There is much to admire about Oprah Winfrey. Born in a small, rural Mississippi town, she worked hard to prove herself as an actress and talk show host. To her credit, she succeeded where many others have failed, both in terms of her career and as a successful businesswoman.
But there is also much to criticize about Oprah, especially her recent decision to back Democratic presidential candidate and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama with her money.
There’s nothing wrong with Oprah publicly supporting Obama. Like any private citizen, she has the right to tout the credentials of any political candidate she so chooses. If her choice is Obama, so be it.
However, Oprah crossed a very fine line when she went a step further and hosted a $3-million fundraiser for Obama at her home recently. She went from being a well-known private citizen with a political opinion to a larger-than-life public figure with big pockets and a desire to get a politician in the White House.
I doubt Oprah sees it that way. As she recently said, “My money isn’t going to make any difference. My support of him [Obama] is probably worth more than any cheque that I could write.”
Yeah, right. If Oprah was so confident that her support was worth more than her money, then why hold a fundraiser and make her 1,500 guests pay $2,300 a head to shake Obama’s hand for a nanosecond?
Perhaps it’s because Oprah knows she is only the second most powerful woman in the U.S, according to a recent Gallup poll. Who’s number one? Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. You know, the person who handily leads Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Or perhaps it’s because Oprah knows that her viewers are overwhelmingly female and Democrat. Hence, Hillary’s gender and experience may trump Oprah’s enthusiastic support for a fresh political face.
But Oprah seems to have a trump card of her own: She’s refusing to interview any other Democrat or Republican presidential candidate on her show.
This is in stark contrast to previous election years, such as her interview with George W. Bush in 2000 – the so-called “Oprah Bounce” that helped him make up political ground against Al Gore. Yet this election year, she is saying in essence that the other presidential candidates just don’t count, and Obama is the clear choice for Oprah andfor America.
It’s bad enough that Oprah’s fans follow her around like love-sick puppies and worship her every move. She has already established some control over what they read, collect, eat and wear, among other things. Now, it seems that she wants to exert control over their political views.
I’m sorry, but the whole thing smacks of opportunism. Oprah has claimed on multiple occasions that she wasn’t interested in running for president; now, she has become a quasi-puppet master for an individual doing just that.
I shudder to think how powerful and influential Oprah could become if a political greenhorn like Obama actually wins. It could also potentially set a terrible precedent for future elections: Powerful figures in Hollywood, Wall Street and elsewhere could choose to follow Oprah’s lead and get more publicly and financially involved in presidential campaigns than ever before.
What a horrible prospect for the electoral process, and for democracy.
But on the bright side, Oprah will truly be larger than life. And in the grand of scheme of things, isn’t that what really matters?
Michael Taube is a public affairs analyst, commentator and columnist in Canada. Irate fans of Oprah can reach him at [email protected].
