quote:

"WHEN Oprah Winfrey speaks, America listens. Now she has embarked on her greatest sales mission yet: persuading Americans to support Barack Obama's bid for the Democratic party's presidential nomination.

Winfrey told CNN's Larry King that her decision to endorse Mr Obama was "no small thing". "I'm really not a political person" she said. "I believe that he offers a fresh opportunity of hope for America. So that's why I'm in it. I probably won't ever be in it [politics] again."

The TV star's support will begin to pay off today as more than 1,500 guests gather for an Obama fundraiser at Winfrey's Promised Land estate in California. Stevie Wonder will entertain a guest-list that includes many of Hollywood's greatest African-American stars, including Jamie Foxx, Will Smith and Halle Berry. The details of Winfrey's support have not been finalised, but she is considering a "broader role" in the campaign, possibly making speeches around the country supporting Mr Obama or hosting other events with influential female and African-American leaders.

Winfrey's support allows Mr Obama to appeal directly to Hillary Clinton's core constituency. Mrs Clinton has counted on winning overwhelming support from women voters whose desire to elect America's first female president will, she hopes, prove more important than any policy differences women voters may have with her.

If Mr Obama is to erode Mrs Clinton's lead in the polls he badly needs to make inroads among women voters. Since 77 per cent of the Oprah audience is female, Ms Winfrey's endorsement could scarcely be more significant. Winfrey, 53, rose from an impoverished childhood in rural Mississippi to become the most important and influential woman on American television, building a business empire that Forbes magazine estimates to be worth $1.5 billion.
" (The Scotsman)

So what do you guys think about this?

Who's the better Democratic candidate....

Clinton or Obama, why?

u guys all have great points. however i think that it is time for the united states gets a change. obama would make a fairly good leaders and so would Clinton. but my vote is on Obama.

yes people listen to Oprah because she is a celebrity. So yes Obama is going to get a few more people on his side. Which I think is completely a good move on his side to get her to support him.

I think neither would be good presidents. If they are elected life as we know it would change.

Barack Obama FTW!

Barack Obama is amazing. Quite frankly, presidential elections bored me to no end. But, Obama has caught my attention. He is honest about experimenting with drugs, doesn't have some bullsh*t answer about what his weakness is! AND he has a sense of humor... ex... "If I would've answered this question last, I would've said that my biggest weakness is helping old ladies across the street!" or something to that extent. Obama should win, not just because he is black, but because he is real!

Good luck Obama!

Better than Giuliani.

EWWWW CLINTON PRESIDENT WHAT A HORRID DREAM THAT WOULD BE!

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Why does it even matter if Oprah has thrown her weight behind Obama? That doesn't necessarily make him any better of a candidate.

Of course not, but it could make a difference to the average Opera addict. If you're too busy to do your own research on the candidates and you're constantly fed positive views on Obama, then it's completely possible they'll rub off on you. To me, Opera's blind support for the black candidate just makes him less appealing (which is completely unfair to him) but I just despise Opera. Unfortunately, people don't always make informed decisions. Anybody can vote, and if the majority of the country watches Opera, her opinion does hold weight. She has freakish amounts of power.

I'm not sure who I'll support for president. My parents have been voting for Ralph Nader for like 10 years... that's been productive

Why does it even matter if Oprah has thrown her weight behind Obama? That doesn't necessarily make him any better of a candidate.

I personally think Obama is a better candidate. I mean don't get me wrong, Clinton has a lot of experience and probably was behind many of her husbands decisions, but I think Obama has a lot offer. And is even stronger with Opera behind him!

You need both the bright ideas and the ability to really market them to both the public and Congress. You need your basic reasoning abilities, but you also need to know which lobbyists it makes sense to embrace and which you need to ignore from a political capital standpoint. Experience isn't everything, but it can't be overlooked.

quote:

It's not about how many years you've spent throwing shit at the other party on the hill, it's merely a question of intelligence and reasoning capability.

This is true.

quote:

Barack Obama served in his state's legislature for only 8 years. He then moved up to the US Senate. He has been there since 2004. A US senator serves a 6 year term, and we are proposing putting this man into such a high office before completing his first term in a federal office?

Experience is hugely overrated. I think 11 years working in politics should be plenty of experience to asume the presidency.
Just look at our current president, who previously served as governor of texas for only 5 years, and so many people seem eager to support.

It's not about how many years you've spent throwing shit at the other party on the hill, it's merely a question of intelligence and reasoning capability.

I'm currently backing Joe Biden (I'm open to changing my mind), but between Clinton and Obama I think I would take Clinton, mostly because she is the more experienced of the two. She has also been (in my opinion) by far the most impressive of the three Democratic front-runners in the debates. When she gave Obama a reality check on his speech about how we need to attempt to approach hostile leaders diplomatically, she made him look about five years old. That's just one example, but it really set the tone for her performance against Obama and Edwards'. I suppose her real experience is somewhat debatable, but my God does she have the image down. Despite only being an elected official for less than seven years, she almost looks too polished as a Washington insider.

But to just point to Hillary's time as an elected official as her "political career" would be very misleading. As a first lady, she was more than "the president's wife," she was an active policymaker. From the second Bill got his foot in the door, she was trying to implement her agenda (and yes, the healthcare plan failed miserably, but one would hope -- and she has claimed -- it was a learning experience). From Wikipedia (oh Wikipedia, where would we be without you?):

quote:

As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997), Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997), and Children and Adolescents (2000), and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000) and Philanthropy (1999). She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare. She initiated the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health. The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.

In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan. She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.

There's a reason she draws comparisons to Eleanor Roosevelt in terms of level of activity as a first lady. It just seems logical to me that a former first lady -- especially one as active as Hillary Clinton -- would be in perhaps a better position than any other candidate to know how things really work behind the scenes in the White House. Hence, I have trouble swallowing the "Hillary is inexperienced" line.

Anyway, I personally couldn't care less who Oprah endorses, and while I don't have any bone to pick with most of what Oprah says, the fact that hordes of viewers await her instructions on how to live their lives really bothers me. If you're really qualified to be helping decide who the leader of the strongest nation in the world will be, a celebrity endorsement should mean little to you.

Lastly:

quote:

Originally posted by Meagan87:
To be frank, I think that both of these candidates have the allure of social advancement as their primary selling points.

I know there's a lot of "wouldn't it be AMAZING to have a black/woman president?" people out there, but speaking purely on image, I would have to disagree. Obama's charisma is impressive -- even more impressive than his blackness. And Hillary's got her no-nonsense, no-whining, well-educated and well-informed image down to a T. Seeing her speak in the debates, quite contrary to "wouldn't it be nice to have a female president?" what's been running through my head has been: "Damn, she has the biggest balls of anyone on that stage."

You make good points about the qualification of the two.

But even candidates who are more/ well qualified do not always mean good presidential material.

Bush won two terms, but I bet its fair to say a lot of people who thought he was well qualified for this job feel he's lacking now, well qualified or not.

I have also not decided on who I will vote for, we shall see.

I personally am still in the ruling out phase of my decision making. An awful lot can still happen between now and November 2008... or am I the only one who still remembers 2004 front runner Howard Dean's "I have a scream" speech?

Barack Obama served in his state's legislature for only 8 years. He then moved up to the US Senate. He has been there since 2004. A US senator serves a 6 year term, and we are proposing putting this man into such a high office before completing his first term in a federal office?

Hillary Clinton has slightly more experience than Obama, however I still feel that currently, her strongest credentials lie in the fact that she is married to a former president. She became senator in New York, a state she had not previously lived in before deciding to run for office. She was elected in 2000 and was re-elected in 2006. This means that, while she has actually completed a term of office, she still would have less than 8 years of experience in the federal government to an office which she was elected for.


It is clear that Oprah's endorsement of Barack Obama is based on race; anyone who has watched Oprah over the years knows she highly supports other African Americans celebrities and figureheads. I still contend that if we want to remove racism from our society, we need to learn to look past the color of a person's skin. You can't be in support of "black pride" and contend that you are against racism. By having events such as the "Black Movie Awards," minority racial groups are showing the rest of society that race does matter, and that they are going to embrace that fact.

I am still looking for the candidate I am going to award my vote to...


(I used Wikipedia as my source of information about Obama and Hillary.)

quote:

don't think either have the experience it takes to hold such an esteemed office as the Presidency.

Why Not?
Who is more qualified?

To be frank, I think that both of these candidates have the allure of social advancement as their primary selling points. I don't think either have the experience it takes to hold such an esteemed office as the Presidency.

*waits for the tomatoes to hit*