was, and/or if that hype can be sustained long enough to make it through November?  We'll see.

    What if she is not hype? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jeffhas on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:25:32 PM EST
    What if she can do personal interviews, and press conferences (of more than 3 questions) and answer questions straight without the need for WORM later on??... no uhhhs, and umms,...

    THAT is what everyone is really afraid of...


    But he was on after (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ding7777 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    he announced his Presidential Exploratory Committee.  

    Ten months into the Exploratory phase, which by then was a given that he would run.


    You mean (none / 0) (#28)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:29:10 PM EST
    that moment 10,000 years ago, surely....

    Independent of her show? (none / 0) (#76)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:06:22 PM EST
    Uh, I think she said very clearly last year that she had her candidate and was not interested in any others . . . that she would not be interviewing anyone but the Obamas on her show.

    To me, that says she set out to use her show as a political venue, which is completely fine.  No problem whatsoever.  

    It's just silly to pretend that she didn't.


    who actually was table pounding on this? (none / 0) (#46)
    by AlSmith on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:38:28 PM EST

    I read The Corner and Bainbridge and they seem to take the approach that its Oprah's show and she can book whoever she wants. HotAir reported it but doesnt seem to have a position. I check Rush Limbaugh's Friday transcript and he doesnt seem to care much other than the "bloom should be off Oprah's rose".

    Was some group really up in arms about this? I mean it seems pretty obvious that Oprah has a candidate and its her show, so she can book who she wants.


    Hannity mentioned it... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:40:28 PM EST

    Drudge front paged it (none / 0) (#65)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:53:29 PM EST
    which means all the politico boys were probably up in arms.

    The role of major TV personages on networks... (none / 0) (#117)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:21:41 PM EST
    Oprah's programming is also subject to FCC regulations. While I believe that commercial competition in this case is more on point, the licensing requirements are still out there.

    Oprah's numbers (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:31:55 PM EST
    took a hit win she went on the campaign trail for Barack and it seemed to cause jump in Ellen's numbers.

    I wonder if it is another wedge the McCain campaign will try to take advantage of and get Governor Palin on Ellen.

    Ellen would be silly (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:32:43 PM EST
    not to do it. The ratings would be enormous.

    I think she'll try (none / 0) (#45)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:37:24 PM EST
    She has MO on tomorrow if I heard correctly. Season opener. Ellen has also said that she wanted to have all the candidates on because she thought it was important. I don't think she'll skip the VPs if she's doing wives.

    Ellen will probably also do the most (none / 0) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:27:58 PM EST
    interesting interview of all the media who get a chance to have Palin talk with them.  Ellen's interview with McCain brought issues to the surface in the context of real life rather than, "what will you do about...".

    Palin's something of the true American story. A regular person with small town roots, big dreams, a mom who went from Mayor of an out of the way town to Governor to second place on a ticket to the WH. That's human interest.


    Plus who better to ask her (none / 0) (#48)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:39:06 PM EST
    about her stance on gay rights and what better place for Palin to drop the bomb on America that she vetoed legislation that would have barred same sex couples from the same state benefits heterosexual couples get.

    It would be a circus with the right foaming at the mouth and feeling betrayed and the left wondering why someone they've attacked so much has done more to advance gay rights than their candidates.

    It would be dumb of Ellen to say no but is the McCain campaign smart enough to ask her to put Palin on? We'll have to wait and see.


    no (none / 0) (#53)
    by AlSmith on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:42:17 PM EST

    the best venue would be Rachel Ray. She can talk, swap stories and cook things.

    The View is just an all around embarrassment for Philo Farnsworth. I saw the dancing one on Ellen and gave up


    Rachel Ray will never have Palin (none / 0) (#79)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:11:44 PM EST
    on her show. Oprah is the executive producer of her show, and is managed under Oprah's HARPO Productions. 'Nuff said.

    Ellen has had every major candidate (none / 0) (#71)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:58:04 PM EST
    on her show last season.
    • Hillary Clinton (Hillary was on her show LIVE twice, and a third time via satellite from the campus of GWU - I was there!! To be fair, Ellen was a Hillary supporter from the get-go.)
    • Barack Obama (Obama was on a second time via satellite too)
    • John McCain

    The John McCain appearance did become contentious at one point, but Ellen being her professional self was able to keep it civil, and even crack a joke at the end of it. There was a genuine sense of respect from both of them towards each other.

    So you can bet her producers are in touch with McCain reps to have Sarah Palin on the show.

    I'll wager a bet that Oprah will stand her ground and not allow Palin on. She could have had MASSIVE numbers by having her on the premier of her show on Tuesday, but instead, she took a safe route and had 150 Olympians on her show. Lucky for her, she masked it as a pitch for Chicago, which is finalist to host the Games in 2016.


    Yep, Oprah really screwed the pooch... (none / 0) (#85)
    by alexei on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:23:38 PM EST
    as far as her show goes.  If Ellen books Palin, wow!

    Has Oprah had Hillary Clinton... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by EL seattle on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:32:24 PM EST
    ...on her show since the campaign season started?  Or Elizabeth Edwards or any other Democrats or Republicans?  Or hosted a discussion of any particular political topic?  An entire election year is a long time to cover your ears and ignore that whole realm of discussion.

    She has not had anyone related to politics on (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:33:33 PM EST
    Mostly I think to the backlash she suffered from her support for Obama.

    Her rating suffered IIRC.


    Wrong! (none / 0) (#56)
    by bluegal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:45:36 PM EST
    She made a pledge that after she personally endorsed Obama she would have none of the candidates on her show.

    It wasn't about backlash she had decided on this from jump.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:49:44 PM EST
    That makes it worse really.

    How? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by bluegal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:56:08 PM EST
    The media and the McCain campaign making a big deal about this is what is making it worse because they know damn well Oprah's conditions yet they chose to ignore it to create drama.

    It's sort of like the run-up to Iraq with the media ignoring the facts to create a narative. It's absurd.


    Because (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:57:49 PM EST
    it demonstrates how partisan her decisions are.

    Right (none / 0) (#73)
    by bluegal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:03:07 PM EST
    Which everyone knew about at the beginning of the campaign. Why are people making a huge issue out of it given that it's nothing new?

    That is my point and I think the point of Atrios and Josh Marshall. All of the sudden the media is trying to act like Oprah has become (gasp) partisan! How dare she! It's absurd given her pledge at the beginning of the campaign .  The media is trying to stir up shyt with the McCain campaign.


    So what is your beef about with me? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    Your "silly" comment (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by bluegal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    You seem to be arguing that Atrios shouldn't be complaining or defending Oprah. It's not so much that I think he is defending Oprah it is that he is disgusted with how the media is treating this "story."  The media is lying about the circumstances of a no-Palin appearance knowing damn well the facts in order to stir up a controversy.  

    The McCain campaign is trying to bully Oprah and are being aided by the media which is tyring to create drama. It's appalling.

    If only the media spent this much time worrying about Bush lying to the public about Iraq.


    That was exactly my point upthread (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by bridget on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:47:55 PM EST
    this is not about Oprah it is about the media stirring up another controversy with lies and innuendo ... to benefit the GOP candidate. Sameoldsameold.

    Liberal pundits and reporters helped them for decades in that endeavour. Its the Riches, Huffingtons, Dowds, Kleins, et al who helped put Bush into the White House.

    So Atrios is doing some selective critism re Obama here. Maybe its a start. Who knows. But no doubt it is Time for the lemmings to wake up if they want a Dem in the WHouse. Otherwise Dems will lose again. That's for sure.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:10:16 PM EST
    When you get involved in a campaign (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:14:33 PM EST
    you're liable to get "bullied."

    Why? (none / 0) (#78)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:10:03 PM EST
    Why are people making a huge issue out of it given that it's nothing new?

    Because they liked it when she refused to speak with anyone named Clinton. Now they don't like it.  Go figure.


    So? (none / 0) (#105)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:59:59 PM EST
    Oprah is not a journalist/reporter.  She is a talk show host and a very successful one.  I don't have a problem with her decision on this.  It is HER show.  If she is willing to eat the loss of her numbers and forego Palin, more power to her.  

    So why lie about it? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:09:47 PM EST
    Why is Atrios lying for Oprah?

    It makes as much sense to me... (none / 0) (#57)
    by EL seattle on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    ...as if David Letterman decided to endorse a candidate, and from that point on refused to do "Top-10 lists" that had national political content.

    But it's Oprah's show, and she can pick her TV interviewees, the same way she can choose who will be featured on the cover of her monthly magazine. (/snark)


    Yes (none / 0) (#74)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:03:22 PM EST
    Hillary was on one LIVE at the California taping and once via satellite from Washington, DC. Hillary was also on the show once in 2007, when it was taping LIVE in New York City.

    Ellen endorsed Hillary shortly after she announced her run 2006, but to my knowledge, she never went out on the road and appeared at rallies with her. Although I believe Ellen hosted a fundraiser at her home, but Hillary was not present.

    And Ellen has had Obama twice (before the Primaries were over) and McCain once during the 07-08 season.


    And that is exactly how you should do your show. (none / 0) (#86)
    by alexei on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:27:48 PM EST
    Endorse whomever you want, but, don't go out on the campaign trail and not have the other candidates on your show and expect not to get any heat.  Oprah deserves getting heat for her decision.

    why? (none / 0) (#124)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:29:55 AM EST
    Why does she deserve to "get heat" for her decision?  Like every other American, she has the right to express her political opinions, even when that means endorsing candidates.  It may be that she has lost ratings because of it, but, I have no doubt she recognized that possibility, and decided to risk that because she so strongly believed in his candidacy.  Sacrificing ratings and money for something you believe in is not something I think someone should "get heat" for.  It was her decision, and she was open and honest about it.  What is so bad about that?

    I'm totally wrapped around the axle (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:13:23 PM EST
    after reading the post and all the comments. I believe this election has officially jumped the shark, in that it has become a parody of itself.

    Let me see if I have this straight:

    Oprah endorsed Obama - even called him The One.  We all saw it.

    Oprah won't book Palin, or any candidate,  until after the election.

    Tom Brokaw mistakenly said Oprah had hosted Obama on her show, his point being that she favors Obama.

    Liberal blogs take umbrage that Brokaw propogates the 'pointless right wing horse---' story that that Oprah favors Obama.

    You truly could not make this stuff up. I have my usual general comment though, that Brokaw is like an idiot. He asks:

    Do you think that some people will see that as an elitist position, that, in some ways, Democrats may be afraid of her -- Sarah Palin?

    Huh?  What does that even mean? Biden does not even pretend to know, but babbles about Palin's family being off limits. Is that what that question was aimed at? If not, Biden sure tipped his hand as to what he considers non-elite.  

    I'm left with ony one question:  Would Dems have responded equally foolishly to any of McCain's VP selections, or did that sneaky old McCain know exactly what would send them right round the bend?

    I think it's the latter, (none / 0) (#116)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:21:20 PM EST
    but then I won a $100 bet that McCain's pick would be Governor Palin. ;^)

    Funny alternate universe we have here (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by blogtopus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:18:55 PM EST
    Or maybe its always been this way; the need to deny responsibility for actions one takes.

    Sorry, Obama, but you and Oprah set this up and you got exactly what you asked for, and now, when its not going the way you want, you would like things to change. No dice.

    Personal Responsibility. Or, in layman's terms: Man Up.

    Important to be accurate? (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Yes2Truth on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:23:10 PM EST

    When Obama was on Oprah's show, he was running to win the nomination.  Since he won that and began his campaign for President, he hasn't been on her show.

    Seems pretty clear to me.  Should also have been clear to Brokaw.  Especially, since he's objective.
    Unlike, apparently, some folks here.

    I see (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:24:45 PM EST
    So you are arguing Oprah no longer supports Obama?

    Are you really arguing this nonsense seriously?



    The question that dare not be asked.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by jerry on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:26:22 PM EST
    There is another reason to pretend Oprah wasn't acting in some partisan fashion here, and that's to keep the question of Oprah's influence in Obama's victory over Clinton from being asked.

    Oprah helped turn Obama into a celebrity and (none / 0) (#41)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:32:59 PM EST
    she was proud of it.  For her to now complain about the media is ludicrous. She doesn't want Sarah Palin on because she supports Obama and doesn't want to do anything to harm him, and it would harm him big-time if Sarah Palin was a hit on her show.  I understand her reasons for not wanting Sarah Palin on the show, but to say that she made a decision to not use her show as a tool in the political campaign is disingenuous.  Oprah IS her show to many people.

    Did Oprah complain? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:34:09 PM EST
    Do you have a link? I have not seen where she has complained.

    Statement from Oprah about it (none / 0) (#50)
    by athyrio on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:40:16 PM EST
    And most of the responses are absurd (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:43:12 PM EST
    It's like they didn't even read the statement.

    You are missing the point BTD (none / 0) (#55)
    by bluegal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:43:41 PM EST
    Oprah has not had Obama on since she endorsed him. That is a fact. Oprah also said that once she endorsed Obama she wouldn't have any political figures on until after the election.

    I agree with Atrios. This isn't something new. Oprah didn't decide to start snubbing people and for Tom Brokaw to act like she is based on the facts is absurd. So why is it now a big story that Oprah has just REITERATED what she has said from the get go?

    The McCain campaign is trying to bully Oprah with the media's help to go back on her pledge. It's absurd.

    YOU miss the point (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:48:12 PM EST
    She has campaigned for Obama and has structured the way she books her show to benefit Obama.

    Obama does not, hell, it would actually hurt now probably, need or want to go on Oprah's show.

    Other candidates would like to.

    She is actually sacrificing the interests of her show to help Obama.

    Only a simpleton could not see that.


    Says Who? (none / 0) (#63)
    by bluegal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:53:14 PM EST
    With all due respect, do you know what is in the best interest of Oprah's show?

    If she were helping Obama on her show she would have him on, she would have Michelle on, she would dedicate a day to Obama. She hasn't.  Oprah decided as a public citizen to endorse Obama and that is all. She also made very clear what she would do and that meant not having the candidates on her show. Again, the problem here is the MEDIA and the McCain campaign.  They are trying to bully Oprah knowing damn well the facts surrounding her "endorsement."


    Ratings on in the best interest of the show (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:56:56 PM EST
    Are you really this blinded by partisanship?

    Do you really imagine it is NOT in the best interest of the show to have her on?

    And if you do, why do you think Oprah would want her AFTER the election?

    Come on, you are really writing some absurd things here.


    I do (none / 0) (#72)
    by bluegal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:00:08 PM EST
    if you want to look at it from a ratings perspective, sweeps are in November. So from a revenue standpoint, this wouldn't be profitable to Oprah even if she did have her on now.

    Whatever happens after this election (which I think Obama will win) Sarah Palin is not going away and will still be in demand. She has quite an interesting personal story.


    I see (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:05:21 PM EST
    So you think the ONLY ratings that matter are during the sweeps.

    Okay, you clearly are going to believe whatever you want.

    I am through discussing this with you.

    You WANT to believe it and that is good enough for you.

    Of course, Oprah's support for Obama has nothing to do with it at all for you.

    Do me a favor, don't respond to me anymore in this thread. You are tempting me to be mean to you.


    No (none / 0) (#83)
    by bluegal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:17:23 PM EST
    I had an aunt who was a producer for General Hospital who knows about ratings.

    Yes, ratings matter but the price for ads are determined Nov. and Feb.  If Oprah is thinking long term, she would have her on during Nov. sweeps to inflate her ratings and charge advertisers in the future accordingly.

    I'm pretty thick skinned but I will leave the thread if you wish.  I'm a law student so you should know that I'm prepared to argue. ;)


    Palin may be old news by (none / 0) (#90)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:39:31 PM EST
    Nov so worthless for sweeps. If you're thinking long term. There's also a phrase you are prob familiar with: Strike while the iron's hot.

    If Palin becomes VP, she may not have the time (of day) for Orpah in Nov.

    Oprah's just being a partisan (fool). Her ratings have suffered since she announced for "the One". And if you go read the current reactions to her comment . . . .  She could have tried for a big ratings show at the beginning of a new season. Even the second week would be great for ratings and to keep the viewers on her instead of surfing over to Ellen (they compete in NYC)


    Oprah has plenty of money (none / 0) (#92)
    by bjorn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:42:32 PM EST
    she doesn't need ratings or approval

    What TV stars need (none / 0) (#118)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:35:44 PM EST
    While Oprah, indeed, has plenty of money...neverthess, she is a TV celeb with a show. So far as I know--for one reason or another (even apart from $)--stars seek further celebrity via ratings and continued approval. Ultimately, that may be what decides all this.

    You might want to come up with another (none / 0) (#107)
    by tree on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:03:41 PM EST
    excuse for Oprah. November Sweeps this year start on Thursday October 30. For Sweeps ratings it would be most advantageous of Oprah to have Palin on her show that Thursday or Friday, right BEFORE the election.

    And BTW, ratings are important (none / 0) (#108)
    by tree on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:07:00 PM EST
    all the time. Yes, advertising dollar rates are set off of November, February and May ratings, but getting advertisers to buy time in the first place is all a matter of having a show that you can prove appeals to the demographic they are looking for, and great ratings are what allow you do to that, regardless of when they are taken.

    Now that's an interesting point (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:53:29 PM EST
    I wonder if the campaign finance fuddy-duddys will have a conniption over this.

    Again, so what?? (none / 0) (#106)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:03:15 PM EST
    It is HER show.

    Again (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:08:50 PM EST
    It is our credibility.

    Yes, and she can be partisan if (none / 0) (#112)
    by tree on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:12:14 PM EST
    she wants to be. But its stupid for bloggers to pretend that she isn't being partisan. It just further diminishes their already wobbly cred.

    In other words (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:57:11 PM EST
    Once she choose a candidate she took her ball and went home.  No one else got the chance to have the platform of Oprah's show to talk about their views.  

    It's her right to do that of course, but let's not pretend it's altruistic.


    This whole election has been reduced to: (none / 0) (#61)
    by KVFinn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:51:36 PM EST
    Whining.  Oprah isn't being fair to us!  They're whining about Oprah, it's not fair!  They're whining about us whining about Oprah, THAT's not fair.  And so on, and so on.

    The less this election is about issues the better for the party in power.  I don't think the Dems have any chance at all this November.  Palin is completely unstoppable.  

    That is because she is the .... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by alexei on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:34:11 PM EST
    new Obama!  The Old Obama now knows how it feels to be Hillary Clinton!

    huh? (none / 0) (#87)
    by bjorn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:28:04 PM EST
    "Palin is unstoppable."  I don't think so.  In any case, I don't hear Oprah whining and I think it is silly for anyone to try to "defend" her - for what?  She knows what she is doing, she decided she wanted to take a stand this time, and consequences be damned.  She can afford it!

    Slightly O/T: Saturday Night Live (none / 0) (#91)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:39:44 PM EST
    Slightly O/T but along the lines of Palin and her non-News show appearances...

    Judging from her RNC appearance and her stump speeches, Sarah Palin has shown to possess a good sense of comedic timing (which IMO is a very good asset to have, whether you're a politician, a blogger, a lawyer or a teacher).

    It would be very smart to have Palin do an unannounced guest appearance on the show as herself -- with Tina Fey being called in (Lorne Michaels would do it!) to offer the show's one version of her.

    Sort of like how Hillary and Amy Poehler bounced off each other in that memorable showdown in May.

    I think Oprah should finish (none / 0) (#93)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:45:05 PM EST
    what she started. Oprah handed this nomination to Obama when she endorsed him as her candidate. I was for Edwards at the time (I know I'm a fool) and I was a little miffed that after all these years she took a stand with a candidate that wasn't my choice.

    Well, she did it. She altered the dynamics of the election. Everything changed once Oprah added her 2 cents. Obama won. Now, Oprah should get off her butt and finish the job. Put her money where her mouth is. Have Obama on the show. Showcase the whole family. Hop on her luxury bus and get busy crisscrossing country campaigning for Obama. First stop? Colorado Springs. Second stop, Juneau, Alaska.

    She Did Cry (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:56:38 PM EST
    her eyelashes off at Invesco Field last week.*

    That in itself is campaigning for him (as lame as it is). Not enough for you?

    *Oprah's become such a joke. Even Huckabee called her out on that, saying that in all of these last 20+ years of her show, Oprah's been all about female empowerment and advancement. But when Palin and Hillary made history in their own rights, she ignored them.


    I actually think (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by suki on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:02:02 PM EST
    she would have more integrity if she did.
    Better then what she's doing now.

    My question is did she (none / 0) (#95)
    by delacarpa on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:57:31 PM EST
    not have Obama on so to speak "introduce him to the world". Now she has to play the hand she dealt to herself.

    All these years Oprah's been (none / 0) (#101)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:28:53 PM EST
    telling women to empower themselves. Live their best lives. If she believes our best lives could be lived better under Obama's lead, she should get out there and do her best to get him elected. And just because Palin is a woman, Oprah is under no obligation to provide her with a platform. All Oprah has to say is, "With all due respect to Palin, I'm voting for Obama. I won't have any other candidates on my show because I don't want to be a hypocrite. i want Obama. I'm not the nightly news, I have no obligation to be fair and balanced and show all sides. I've already made my decision. I want Obama and I want you to vote for Obama, and I'm going to do everything I can to convince you to vote for him."

    yes, Oprah is sacrarficing ratings to help Obama (none / 0) (#102)
    by ding7777 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:35:02 PM EST
    Remember W's "kiss" - how many votes did that give Bush?

    Oprah isn't going to help Palin get any votes.

    Oprah is Partisan (none / 0) (#104)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:54:33 PM EST
    Agreed.  And she ought not to try to pretend otherwise.  That being said, I can totally understand why she wouldn't want Palin on her show.  Why provde a medium for Palin to lie from.  Oprah's style on her show is not hyper in your face confrontational--which is what she'd have to be to get Palin to tell the truth.  So why bother?

    He sure needs women to protect him. (none / 0) (#122)
    by chopper on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:04:03 AM EST
    It's a shame Obama is so dependent on women. Oprah won't have Sarah Palin on the show because Sarah will likely show up Obama.  So, Oprah protects him from Sarah.

    Now, Obama is dispatching women to go out on the campaign trail and protect him from Sarah. I guess he even cut a deal with Hillary to go after Sarah.

    This is ridiculous.  Sarah is running for VP, not president, but she's running Obama ragged.  Obama should grow up and stop depending on all these women to protect him.

    Why is this an issue? (none / 0) (#125)
    by cbh on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:24:45 AM EST
    Why is this an issue at all?

    Atrios and Media Matters both make one specific claim: that "Tom Brokaw incorrectly stated that Oprah hosted Obama after he announced his Presidential candidacy."

    The claim is true; Obama did not appear on Winfrey's show after he announced his candidacy. As Media Matters put it:

    Tom Brokaw falsely suggested that Winfrey has hosted Sen. Barack Obama on her show during Obama's campaign for president. However, the Post article Brokaw cited itself reported that Winfrey has not hosted Obama since he began his presidential campaign and that Winfrey said she decided when she endorsed Obama not to use her show "as a platform for any of the candidates.

    The issue raised isn't whether Winfrey is partisan or what the effect of the endorsement has done to her ratings. It's that right-wing rhetoric consistently overshadows facts, or in this case one important fact -- that Winfrey did not use the platform of her show to host any of these candidates.

    BTD further says that 'This outrage on behalf of Oprah is simply absurd." I don't see the outrage in either Atrios single-sentence post or Media Matter's mild write-up.

    And for BTD to say, in reference to Brokaw's incorrect statement, that "Oprah did much more than that" when the initial proposition itself was wrong, uh, I'm sorry to say that seems to be the most disingenuous part of this entire dialogue.

    btw, I'm not a fan of anyone we're discussing. I just hate to see topics go so badly awry.

    Ludicrous (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:22:42 AM EST
    Your comment is not a serious one imo.

    Democrats afraid? (none / 0) (#126)
    by hbl on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:25:49 AM EST
    In response to Brokaw's quote, provided by someone earlier:

    "Do you think that some people will see that as an elitist position, that, in some ways, Democrats may be afraid of her -- Sarah Palin?"

    Yes, I think they look very afraid to many people.  But I don't think they are elitist or afraid.  

    Democratic success in this (and most) elections is strongly dependent on voter ignorance or susceptibility to being manipulated.  Why on earth would they want voters to be presented with both sides of a question?  So much better to tell these sheep what to think.  Why let Palin speak for herself? Why discuss what McCain says he is for when it is so much easier and effective to pretend he is Bush?

    I really suspect Oprah would comply if Obama asked her to have Palin on her show if either thought his positions were stronger than hers. I have to suppose he has not asked her to do so.  I wonder why not?

    Democratic candidates are not weak, stupid, or afraid.  Conversely a lot of careful, well-thought-out theory is in play in "community organizing" whether on the streets of Chicago or in a national election.

    Just one person's opinion -- don't care if anyone else shares it.  But it does drive my vote.

    Bro's before Ho's (none / 0) (#128)
    by pabarge on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    LMAO. When are the feminists going to finally wake up and realize that the DEMs are using them like damp kleenex.

    The rule for y'all is this: Bro's before Ho's.