Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Oprah's a Winner. Can She Make Obama One Too?


Can Oprah make Obama a winner with women? (Reuters/Harpo Inc.).

The news that Oprah will campaign for Barack Obama has been catnip for cable news.

Is there anything more irresistible than the prospect of one of the world's most recognizable women campaigning for the opponent of another of the world's most recognizable women? Add into that mix the enhanced role of Bill Clinton as his wife's leading surrogate and the politico-celebrity meter can't get much higher.

But there is a practical and potentially crucial political role for Oprah as she heads out on behalf of Obama. More than anything, Obama needs her help to improve his standing against Clinton among African American women voters -- especially in South Carolina, a state that could prove pivotal in the Democratic race if there is no decisive outcome from contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The battle between the first black candidate with a serious chance of winning the presidency and the wife of the man dubbed the first black president has split the African American vote. Through much of the year, Obama and Clinton have run roughly even among African American voters in Washington Post-ABC News polls, but there is now a decided gender gap.

Neither is good news for Obama. He needs a decisive edge overall among African American voters and needs to cut into Clinton's advantage among black women. David Bositis, senior policy analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, believes the decision to put Oprah on the campaign trail is part of Obama's attempt to deal with that problem.

"I think he's recognized that he has a problem," Bositis said. "It's important to remember that black women are women. They're African American yes, but they're also women. Hillary is the first candidate with a real chance of winning who's a woman. That's not a small thing to a lot of women. So he has to overcome that natural advantage she has among women."

The Joint Center released a national survey Tuesday of 750 likely African American voters (margin of error about 4 percentage points) that sheds light on Obama's challenge. According to Bositis, Obama has achieved a remarkable degree of approval in the short time he has been on the national stage. The only others to score as high in Bositis's surveys over the years are Colin Powell -- and the Clintons.

In the survey, 74 percent of African Americans gave Obama a favorable rating while 10 percent gave him an unfavorable rating. For Hillary Clinton, it was 83 percent favorable and 10 percent unfavorable. No other Democratic candidate was viewed favorably by as many as half of African Americans.

"He is very admired," Bositis said. "It's not a question of any shortcoming. For someone who three years ago was a state senator in Illinois, he doesn't have anything to be ashamed about in how he's viewed. He's viewed very, very favorably. But the person he's running against is... somebody African Americans really admire and who knows black politics too."

Black men and black women have equally positive views about Obama, according to the survey. But Clinton is seen even more favorably among African American women than among African American men -- 86 percent positive and just 7 percent negative. Among men it's 78 percent positive to 15 percent negative.

Clinton has improved her standing among African American women during the course of the campaign, according to an analysis of Washington Post-ABC News polls. Jennifer Agiesta, polling analyst for the Post, combined two recent national surveys and found that, while Clinton and Obama split the votes of black men, the New York senator now has a clear edge among black women.

Last summer black men and black women supported Obama and Clinton in almost identical percentages. That's was still the case in polls taken this fall among African American men (44 percent each for Clinton and Obama), but among African American women, the findings were Clinton 52 percent, Obama 35 percent.

The Joint Center survey found that among all African American voters, Clinton has an even more decisive edge over Obama on issues and on leadership.

Black voters give Clinton's positions on health care, Social Security and Iraq significantly higher ratings -- a 2-1 advantage on both health care and Social Security.

The poll found that about three in five African Americans prefer a candidate committed to change while about a third prefer one with significant experience -- a finding that ought to play to Obama's new generation candidacy. But when asked which candidate is more likely to break the gridlock in Washington on health care and economic security, those surveyed cited Clinton far more often than Obama -- again by a ratio of about 2-1.

Although Hillary Clinton has a network of friends and supporters in the black community owing in part to her work for the Children's Defense Fund as a young lawyer, she can thank her husband for a considerable amount of the good will black voters feel toward her.

According to Bositis, the average income of African American households grew by $5,000 during Bill Clinton's second term -- more than did white household income. So positive were blacks toward the Clinton record that Al Gore won 90 percent of the African American vote in 2000, a higher percentage than Clinton received in either 1992 or 1996.

"Al Gore got a percent of the black vote that Bill Clinton never got," Bositis said. "He didn't get 90 percent of the vote because he was the second black president."

The prospect of Bill Clinton back in the White House as first spouse is especially appealing to African American voters. A Post-ABC News poll found that while 55 percent of white Americans said they would welcome the former president back in the White House, 89 percent of black Americans said they would welcome him back.

Bositis said Obama has another hurdle to overcome, which is doubt within the black community about prospects of winning. In his studies over the years, he said, he has found that many African American voters in many southern states doubt that a black candidate can win statewide office.

"Whatever else Oprah Winfrey is, Oprah Winfrey represents winning," Bositis said, comparing her to billionaire Warren Buffet. "If she can get Tolstoy back on the bestseller list in an era of shortened attention spans, then there's not much she can't do. That's something else that would be good for Obama. Especially for southern blacks and in southern states."

When Oprah finally hits the campaign trail, there will be plenty of attention given to the glitz and glitter of her appearances. But pay attention to what she says and how she says it. Will she be able to move voters, particularly African American women, the way she moves television ratings and books?

--Dan Balz

By Washington Post editors  |  November 28, 2007; 12:35 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Dan Balz's Take  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Health Care For All?
Next: Huckabee Nabs Falwell Jr.'s Support

Comments

Would you elect a presidential candidate such as Barack Obama based upon an endorsement by someone who endorsed scams which bilked large amounts of money from the public? How about an endorsement from someone who endorses people who champion violent terrorists, mass murderers and slave owners? Maybe not, but what if the endorser is very well known and has her own television show? OK, well, I can't be talking about Oprah Winfrey, Right?... but I am. Before you go to the next comment thinking that I am exaggerating or making reckless and baseless comments, take the deepest breath of your life and read on just a little bit more to see the justification.

In the beginning of 2007, Oprah Winfrey had a number of shows dedicated to a scam known as "The Secret". On Oprah's show and other shows hosting by others, this "The Secret" promoted pyramid schemes and made either misleading or outright false claims about their product. The proof of these false claims were made on countless websites, and respected magazines such as Newsweek and Nightline. Oprah not only endorsed this snake oil known infamously as "The Secret" but she championed it and placed herself at the top of the pyramid of lies and deceit. "The Secret" used Oprah's shows as shameless infomercials and propaganda, and Oprah pandered endlessly to them. "The Secret" also praised a slave owner numerous times. While it may seem out of character for Oprah to allow uncontested praise of slave owners by the guests on her show, keep in mind that these slaves were white and not black--which may have made the difference for Oprah. Not that I am suggesting that Oprah is a racist, but put this together with the fact Oprah only will support a black candidate (Barack Obama) without due consideration of other candidates. Moreover, Oprah supports Obama despite the fact that Obama shares a stage with a well known bigot. So it makes one wonder about whether Oprah is a racist in her support of Obama. Or perhaps Oprah is a very poor judge of character as witnessed by her championing of "The Secret" which is now the subject of world wide criminal fraud investigations and lawsuits. In either case, Oprah's endorsement of Obama has no meaning beyond a tv personality cynically trying to whip up some more interest in her tv show ratings, while pretending to show interest in humanity.

Posted by: truth13 | December 2, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

As a former student of Barack's at Chicago Law I can attest that he is the real deal: brilliant, down-to-earth, thoughtful, open-minded and respectful, even to those with whom he disagrees. He had an ability to manage diverse opinions and help individuals with opposing views understand and appreciate differences. He is able to connect and inspire in a way that i have never experienced in my 40+ years.

Incidentally, I now reside in Montana, a state with very little racial diversity, where a poll two weeks ago indicated that Obama is the number one choice of Montanans among the democratic candidates. Interesting information to be considered by those who claim they won't 'waste their vote b/c a black man will never be elected.'

Barack is what our country needs right now and he can be elected if enough of us care.

Posted by: taylorbk | November 29, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

balz again tries to paint a portrait of panic for obama and at the same time saying oprah support is proof of this weakness. oprah reaches many people nation wide across race lines.and I do not believe her appeal is to black woman alone look at her crowd and her rating. the polls and thoughts of balz and bositis are also overdone and off base. the AA voters are hedging bets at this point. obama still has plenty of time to reach them- but he speaks to a larger truth by appealing to all americans interested in having a government that is accountable to the voters.

Posted by: jacade | November 29, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"There are no red states, there are no blue states. We are the UNITED states of America." Senator Barack Obama doesnt need Oprah. She follows him just like every American follows him once they experience his truth, integrity and leadership.

Posted by: Katy7540 | November 29, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Who wins Democratic nomination in contingent on one critical factor, which is, who wins Iowa between Hilary Clinton and Obama. As Obama stated in previous interviews, if he wins Iowa, he wins the nomination. Winning Iowa is a decisive litmus test if white Americans are ready to vote a black American to become US President. The critical mass among African Americans share the belief that white Americans cannot elect a black to the office of the president. Once Iowa proves that assumption wrong, the African American critical mass will swing back in a heartbeat to the possibility of a black president.

Hilary and her campaign recognizes the danger it portends to her candidacy if she were to lose Iowa and hence she is pouring resources and campaigning like hell in Iowa. The problem with Hilary's latest strategy is that winning Iowa is purely dependent on who can organize better than others. Such organization cannot be built in less than two-months because it requires personal contacts, monitoring and progressive persuasions. Because of Midwestern mannerism, it is very hard to actually pin down a prospective person to caucus for a given candidate with high degree of certainty.

If Hilary loses in Iowa, she sure will lose in NH, no matter what firewall she builds to fend off defeat. The reason is because of high ratio of Independent voters. Hilary's firewall will only be limited to Democrats and most Independents are not sure whom to vote for but will make that decision last minute pending on who seems to be a winner. Independents are anti-establishment candidates and in this current situation, are also anti-war and have not forgiven Hilary for her vote for war in Iraq. If Hilary wins Iowa, Independents may vote a Republican Maverick like John McCain and hence there will not be any upset for Obama.

Most pundits have predicted that if Hilary loses Iowa, she still has money and organization to compete in other primary states. The point is, if the ratio of African American votes falls 2:1 in favor of Obama, Hilary will lose in most of southern states where African American votes in the primaries is pronounced. Pay attention also that Senator Obama is opening offices in many Red States where Hilary's support is weak.

Posted by: jckckc | November 29, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

jade7243 - thank you for your comments, I think it shed a lot of light on perceptions of Senator Obama's campaign. Your analysis, not surprisingly, was much more useful than Balz's column. Thank goodness for the comments section! And I'll tell you, as a white woman, I also agree that Obama is the best candidate for right now, and not in some distant utopian future. I trust his views on both racial and feminist issues, in addition to other policy, will be much more thoughtful and progressive than any of the others running. How fantastic that we are even having this discussion about the African American and female front runners!

Posted by: squintz | November 29, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Anyone looking for some new Hillary video from an SC stop and an interesting commentary on how race is impacting that primary should try: http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/27/hillary_and_the_black_men_of_god

Posted by: lanefiller | November 28, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

holtma1: So what! Who cares? Why should she become just another "victim" with a "it's whitey's fault" mentality? Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan already have that covered.

She's successful, she's powerful, and she did it ON HER OWN! She never took on the "victim" mentality that the three above-mentioned people teach to the black community. It's so much easier to blame your problems on someone else. What makes it laughable is that J.J., S.S., and L.F. only show up when there's a camera around.

Now go ahead and call me racist for not being politically correct.

Posted by: camera_eye_1 | November 28, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

um, yeah, AlbyVA, i betcha we do. but i bet neither lou nor "the o" believe they're addressing black or white america when they work; they're just addressing americans, period.

and jade, you took all those brilliant, salient words outta this fellow black woman's head. as they say on sunday mornings, "you better preach!"

Posted by: esles2000 | November 28, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

um, yeah, AlbyVA, i betcha we do. but i bet neither lou nor "the o" believe they're addressing black or white america when they work; they're just addressing americans, period.

and jade, you took all those brilliant, salient words outta this fellow black woman's head. as they in say on sunday mmornings, "you better preach!"

Posted by: esles2000 | November 28, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Black America and decide whom they want for President. They don't need Oprah telling them who she thinks is best for America. You don't see White America deciding their votes on who Lou Dobbs picks.

Posted by: AlbyVA | November 28, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Balz: Here is the view of someone who is black, female and unabashedly FOR Senator Obama and defiantly AGAINST Mrs. Clinton.

Clinton is a known quantity. and that makes her no different than any of the known white men in the contest. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor the former president did much to advance what might be called the "black agenda" while they were in the White House. In fact, they were decidedly late or silent on those issues. They paid lip service to things like affirmative action (AA) (where during Clinton's term the Supreme Court began the gutting of AA in higher education. They were slow off the mark with regard HIV/AIDS which, during the Clinton term, began to ravage the black community. They did little to improve education in African American neighborhoods, allowing the idea that vouchers, and No Child were good enough. In fact, it has always bothered me that when the Clintons could have put a big spotlight on the disparity of schools by putting Chelsea in Washingont, D.C. schools, they opted to go the private school route. Think of what the impact could have been. (And trust me, no one is going to let the daughter of the president languish in school.) Instead of raising the minimum wage when they "reformed" welfare, they allowed millions (both black and white) to enter the endless cycle of working poor -- working minimum wage jobs (2 or 3 or 4 just to make ends meet), with no health insurance (which Hillary would now mandate), few benefits, and no safety nets to assist them like child day care, after school care and real parental support. Instead of recognizing the unequal impact of impoverished neighborhoods have on their citizens (no grocery stores, banks, health clinics, for example) and the terrible toll the loss of the few good jobs to NAFTA would take on these families, it was more important to broker a deal on the Defense of Marriage Act. Instead of changing unfair mandatory minimum sentences, the Clintons supported three strikes laws and maintained the unfair disparity of white users of powder cocaine getting off lightly compared to black and other minority users of crack cocaine. The Clintons paid lip service to the motherland too: a stroll down a Johannesburg avenue when Nelson Mandela was released from jail (as if they had something to do with it) but a blindspot as big as Rwanda and Burundi during the genocide there. (The excuse: "It happened too fast. We didn't expect anything like that to happen." Sounds a heckuva lot like Katrina to me.) But Bosnia and Kosovo? Hey, we're johnny on the spot with military troops and aid.

No, Bill Clinton wasn't the first black president. and Hillary still ain't got soul as hard as she tries.

More importantly, there is the effect of feminism on the civil rights movement, which for all intents and purposes ground to a halt when white urban and suburban women needed to have their "consciousness" raised, and important focus on racial inequality was shifted to women. Sure women make 67 or 73 cents to every dollar a white man makes, but what about what an equally qualified black man makes in comparison?

You see, our loyalties are not as lop-sided as you might think. First and foremost we black women -- no matter how "equal" our white sisters get, always have the added issue (some might say "burden") of being black.

Obama's "issues" with black voters have far less to do with building trust with black voters as it has to do with "undoing" generations of having to choose among the least likely to do more damage to us from a field of all white candidates.

It has to do with dismantling all the false hurdles white politicians and pundits put forth as the reasons a black candidate can't win. And we've heard every single one of them in this election so far: Barack is too black, he's not black enough. To win he has to be non-threatening to white voters ("can't have the scary, angry, militant black man") but that moderation is a turn-off to black voters who --as you tell us what we want-- is too soft and compliant.

The artificial bar of "experience" is set artificially high: how does somoeone who was elected to a series of political offices with support across party and race lines for more years get trumped by a white woman whose HUSBAND holds the resume she covets?

It has to do with the threat of assassination ("they'll gun you down if you get too uppity") -- the same argument which kept Colin Powell from running as an independent. That was the basis for Powell's wife Alma suggesting that he not run. And it is the very real threats that brought Obama early Secret Service protection.

It has to do with untangling the fear of failure that will set back the "race" (as in "you are a credit to yours") to leaving it to the white man in hopes that if he ignores you or overlooks what piecemeal progress you do make, you can hang on to what little you have.

It has to do with believing the empty promise of not now, but someday. Barack can't win in 2008, so maybe 2012 or 2016 is better. Heck, we all know that there'll be some new reason that Barack won't be good enough then too. How long? Not long. But if not now, then when?

Perhaps Mr. Balz should wander down the hallway to Eugene Robinson's or Colbert King's offices and have a heart to heart about what's really in the minds of black voters. Then we won't get this drivel about what black people think as deciphered by white folks.

But that's just my take on it. How should I know what I think. I'm just middle-aged black woman who inexplicably is voting for Barack Obama in 2008.

Posted by: jade7243 | November 28, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Balz's take on this issue is far too narrow in focus. I have never heard of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. His article is basically a synopsis of their thinking (based exclusively on polling data) on how African Americans view Clinton and Obama. It must be far more complicated than Balz indicates. Other sources ought to have been consulted before publishing this piece.

Posted by: kolp999 | November 28, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I've heard people say "well if he runs and loses its worse for blacks than if he didn't run at all."

I've heard the sentiment that if elected, the good ol' boys will never let him succeed and it would be worse than if he were not elected, so therefore vote for hillary.

I've heard the fear of assassination expressed by blacks.

I have YET to hear a black leader say "Its about damn time an honorable, intelligent, and courageous man ran for office and let's support him!" I suppose somewhere it has been said, but that we need Oprah to do it, in lieu of Jesse and Al Sharpton speaks volumes.

Black America will suffer until the fear driven slave mentality is rejected and burned in the incinerator of black public opinion. This is 2007, and while racism exists in America it is time to damn the fear and storm the capital via the voting booth!

hillary CANNOT WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION! Black americans need to be courageous and support Brarak Obama - not because he is black - but because he is the best person in the race to unite america, will put the lie to "Al Sharpton leadership generation's" slave mentality, and their perpertuation of fear in the minds of black americans.

A vote for hillary in the primary is a vote for a republican president afterthe general election.

Posted by: onestring | November 28, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

African Americans need to get over Bill Clinton, he's tired old news. Respect him as president, but as a pillar of what their aspirations are and should be, forget it. His administration was very underwhelming at best, and there was not much benefit for the Black community with his leadership, while the evangelical community and conservatives reaped a gold mine under Bush. Ok, he did move his office to 125th st in harlem, and that dazzled the people to the extent of thinking he was one of them. It has been fascinating how he can tell a bunch of folks in church "I feel your pain" and they just get charmed to death. Charm from Obama? "Oh," some will say "he ain't Black, he's only half Black."

It's enchanting to see, too, how his stardust has rubbed off on Hillary, who appeared on a Spartanburg, SC stage yesterday surrounded by 60 Black ministers who have supposedly endorsed her in front of a 98% white audience. Spartanburg is in the most conservative, Republicanistic part of the state. This is a symbol of the new Solid South, in a state which still flies the Confederate flag in front of the Statehouse. She don't even have charm, and doesn't use her Southern accent and she can get these people mesmerized. Lawd! As Marvin Gaye would sing "...what's goin' on."

Posted by: gw888 | November 28, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

as long as obama supports comprehensive immigration, a death sentence for black representation, he will never get the black vote but neither will hillary, who is twice as bad.

Posted by: dwightcollinsduarte | November 28, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

And NOW for the Good News!

This Joke of a Campaign can conclude with the Con Game! Sorry WaPo, I know you actually make money prolonging everybody's anxieties!

BUT, what can I say, I'm not just a rat, I'm THE RAT!

Billary, the mutated reality of one side of the Ticket that amounts to Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton, using his Wife's bogus eligibility to lead the Ticket, WILL Hook-Up with the in-experienced but annoyingly popular Obasama/Oprah in the VP Slot.

I would not be surprised if this collection of Lawyers appoints Oprah Secretary of State.

NOTHING would surprise me from this un-Holy Matrimony! Legislators usurp the Exectutive Branch and Democrat Lawyers run amuck!

If it occurrs, the Country deserves what it gets-Socialism! The Mass exodus of Every Major corporation and the exectutives will be certain!

Only thing standing in the way, an enlightened and smart group of Exectutives, who will IMMEDIATELY STOP attacking each other, Bow to the top two Exectutives, which would be best headed by Mitt Romney, quite simply the best Statesman, and backed up by either Fred Thompson or possibly Mike Huckabee-Just to keep the spoiler from splitting the ticket!, with all the others that can get along and fit, in the Cabinet!

I view it as The American Bar Association Vs. TEAM AMERICA!

Lets stop the Games, and get on with the Match!

Posted by: rat-the | November 28, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

One thing I've noticed on the coverage regarding race and Obama, is while there's tons of chatter about him being black and how the "black community" feels, none address the fact that he's equally white. How do white people feel about him? Does his being bi-racial affect their view? Are they willing to embrace him because his lifestyle is fairly "mainstream", i.e. white? I think the lack of these questions points to the fac that most reporters covering this issue, hell any issue, is white and would never think to flip the script.

Posted by: jinez1 | November 28, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Oprah's endorsement of Obama will has as much effect as Streisand's endorsement of Clinton and Chuck Norris's endorsement of Huckabee - very little. That's because people admire Oprah, Streisand and Norris for their talents as entertainers, not for their expertise in economics, foreign affairs, or other political issues. It will probably help Obama raise money, but I don't think more money is what the Obama campaign needs. Obama needs to make the case why he should be President - what he has that Clinton doesn't. So far he hasn't done so and Oprah isn't able to do it for him.

Posted by: camstanton | November 28, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Just once I would like to see someone talk about the fact that Hillary is no Bill. People will vote for her because they think it will be Bill's 3rd term, and it won't. She's not him. I want someone to talk about her as if she stands alone and then maybe we could have a real debate about who has the better ideas or who will make the most progress with this do-nothing Congress.

Also, I would love it if the MSM would quit talking about this race as if it's only about a black man and a white woman. I always thought we were supposed to vote for the best person for the job, not the person who was perceived as the most in touch with particular racial or gender groups. I guess that's why Edwards doesn't appeal because he doesn't pander to one particular group. He's more interested in making us one country, united and strong and better today than we were yesterday, instead of continuing on the path of "what's in it for me, and only me."

Posted by: skpedersen | November 28, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing how none of MSM focuses on the real issues facing this nation. When you look at the issues: [housing crisis, credit crunch, wars in iraq/afgahnistan, nuclear weapons in pakistan/iran, china's shipping tainted food & products to the US, (why are we importing food from other countries anyway?) healthcare, erosion of the middleclass, taxes, energy, global warning] THE SOLUTION TO THESE PROBLEMS ISN'T A WOMAN OR A BLACK PRESIDENT. It boils down to what can be accomplished by the president in the next 4yrs. Hillary's message is turn up the heat on republicans. That tells me its going to be her way or the highway. The GOP isn't going to disappear. She will have to work with them on every issue we face. Now barack's message is of hope and working together to find solutions to our nation's problems. it doesnt matter if both of them were old white men. Their messages are clear. I prefer hope and working with people to solve complex issues anyday.

The GOP candidates can give it up. Their message is continue the course on every issue. Majority of the issues we face today were caused by the GOP. None of their candidates are talking about uniting the country so why vote for any of them.

Posted by: ron_mexico | November 28, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I imagine Mr Balz believes he is neither condesecending nor racist. He is mistaken.

Posted by: zukermand | November 28, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Oprah stumping with Obama doesn't mean that he will grab the Black votes. I see it has a way to gather White votes. Have you watch Oprah's show the audience is 98% white. She doesn't discuss the issues of Black America; she doesn't visit the Ghetto's or stand in the welfare lines. Have you ever seen her do a topic on Black on Black crime. She's not reaching for Black voters she is working the middle age White women.

Posted by: holtma1 | November 28, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The Oprah factor is a complex issue, one that needs to be addressed in depth. And while I think Mr. Balz has gone further than most in his analysis, I don't think he's gone as far as he might.

SEE: The BIG O's
http://www.ablahblahblog.com

Posted by: PolitiHAL | November 28, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Anyone looking for some new Hillary video from an SC stop and an interesting commentary on how race is impacting that primary should try: http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/27/hillary_and_the_black_men_of_god

Posted by: lanefiller | November 28, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"Who do you believe is more valuable in this campaign: Bill to Hillary Clinton or Oprah to Barack Obama?"

Interesting question. I think, without Oprah, Sen Obama would still be in the race. However, if you were to take Bill away from Hillary, she'd be out of the running.

Posted by: bsimon | November 28, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Who do you believe is more valuable in this campaign: Bill to Hillary Clinton or Oprah to Barack Obama?


http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1102

.

Posted by: PollM | November 28, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company