Should We Fear Oprah?

Kate Sheppard takes note of Oprah Winfrey's incredible abilities as an opinion-leader and wonders if her endorsement will give Barack Obama a big boost. Kay Steiger, pondering the same, has some concerns:

I'm frankly a little disturbed by the influence Oprah has over people. By having candidates "sit on her couch and chat," as Kate put it, she's actually encouraging people to evaluate candidates based on their charisma and personalities instead of thinking about what policies they support. That's a method I don't think is particularly valuable.

I agree that personality-based evaluation isn't a great idea, but I think things like appearances on Oprah's show are in some ways an improvement over the alternative. When a candidate appears on a large-audience program and voters make an appearance based on the candidate's charisma, they're at least being swayed by the candidate's actual charisma or lack thereof (I, for instance, saw Hillary Clinton on Ellen last week and found her charming) whereas the main alternative isn't careful evaluation of the issues, but instead a seemingly arbitrary media filter wherein a prickly egomaniacal recovering alcoholic becomes the kind of guy you'd like to get a beer with. Or you hear a ton about the Edwardses fancy house and nothing about how the Romneys, Giulianis, and Clintons are actually richer.

Comments

I agree that personality-based evaluation isn't a great idea,

As opposed to what, exactly? You find Obama compelling because he seems like a reasonable guy with a Harvard education and a Harvard-esque outlook. Sound like anyone you know? GFR is similarly in the tank for HRC because of grrrl-power. Why those "methods of analysis" are better, I do not know. Some might go further and suggest those are also "personality-based evaluations."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 7, 2007 3:16 PM

"a prickly egomaniacal recovering alcoholic becomes the kind of guy you'd like to get a beer with."

um, matt, in no way shape or form is bush a _recovering_ alcoholic. recovery means AA, or at the very least, therapy. bush is a dry drunk.

Posted by jmc | September 7, 2007 3:18 PM

I agree with above comment that personality should be an important consideration. A lot of people give too much credit to our intellects and not enough to our subconscious-driven gut reactions.

And, Bush's odious personality should have been an immediate disqualifier back in 2000.

Posted by Jim W | September 7, 2007 3:24 PM

Hell, after the Tom Cruise fiasco I'd be scared shitless to go on Oprah.

Posted by Glenn | September 7, 2007 3:25 PM

Re jmc

"um, matt, in no way shape or form is bush a _recovering_ alcoholic. recovery means AA, or at the very least, therapy. bush is a dry drunk."

In addition to being a former pot smoker and former coke snorter.

Posted by SLC | September 7, 2007 3:26 PM

Is Ms. Winfrey any worse then Larry King?

Posted by SLC | September 7, 2007 3:29 PM

Sorry to be the one to break the news to y'all, but personality evaluation is the way the bulk of voters make their choice, and always has been. Most voters' ability to evaluate objective criteria is extremely limited. There's next to nothing you can do about this.

Posted by jimBOB | September 7, 2007 3:30 PM

it matters..and it works. when Hillary gets the nomination Oprah will move the audience to her...and it will help.

Posted by judson | September 7, 2007 3:31 PM

If candidates' wealth is going to be discussed, I wish how they came into the wealth were emphasized. I voted in the GOP primaries in 2000 to cast a ballot against Bush, because I knew a guy who had made his pile via eminent domain and taxpayer subsidies would be unlikely to share my views on public policy.

The Giuliani or Clinton method of enrichment isn't especially offensive (if very old novice commodity trading is ignored), but it doesn't have much to recommend it, either. Inheritance is about the same, but credit should be given to someone who turns a small fortune into a huge one via honest entrpreneurial activity. I really haven't looked into Romney enough to know where he falls on the spectrum. Edwards no doubt made some good money on legitimate lawsuits, but it's a little much to hear a guy decry inequality when he also made good money by suing ob/gyns with phony claims regarding the causes of cerebal palsy, which has had a real deleterious effect on poor families.

Unfortunately, the type of people who make fortunes via free market entrepreneurial efforts may tend to have personality traits incompatible with long periods of public service.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 3:44 PM

somecallmetim and jimbob nail it. personality evaluation is present and a huge part of a lot of the voting publics decision-making calculus. clinton didn't go on arsenio to discuss policy - why is anyone dissing oprah?

Posted by notchris | September 7, 2007 3:50 PM

All Matt is saying that people relying on their own judgment of character (based on watching an interview or whatever) is far from ideal, but it's also far better than relying on the character judgment of people like David Brooks (based on reading an editorial that summarizes a dozen public appearances). This seems noncontroversial.

Posted by Cyrus | September 7, 2007 3:53 PM

MY: "you hear a ton about the Edwardses fancy house and nothing about how . . . Giulianis, and Clintons are actually richer"

I'm not a fan of Hillary or Rudy, but the statement isn't as undeniably true as Matt makes it seem. Edwards has stated a net worth of $29.5mm. Both Hillary and Rudy have disclosed (thru required reporting) ranges from $20mm to $50mm (for HRC) and $70mm (for Rudy). While his specificity is certainly to Edwards credit, it is not reasonable to assume that Hillary and Rudy are actually at the high end of the stated ranges--indeed, if one were to make an assumption, it is much safer to assume that they are both closer to the low end of the range, and thus hardly "actually richer".

Posted by zaleriana | September 7, 2007 4:06 PM

A "recovering" alcoholic is one who has stopped drinking. Like, presumably, George W. Bush. AA doesn't have a monopoly on the term. But I would certainly think a practicing alcoholic would be a better guy to have a beer with.

Personalities are important. You can't just look at the stances on the issues, because you don't know what the big issues will be in the next 4-8 years. You have to look at personality to judge how they might respond to future crises.

Posted by too many steves | September 7, 2007 4:11 PM

AA is a cult, and even if using their weird clannish terminology, in which any alcoholic who stops drinking without buying into their cult is a "dry drunk", is embarrassing to a much hated president, those of us who are not members of said cult should not buy into it.

Posted by John | September 7, 2007 4:22 PM

"Or you hear a ton about the Edwardses fancy house and nothing about how the Romneys, Giulianis, and Clintons are actually richer."

That's because neither Romney, Giuliani nor Clinton are running a campaign whose major theme is fighting poverty and whose subtext is that the wealthy only get to be wealthy because of injustice in society.

Larry Craig was more or less forced out of office for soliciting gay sex (asumming he actually resigns). Barney Frank would suffer a temporary embarrasment but no more. The difference is hypocricy.

Posted by sd | September 7, 2007 4:28 PM

I'm not sure if this is Oprah's croos to bear. If she didn't play the personality game, wouldn't someone else step in and fill the void?

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | September 7, 2007 4:31 PM

That should be "cross to bear"

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | September 7, 2007 4:32 PM

The difference is hypocricy.

The difference is the parties' bases' differing discomfort with gay people.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 7, 2007 4:33 PM

In sd's world only the poor should care about the poor.

Posted by Rob | September 7, 2007 4:40 PM

That's because neither Romney, Giuliani nor Clinton are running a campaign whose major theme is fighting poverty and whose subtext is that the wealthy only get to be wealthy because of injustice in society.

Whose subtext is not at all what you say. So, would you like to try again? Please tell me why someone who is running a campaign whose major theme is fighting poverty is not allowed to be rich?

Posted by Rambuncle | September 7, 2007 4:40 PM

So Hillary and Bill have something like 30 to 50 million. He said his net assets would be zero or less when he left the White House because of legal bills. Hillary makes what, 175k per year. So Bill has accumulated, after taxes, 30 to 50m in 7 years, giving speeches for goodness sake (something George Bush would like to do when he leaves, because after all, he needs to support his family)at 150k to 500k a shot. That a big profit margin. Nice work if you can get it. Course, it helps to have friends like Burkle and MacAuliffe who can help you with your investments etc. Bill worked very hard as President, something I doubt GWB did or does, so I don't begrudge him his wealth, but he and Hillary are a long way from their poor days with no house etc. Perhaps good values still, but alot of lobbyist friends all of whose views should be taken into account as Hillary says because the corps. they work for employ alot of people. Edwards earned his money and worked very hard as a trial lawyer. (and the trial lawyer lobby and he have a good relationship)Bush, forget it. He was born midway between third and home (in an attempt to steal home, another way of saying his presidency represents his attempt to bankrupt the country) after his dad was born on third thinking he hit a triple. Bush's ancestors made their dough in the armament industry. Wars are good for the family, selling arms to both sides. I trust Edwards though it will probably be HRC barring a change in California electoral law and another terrorist attack.

Posted by Jim | September 7, 2007 4:42 PM

You greatly overestimate Oprah's power. First of all, the people who watch Oprah have, in fact, rather low voter participation rates. Second, people may follow celebrity gossip, but they don't listen to celebrities when it comes to voting. (If they did, the Democrats would never lose an election.) Remember all those white working-class Reagan voters waving American flags while Bruce Springsteen sang "Born in the USA." They simply weren't listening to his political views.

Posted by y81 | September 7, 2007 4:44 PM

I am pretty sure that I would hate every single candidate if I actually got to know them personally. Successful, powerful people are usually insufferable.

Posted by blah | September 7, 2007 4:44 PM

This is to my knowledge the first time Oprah has overtly endorsed any presidential candidate.

The real question here is not what effect it has on the campaign of Mr. Obama (little, none most likely) but what effect it has on Oprah's stardom, her cultural cache.

In 1984 Bruce Springsteen - freshly minted a superstar but still a private man - blasted the Reagan campaign for invoking his compex, ironic protest song "Born in the USA" as some kind of patriotic anthem. But he never endorsed Mondale, or anyone; that was the right thing to do.

Since his endorsement of John Kerry in 2004 and related, not-overly-successful tour on behalf of the Kerry campaign that year he has seemed more like a partisan than an artist and icon; his views carry less weight, have less impact.

(One hopes that in 20 years Eminem - who like Springsteen in 1984 criticized the incumbent but not endorse any of his rivals [and made the one of the few truly great protest songs of this decade] - will not be stumping for the Chelsea Clinton campaign.)

Back to Oprah: she isn't an artist but the analogy holds. She could have far greater impact, and do much less damage to her influence exposing the lies and vulgarity of the Republican elite but refusing to endorse any Democrats for anything.

Posted by Linus | September 7, 2007 4:49 PM

When Hillary get's the nomination!? Not after this endorsement!

Posted by Judson's Arch Nemesis | September 7, 2007 4:51 PM

"First of all, the people who watch Oprah have, in fact, rather low voter participation rates."

Y81,

If you look at Oprah's audiences, they tend to consist of middle-class, married, white, suburban stay at home moms. Women in this age group tend to have high voter participation rates.

I think you're mistaking Oprah viewers for Jerry or Maury viewers.

Posted by eltoro | September 7, 2007 4:54 PM

; his views carry less weight, have less impact.

Based on...what, exactly? Mostly I want to know how you're establishing a baseline for Springsteen's political weight. I may be misremembering, but I think that Reagan actually won his elections.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 7, 2007 4:55 PM

My God. I'm not sure I'll be able to bear it if Eminem endorses a presidential candidate in 2027. If even the slim shady tarnishes his reputation for august detachment, what will be left for us to believe in? WHAT WILL BE LEFT?

Posted by MrTimbo | September 7, 2007 4:59 PM

Jim, a lot of people work very hard at earning money in disreputable ways. Working hard for money is not enough. Edwards no doubt earned a lot of money via legitimate lawsuits. There is no getting around the fact, however, that he also earned a lot of money with lawsuits containing phony claims regarding the causes of cerebal palsy, and those phony claims just didn't damage ob/gyns and insurance companies, but also poor families that Edwards says he is most concerned about.

Does this make Edwards the worst guy in the race? Probably not, and I tend to think that Bush's method of earning a fortune was more disreputable, but it shouldn't be ignored either, or simply be described as the result of hard work.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 5:00 PM

That's because neither Romney, Giuliani nor Clinton are running a campaign whose major theme is fighting poverty and whose subtext is that the wealthy only get to be wealthy because of injustice in society.
Posted by sd | September 7, 2007 4:28 PM

This is the fake authenticity argument I see from conservatives who want to cut the legs off of liberal leaders lest they influence someone. The idea is that only a poor person can advocate for the poor and only a rich person can advocate for the rich. Which is real funny coming from a conservative because it sound just like the horrible identity politics - only a black can advocate for blacks, only hispanics can advocate for hispanics - that they tut tut and diapprove of. Until it's useful to republicans politically.

Here's the deal. All countries have elites. And what makes an elite good or bad has nothing to do with their social status and everything to do with their judgement, ethics and character. Good elites believe in society and the welfare of the people. Bad elites view the people as a resource to be exploited for their personal advancement.

Now in the US in the last 30 years the divide has gotten very stark. The republicans are the black hats and the democrats are the white hats. The fact that liberal leaders are personally wealthy has exactly nothing to do with whether they are authentic or good for the people, its what they want to do with their power that matters. Policy is authenticity. Clearing brush, driving a little red pick up truck and claiming to be a compassionate guy is bullshit to hide regressive tax cuts, a hard on for war, and the subversion of federal agencies.

You know who pioneered the authenticity argument in electoral politics? That's right. The funny guy with the mustache. His line was "I was in the trenches with you brothers" "I suffered with you, I know you, I am you" Same far right bullshit, different political culture.

PS - that's not the subtext. Christ you did it again. You've ascribed the subtext of communism to the democratic party. Sneaky and completly dishonest, although you probably honestly believe it. The argument is dishonest even if you aren't. The text is republican polices are hurting 90% of American families, we propose the opposite.

PPS - Yeah Mr Craig and Mr Frank. The hypocracy is the republican party itself. Moralising outwardly on homosexuality, while practicing it privately. Feh.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 7, 2007 5:02 PM

There is no getting around the fact, however, that he also earned a lot of money with lawsuits containing phony claims regarding the causes of cerebal palsy, and those phony claims just didn't damage ob/gyns and insurance companies, but also poor families that Edwards says he is most concerned about.

Using the word "phony" to describe suits based on scientific theories that were not disproven until well after the suits were resolved could be considered, well, disreputable.

Posted by Gabriel | September 7, 2007 5:04 PM

"instead a seemingly arbitrary media filter wherein a prickly egomaniacal recovering alcoholic..."

I swear to god when I first began reading that sentence I was sure he was going in another direction and a Chris Matthews reference was coming.

Posted by Andruw | September 7, 2007 5:04 PM

"My God. I'm not sure I'll be able to bear it if Eminem endorses a presidential candidate in 2027. If even the slim shady tarnishes his reputation for august detachment, what will be left for us to believe in? WHAT WILL BE LEFT?

Posted by MrTimbo "

Well done, sir. Well done.

Posted by The Animal | September 7, 2007 5:06 PM

Gabriel, putting forth a theory as well enough verified by empirical means to warrant awarding millions of dollars in damages, when such verification has not taken place, qualifies as phony. The very fact that there had not been a corresponding decline in cerebal palsy as invasive deliveries skyrocketed was enough to make said "theory" highly dubious.

If I theorize that twinkies and other junk food caused a psychotic break, resulting in my client acting on his homicidal urges, the fact that the theory has yet to be disproven should not, in an ideal world, keep a jury from acting sensibly. Unfortunately, the world of jury deliberations is far from ideal, not that I have a better idea.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 5:14 PM

Will, I'd like to know your sources (links) for proof of the allegations you make re Edwards and the cerebral palsey lawsuit and the effect it had on poor people. I'm an attorney myself, have represented both sides (unusual, yes) in different personal injury matters, different landlord-tenant matters, and other civil litigation. Of course, there can be disreputable and unscrupulous people on either side; also unfair application of good laws (in California, in the 1960's tenants were evicted even in slum property when they refused to pay rent because landlords refused repairs and the courts applied property law which made the the covenant to pay rent and to make repairs independent so a tenant had to pay rent no matter if the landlord failed in its legal obligation to repair under the lease. In response the courts invented a warranty of habitability, interpreted leases under contract law rather than property law making the obligation to pay full rent dependent on the landlord's providing habitable premises. Now in some places in California, unscrupulous tenants take advantage of the change to screw decent landlords. And vise versa. I didn't promise you a rose garden.

Posted by Jim | September 7, 2007 5:24 PM

But he never endorsed Mondale, or anyone; that was the right thing to do.

Do you have an argument to support this, rather than just assertion? Where's the immorality in making an endorsement?

Posted by Cyrus | September 7, 2007 5:24 PM

Jim: "So Bill has accumulated, after taxes, 30 to 50m in 7 years, giving speeches for goodness sake"

There's also the little matter of an 8-figure book advance. For a book Bill probably actually wrote most of, or at the very least actually read all of--not something GWB is likely to do.

Posted by zaleriana | September 7, 2007 5:33 PM

The idea is that only a poor person can advocate for the poor and only a rich person can advocate for the rich.

I have to disagree with the second half, NO. I've never known a conservative to criticize a poor (or middle-class) person for advocating for the rich. Hell, I think the essence of conservativism these days (apart from the Permanent War part and all) is that everybody should advocate for the rich.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 7, 2007 5:49 PM

Jim, here's a link to a CNN piece that is highly favorable to Edwards, regarding the cerebral palsy lawsuits, in which it is stated that at the time of the trial there was about a 50/50 split in the scientific community regarding the likely causes of the affliction:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html

Now, I don't think scientific theories which are so unsettled are a good basis to award millions in damages, but I guess that's life by jury trial. It still makes the many millions Edwards earned on those lawsuits pretty tainted. If he gave it all away, to help poor folks with their health care services, I'd look upon it a lot more charitably. As it is, however, I see it as about the same as a tobacco company executive who enjoys a very comfortable life off the misery of others.

As to how it harms poor people, well, when millions are awarded in lawsuits based on phony theories like this, all sorts of bad things happen. Malpractice rates go up, ob/gyns stop delivering babies, and unecessary surgical deliveries skyrocket. Anything which causes fewer ob/gyns to deliver babies makes obtaining services harder, and that harms poor people the most. Unecessary surgical deliveries harms everybody. This is not a nice way to make money.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 5:50 PM

If I theorize that twinkies and other junk food caused a psychotic break...

You either have an active imagination which allows you to posit very amusing hypotheticals, or you're relying on an urban-legend, filtered-through-a-distorting-retelling account of an actual 1970s-era trial. If the latter, it is just a reminder to many of us how ill-informed and ignorant you are.

Posted by Tyro | September 7, 2007 5:53 PM

I'll correct, Tyro; If I theorize to a jury that my client's consumption of junk food is an indicator that he was so depressed that he should not be held fully culpable for shooting people to death, and the jury buys it, that doesn't argue for the scientific validity of such a theory.

I apologize for using a popularized urban legend to illustrate a point.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 5:59 PM

Charisma matters in Presidential contests. I'm not saying it sould be the only thing that matters, or even the main thing, but it clearly is main criteria to the American public, which even a cursory look at every electon of the past 50 years that wasn't won by Dick Nixon will show.

Television has completely changed the way we vote. Now it is not about who would be the best President, but rather who'd we'd rather have a beer with.

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | September 7, 2007 6:01 PM

You may be right, Muncher, but I'd caution against reading too much into a tiny sample size of 12.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 6:08 PM

she's actually encouraging people to evaluate candidates based on their charisma and personalities instead of thinking about what policies they support. That's a method I don't think is particularly valuable.

It's been pointed out, but: this is not exactly a unique or original innovation on Oprah's part. It's basically the vast bulk and main premise of the entire frickin dog and pony show, because most citizens are poorly informed, are disinclined to or incapable of critical assessment of policies, and are trained to think in terms of short-attention-span entertainment and sound bites.

Posted by hey | September 7, 2007 6:31 PM

"Should we fear Oprah?"

Reminds me of the comedy talk at the end of "Cradle 2 the Grave":

"Is that big Oprah or little Oprah?"

"Medium Oprah."

"See, that's the one I like because the eyes are straight!"

I have no idea what that meant...

I'm more concerned about Edwards taking up Obama's stupid ass concept that the US should conduct anti-terrorist military operations in Pakistan without Pakistan's consent.

Fuck Obama's "charisma" (another slick talking black guy - where's Lou Gossett Jr. when you need him for comparison?) or Hillary's "charm" (I've seen open freezers with more warmth.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 7, 2007 7:53 PM

Will is referring to the Dan White case. White, an SF Supervisor resigned, had a change of heart and wanted the mayor, George Moscone to reappoint him. Moscone wouldn't. White who I believe was an ex cop smuggled a gun into City Hall, went through the front door and murdered Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in cold blood at City Hall in San Francisco in 1978. His attorney used what became known as the "twinkies defense" as Will articulated. After serving a few years in prison, he was released. Later White killed himself.
Re charismatic Presidents, Jimmy Carter may have been a charismatic, but wasn't himself charismatic. So too GWB and GHWB. Eisenhower, the war hero, JFK (handsome--I recommend reading Robert Evans book exerpted in Vanity Fair about his encounters with JFK), LBJ (ugly, but commanding, persuasive and in that way charismatic, Reagan (he had good energy, horrible policies and was part teflon),and Clinton.
Re the jury system, a Judge rules on the law such as what gets admitted as evidence, the jury on the facts. Experts can testify on both sides. A weak/unproven theory can be attacked by the defense and may well prevail with a good attorney. Edwards who has charisma, must have presented his case very, very well, and presumably had clients which a jury could sympathize with. I'd guess the defense offered alot of money to settle the case, but Edwards presumably left alot of money on the table (not an easy thing to do) and apparently won big. And no, I don't know if there was a high amount offer by the defense or whether Edwards turned it down. And the cost of presenting a case like that is alot. Juries can be fickle as the White case shows. Alot of money is spent today in big cases for jury consultants. And most, almost all cases, settle.

Posted by Jim | September 7, 2007 8:39 PM

"Based on...what, exactly? Mostly I want to know how you're establishing a baseline for Springsteen's political weight."

What I meant was that Springsteen's value as an artist exceeds his value as a political activist and that becoming a partisan diminishes his latest works.

If Orwell had only been an anti-Stalinist hack for Attlee would he be remembered? I doubt it.

The relationship of politics and art is complicated; Bob Marley was portrayed - falsely - as a partisan in Jamaican politics and was shot repeatedly. He almost died. Lorca was famously killed.

My point is that once you cease to simply stand against something and stand for someone you become a defender of their compromises; you become middlebrow, or a monster, or some combination of both.

Posted by Linus | September 7, 2007 10:17 PM

Or you hear a ton about the Edwardses fancy house and nothing about how the Romneys, Giulianis, and Clintons are actually richer.

They may be richer (in Romney's case, without a doubt), but their houses are nowhere near as absurd.

Posted by right | September 8, 2007 2:32 AM

If Orwell had only been an anti-Stalinist hack for Attlee would he be remembered? I doubt it.

But that's what he was!

``Every word I have written is against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism.''

Orwell was more partisan than you imagine; quite aside from, literally, fighting in a political party's militia in Spain -- he was with the ILP/POUM contingent on the Huesca front, shooting at people whose politics he disagreed with, before getting involved in the street fighting in Barcelona around the Telephone Exchange and so-on, Orwell was very pro-Labour; he was the Tribune Arts Editor, working directly with Bevan who would become the Labour Minister of Health responsible for the NHS. Orwell was really, really partisan.

That is why he is remembered, because he saw the world as it was, and tried to change it.

Posted by Jean | September 8, 2007 3:12 AM

"Orwell was more partisan than you imagine; quite aside from, literally, fighting in a political party's militia in Spain."

Yes. I used the word complicated to avoid having to discuss the complications. My sense though is that being a partisan for a losing anti-fascist insurgency is not the same thing as being a partisan for an incumbent Labour or Tory government.

And my apologies for diverting this thread. The relationship between artists and politics is not I think quite the same thing as the relationship between talk show hosts and politics.

Still: I wonder if Oprah's audience really wants to know who Oprah plans to vote for for president, or anything. I wonder if endorsing someone for president hasn't been a long temptation for her.

I'm not saying she ought not have the candidates on but I would think sticking to human interest stuff would be safer. Governor Huckabee you lost 100 pounds; how did you do it? Mayor Giuliani: what did it *feel* like when that second plane hit the south tower? Mrs. Clinton: is Bill gonna do the housework and host the dinner parties?

Posted by Linus | September 8, 2007 10:41 AM

And I didn't mean to suggest that everyone who expresses a political view is a monster.

I was just stealing that Ginsberg line about politics making poets monstrous. Maybe this applies to artists in general.

But when he said it it was funny.

It's better to be funny and insulting.

But in a republic (or homeland, or whatever) aren't we all a little complicit in the sins of our government?

Posted by Linus | September 8, 2007 1:15 PM

First off, who the hell cares what Edwards' house looks like? Just because he's not poor himself doesn't mean he can't feel passionately about ending poverty. Is he supposed to give up his home and live on the streets? He earned his money fair and square, and it's up to him what he wants to do with it. Give it a rest.

Second of all, I am frightened by Oprah's influence. It's more far-reaching than any of us could imagine, I'm convinced. Time will tell.

Posted by Amare | September 9, 2007 8:31 AM