December 8, 2007

Barack Obama Winning in South Carolina; Where Is Oprah Event Coverage This Weekend?

A new Insider Advantage poll of South Carolina (conducted Dec. 3-4 of 421 likely Dem voters) has Obama at 26%, Clinton at 24%, Edwards at 15%, and Biden at 10%.

C-Span TV will have live coverage of the Obama-Oprah event in Iowa today at 4:30 pm here is a preliminary indication the "Road To The White House" program on C-Span TV will have taped coverage of a portion of the Obama-Oprah event from South Carolina on Sunday December 9, 2007 at 6:30 pm and 9:30 pm ET.

Villagers can watch the South Carolina event with Senator Barack Obama, his wife Michelle and special guest Oprah Winfrey LIVE on the web at starting at 12:30pm ET on Sunday, December 9.

What do you think about Oprah's support of Barack Obama? Will it matter?


Francis Holland said...

Oprah' support will certainly put the attention on Barack Obama in this period. It might help him to raise more money, with some givers feeling more excited about and interested in the race.

His most obscure campaign events will get more attention than they otherwise would have, probably, if Oprah is there.

I think the fact that he is in contention in Iowa and South Carolina will influence people perceptions of his viability, and therefore their votes.

Francis Holland said...

This is an historic moment. No announced Black candidate has ever been within the margin or error or ahead (even for a moment) in Iowa (to the best of my recollection).

Danielle said...

You know I'm all about Kucinich but we watch everybody even the Republicans. Oprah's influence won't hurt Obama that's for sure.

This is such an interesting time we live in though, we have police tasing people left and right, nooses hung all around and a black contender for the President having Oprah, one of the richest Americans campaigning for him.

The opportunities these two have had NEEDS to trickle down!

As always...

Danielle said...

Needs to pour on down.

Wright Hand Blogger said...

I plan to watch.

And, call me naive but, of course, Oprah can help Barack Obama's campaign.

To me, I think it's practically silly for anyone who's paid attention to her career to suspect that she would step out for the first time to offer major support to a candidate and then, ultimately, have negligible to no effect on the outcome.

Oprah understands two factors critically important to any contemporary, democratic campaign: People and media.

Though, as with many others, I'm continuing to look at other candidates, as of this moment, I feel very, very good about Obama's chances - especially now that Oprah has to be factored in. (Still, I recognize that we won't be voting for Oprah but for Barack.)

Thanks, Wayne,

Unknown said...

Francis - I don't recall if Jesse Jackson ever led in polls at the Iowa caucus in 1984 or 1988, however, it is nice to see Obama leading in 2008! I hope you watch the event tomorrow afternoon.

Danielle - I understand that a candidate must meet 15% threshold on the first ballot at the Iowa caucus ... if not, then his (or her) delegates can vote for their second choice. Who do you see as the 'second choice' for Kucinich delegates?

Vincent - I agree. There is no downside to Obama for having Oprah (and his wife Michelle) at this side. Seeing the demand for the event tomorrow forcing them to move from an 18k-seat venue to an 80k-seat stadium is quite remarkable. I don't see that same level of energy for other candidates.

Bruce Dixon said...

Oprah is a celebrity, and she lends her brand exclusively to celebrity candidates. It would really mean something if she lent her big megaphone to candidates who the corporate media were trying to shut out, like Kucinich.

This is, after all, the same Oprah who campaigned for Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003, and who, when presidential candidate George Bush was way down in the polls in campaign 2000, humanized Shrub and the wife with an hour of fuzzy love and softball questions.

Media exists to mold our opinions, to effectively tell us what to think. If it did not work, there would be no multibillion dollar advertising and marketing industries. Some large number of people are going to think what Oprah tells them to, no doubt about it.

Oprah is more than a celebrity. She is a brand, a corporation. It's no surprise that she will endorse a corporate candidate, rather than help boost a people's candidate.

Unknown said...

Bruce - Dennis Kucinich is a very good candidate. Perhaps in another year he would be someone that I would look at ... especially since you and Danielle (both people I respect) are so favorable towards him.

However, the time has come for America to be led by a person that can bring us all together. I think that Barack Obama is that person. I think that now is the time for my 7-year old son to have a role model that he can understand and relate to in the White House.

As for Oprah ... I don't recall her bringing her personal endorsement in such a public way. Of course, she would have folks like Bush on as a guest ... and she never insults her guests ... her show isn't Hardball.

Anyhow, I thought she did a great job on the introduction in Iowa earlier today. I watched on C-Span and the sound quality wasn't good for some reason. I'm looking forward to seeing how Oprah and Obama play tomorrow afternoon in South Carolina.

Wright Hand Blogger said...

"a people's candidate"???

Respectfully, I'm not quite sure of what your definition of a people's candidate is but, in my conceptualization of it, why would a people's candidate need a celebrity's endorsement, at all?

I'll await your definition but, using just the words in the phrase, either a candidate is a people's candidate or they are not. If not, certainly they'd benefit from a celebrity endorsement. But, if they are, what added value can a celebrity endorsement bring to "a people's candidate"???

And while many people can claim to have seen a UFO, I'm not sure that most of us are comfortable with Kucinich's own answer during the televised debate that many of us watched.

And have you seen some of the press his comments are engendering?:

And wouldn't it stand to reason that "a people's candidate" would have more contributions - along the lines of vast array of contributions coming in to Obama?

And if Oprah were "corporate candidate oriented" wouldn't it stand to reason that she would lean toward Hilary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, or the uber-rich Mitt Romney?

In my opinion, it appears that Oprah actually IS going for "a people's candidate" - and that candidate is Barack Obama.

But, if Kucinich is a people's candidate, please help us to understand how that is so, Bruce?

Thanks for your passion...

Bruce Dixon said...


Just what, in your imagination, is Obama "bringing us together" around, besides electing him? I mean it seems pretty content-free.

A people's candidate might end the vastly unpopular war in Iraq. Barack won't. Along with Edwards, Hillary, Biden and Dodd, Barack says when he checks out of his first term in the White House we will still be there.

African Americans are the most pro-peace constituency in the nation, and he does not represent us there. Barack was one of the first to advocate bombing Iran and Pakistan, and pledges also to add at least 100,000 troops to the military. Is that what we are "coming together" around?

A peoples candidate would be for single payer health care, the only practical way of delivering it to everybody. Thanks to lots of money from the private insurance industry, which sucks up a third of every health care dollar for profits, advertising, paperwork and the like, Barack is just for making private insurance mandatory, and giving the private insurers bigger subsidies in a plan that he admits will still leave millions of the neediest (and blackest) uninsured.

A peoples candidate, if that candidate were a US senator at the beginning of 2005, would have stood up and supported the entire Congressional Black Caucus when they challenged the Ohio electoral vote. Heck, one would imagine that the only black senator would have challenged the Ohio vote for disenfranchising hundreds of us through various means. Barack sat down on that one too.

One could go on and on. Are we supposed to support Barack just because he is black? I only raise this, because his performance on issues is substandard at best. And if we are to support him just cause he's black (and because Oprah does too) and he is well to the right of most of black America on war, peace, housing, health care and so much else --- well --- what's in it for us?

Unknown said...

Bruce - I appreciate your response to Vincent's query. I must admit that I smile whenever someone feels that they need to pull another candidate (Obama) down in order to promote their candidate (Kucinich). In any case, I'm more comfortable with my support of Obama today than I was yesterday after seeing him at the Iowa event with Oprah. I look forward to seeing how he does today with tens of thousands in South Carolina.

Has Kucinich had tens of thousands people listening to him on the campaign trail (outside of televised debates)?

Bruce Dixon said...

I am not tearing anybody down, villager. I am trying to have a conversation about issues, instead of one about star power and media hype.

So help me understand this. You seem to be saying that you support Obama because of the size of his campaign contributions (according to he has received more corporate money than anybody except Hillary --- they are almost neck and neck -- more even than any Republican) and because of the size of the crowds at some of his events, and because of Oprah?

You never answered any of my issue questions. Not one.

I raised specific points with references about Obama's promise NOT to end the Iraq war before 2013, his inaction on voter rights, his choice of funding parasitic insurance companies over the rational health care systems, his early adoption of a "bomb Iran" policy, his pronouncements about adding 67,000 more troops to the army and 30,000 more to the Marines, possibly in preparation for his idea of foreign policy --- an invasion of nuclear armed Pakistan.

Correct me if I am wrong please, but you seem to say that as far as you are concerned, issues do not exist, actual stands on issues and performance are irrelevant.

Do issues really matter less to you than media hype, corporate money and star power? If not, why are these the reasons you advance for supporting him. Why do you ignore, or at least refuse to defend Barack's willingness to stay in Iraq till 2013, his abandonment of practical universal health coverage in favor of the insurance companies, his wholehearted adoption of Bush's "war on terror", his votes in favor of the Patriot Act (which he campaigned vigorously against), his vote for the tort reform act which closed the courthouse door to ordinary citizens who could otherwise sue giant corporations for maiming, killing robbing and deceiving us, or his refusal to stand up for the hundreds of thousands of blacks disenfranchised in Ohio, etc., etc.

Are all these really OK with you villager? Does it mean that you support the war, expansion of the military, curtailment of access to the courts by ordinary people, that you support curtailing the voting rights of our people, and so on? If you do not, why are you supporting a candidate who does?

I just don't get it. Help me understand this, please.

Unknown said...

Bruce - My support of Obama is based on the character of the man. I base it on my reading of his first book. I base it on my observation of his campaign. I base it on my view of his wife.

re: Iraq. He clearly indicates that he will end the war in Iraq and have all the troops home within 16 months. His answer to the debate question you raise was based on the specific words in the question. However, there is no question that Obama is the only candidate to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning ... before it was popular to do so.

re: Military - I don't have any problem with increasing size of military as long as it remains a volunteer force.

re: Health Care - I'm comfortable with Obama's health care plan. It dayum sure will be an improvement over status quo. And his major competition --> Clinton <-- had her chance back in the 1990s and she failed.

re: Ohio. I live in Ohio. I realize the shenanigans played by Ohio politicians caused the republicans to lose the governor's house last year. I don't recall the CBC standing up at all here in Ohio.

I notice that you have ignored the points raised by WrightHander about your candidate. Are you as verbose in support Dennis K as you are about denigrating a Blackman running for president?

Wright Hand Blogger said...

Um, Bruce,
I'm not sure who you're quoting when you write "bringing us together" but, you are aware that you're not quoting ME, right?

Likewise with "coming together". Who are you quoting please....

And to answer your question: "Are we supposed to support Barack just because he is black?", I say no. But, I also never said that we "should" support him because he was black.

And are you telling us that the only people who are contributing to his campaign, the only people who are going to vote for him are all, each and every one of them going to be black? And that they are going to vote for the man just because he's black?

That answer being made and those questions being asked, I can assure you of this 100%: I'm not going to vote against Barack Obama just because he's black. Are you?

Thanks for your passion - I'm taking the rest of my Sunday to rest. Talk to you on Monday...

Bruce Dixon said...

First of all, I don't have a candidate. I have a granddaughter, house, car, lawn furniture and a nasty attitude. But I don't have a candidate. If I had to choose between them, which I don't, Kucinich meets the tests of actually opposing the war and advocates the only practical method for achieving universal health care --- single payer. He's for reparations too.

When I said Obama will not bring the troops home any time before 2003 I provided a clickable reference. Did you check it out? Was he misquoted? Has he withdrawn that statement? Can you document the claim that he says they will be home in 16 months? Of course you can't, cause that's not where he is.

Since 2003 I've written tens of thousands of words on Obama's career and prospects and policy views. I'm not going to rehash it all here. You can find most of it at if you're so inclined. I know the brotha personally, having worked with him back in the early 1990s, and I am working on a book in which he figures prominently.

What interests lots more than Obama himself is the mindset of Obama's true believers, whose often ascribe positions to the man which he really does not hold, like your "out in 16 months" thing, and whose next line of defense is to accuse anybody who questions Obama's stands on specific issues of "...denigrating a Blackman running for president?"

Whassup wid dat? If nobody can disagree with Barack without being accused of "denigrating a Blackman" then we are in a place where we are being told to support him simply, and only because of his blackness, despite the fact that most black folks do not agree with him on the issues. Most blacks DO oppose the war and the expansion of the military, for instance.

So do you brand every black person who disagrees with you on Obama a "denigrator"? Izzat where we are?

Unknown said...

Bruce - You can find Obama's pledge to bring the troops home from Iraq in 16 months all over the Internet. Click here to see one place it is documented. Or click here for simple Google search on Obama troops home in 16 months.

I look forward to seeing your book. We can agree to disagree on Obama's worthiness to win Democratic nomination.

peace, Villager

Wright Hand Blogger said...

I’ve finished resting so, quoting you, you use a figure of speech to say that, “Oprah is more than a celebrity. She is a brand, a corporation.” But, you protest Wayne’s saying that you “have a candidate”??? Just as you are, Wayne is using a figure of speech – and an apt and appropriate one – especially in a discussion about political campaigns and the leaders of those campaigns.

Now to quote you, again, “…I don't have a candidate. I have … a nasty attitude.”

Is having “a nasty attitude” something to brag about, Bruce???

ALL earthlings (human beings) are born with nasty attitudes. So, there’s nothing unique enough to bother declaring it here unless, of course, you are seeking to use it to try to intimidate us. But those of us with decades of experience in dealing with the nasty attitudes of all manner of people from all over the world, find nothing intimidating nor special about your publicly declaring that as if it were some badge of honor or to make you seem as if you’re some sort of mystical boogey man. Indeed, those of us who recognize that we are all born with that uncivilized ailment count ourselves blessed to have discovered cognitive tools to help us control it. But though we suppress it, any of us can demonstrate it – at will. Just ask…

Also, I find it intriguing that one of your apparent knocks on Obama is his stand on the war.

But, what is a nasty attitude but war on a microscopic scale??

With respect to your statement, “When I said Obama will not bring the troops home any time before 2003 I provided a clickable reference.”… How can Obama possibly bring the troops home before 2003? Unless, of course, the UFO Kucinich saw was capable of time travel and would permit Obama to use it to bring the troops home before 2003.

In closing, I am sure that Kucinich would be ecstatic to know that you’re here working so diligently to champion his campaign to us using the logic you’ve thus far demonstrated, Bruce. While I can’t speak for Wayne, I’d love for you to invite Kucinich (or someone from his campaign) to join us so we can hear his take on your reasoning, thus far… I look forward to your response…


Unknown said...

Vincent - That was a remarkable short rest! (smile). We are streaming LIVE the Obama-Oprah show in South Carolina. Feel to keep it going in the background if you have time or inclination. Arrested Development is doing what they do right now...

Wright Hand Blogger said...

At my age, I can only afford to take VERY short rests! :-)

By the way: I did get your message via BlogCatalog and so, I have the stream on in the background.

Thanks - BIG TIME - Wayne!

Danielle said...

The conversation is passionate here, thank you Villager for facilitating this important discourse.

My thoughts:
This election is so important that once one has chosen a candidate they should be able to answer the question I will not vote for x because blank with one sentence.

I will not vote for Hillary since her voting record demonstrates that she is more concerned about playing political games than standing up for Democratic ideals and mores.

I am a woman, though Hillary is not the first woman to run for President, she is the first I have a chance to vote for and I won't based on shared genitalia.

I will not vote for Obama due to his votes funding the war in Iraq after it became clear that the money was being grossly misused.

Let me put it this way...I hire a broker who informs me I need to invest 10,000 to reach a goal. I believe the broker and put up the money.

I hear rumors that my money is being misused, then I see verifiable evidence that it has been systematically misused, I hold meetings with my broker that provide no assurance that the misuse will be corrected, and the broker comes back again and again with the advice to invest more.

The logical path of action is to stop the money flow and hire a new broker.

The logical path is what Kucinich has been on from the get go, before it was popular to oppose the war, before the polls showed the majority of Americans want out of the war. Kucinich demonstrated the foresight and logical analysis of the information on which he based his decision.

Kucinich grew up poor, lives in the very first house he bought for $22,000, has experienced homelessness first hand. I grew up poor, I am the first in my family to own a very modest home {condo}, I have experienced homelessness first hand living in Boston shelters for a year when I was ten.

I have become more aware and educated this past year and will not waste my vote on a candidate that does not represent me, who doesn't really know where I came from and the challenges I faced.

It is an unfortunate fact that black Americans know poverty and the lack of opportunity very intimately in this country, Kucinich with his life experience understands this.

Imagine health care for all, not health insurance for all.
Imagine education from Pre-K to College for free for all.
Imagine job creation that will progress this Nation toward true sustainability.

Health care, education and jobs are issues that hit home hard for those of us who haven't had access to true equal opportunity for whatever reason.

Kucinich at the Heartland Forum spoke of police community clashes, I haven't heard that from any other candidate.

Kucinich voted recently against the Homegrown Terrorist Act S1959 which would further add to the 750,000 people on the terror watch list whose civil liberties and freedom has been affected due to their expressing their political opinions.

Is Kucinich viable? Yes, he is on the ballot, he is a choice, Americans whether they realize or not have a free choice in whom they vote for but are their votes counted.

Bush stole the election in 2000 evident in Florida but highly probable in other states. Bush stole the election in 2004 evident in Ohio but highly probable in other states. While the democratic party seems to let this slide, Dennis fights for voting reform and paper ballots making sure every voice counts! Think about who was most likely to be disenfranchised in the elections of 2000 and 2004.

Justice. Real measurable justice. Cheney lied and misled the public toward war. This is an impeachable offense, the public knows this but the majority of Democratic leaders won't uphold the Constitution and hold Cheney and then Bush accountable for their war crimes. Kucinich has pushed for Justice.

Here are a few pro Kucinich perspectives from the Black Community:
From the Black Agenda Report

Official blurb on Kucinich and the black community

Kucinich chose the Congressional Black Caucus rather than just be anti-Fox

Q: Are African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery?

EDWARDS: I'm not for reparations. But I think there are other things we can do

OBAMA: I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools.

Q: Is anyone on the stage for reparations for slavery?

KUCINICH: I am. The Bible says we shall be and must be repairers of the breach. And a breach has occurred. We have to acknowledge that. It's a breach that has resulted in inequality in opportunities for education, for health care, for housing, for employment. But it's also a breach that has affected a lot of poor whites as well. We need to have a country which recognizes that there is an inequality of opportunity and a president who's ready to challenge the interest groups--be they insurance companies or mortgage companies or defense contractors who are taking the money away from the people who need it. Yes, I am for repairing the breach. Yes, I am for reparations.
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Again thank you Wayne for creating such a forum for real political discourse where all views are appreciated and sought after.

Wright Hand Blogger said...

Simply stated: Yours is the first post in this thread which makes me want to continue to look at Kucinich.

And because of your post, I think it's time to make some old-fashioned notebooks to keep track of these candidates.

Much appreciated.


Unknown said...

Vincent - thank you for taking time today to share your village voice. I hope you find reason in the future to come back more often. Your insights are always appreciated.

Danielle - Your arguments in favor of Kucinich are strong. I respect the perspective about Obama and other Democrats in congress being unwilling to take unpopular step of stopping the funding entirely. However, there are so many other positive aspects of his candidacy for me ... not the least of which is it is the first time that I can envision a Blackman being the POTUS ... other than on 24 or other television shows.

peace, Villager