Daniel Kells

I’m not 100% sure I care whether or not the nomination process for the Democrats is wrapped up soon.  Personally, I think that McCain is such a flawed candidate and the country ready for a change that regardless of if the nominee is Hillary or Barack, and regardless of if the process wraps up tomorrow or in August, I think whichever one is the nominee has a better than good shot at winning.

That said, I think a completely wrecked Chelsea is saying to her mom in this photo, “Maaa, I wanna go home, okay?  Now.  Please?  You’re embarrassing me.  C’mon, ma.  Please.  Let’s go.”

Photo:  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Obama, Edwards and Clinton have been going on and on about who can make change, who can make the best change, the biggest change, the change-y-ist change.  Even Romney’s getting into the mix, and Huckabee is throwing the word around too.  Change change change.  All this talk of change makes me remember this classic SNL commercial.

Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus this evening, by an 8 point margin.  His victory speech was pretty stunning, I thought.  Congrats to him.  Here it is:

One thought on all of the politics of the night:  Obama won by 8 points and it was a three-way race, but Huckabee wins by 9 points and it’s a landslide.  I’m confused.

Barack Obama has announced that Oprah Winfrey will be doing some campaigning for him.  Monday, on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” Keith interviewed Craig Crawford, who is a columnist for Congressional Quarterly and has written a few books with incredibly long titles (think “Smart Smart Smart:  Why Smarter Snark is Smartsmartsmart”).

The fact that somehow Craig seems to be able to talk while inhaling as well as exhaling notwithstanding, I generally agree with him.  But when he and Keith broached the subject of Oprah hitting the stump for Obama, I think they got it wrong.

First, this from Keith:

Now, Oprah Winfrey is actually on the books to campaign for Obama, a two-day tour through Iowa and New Hampshire the weekend after next.  Is this going to tip the balance in his favor?  Or are we going to find out that there‘s a silent majority that just does not like her? 

Then, Craig’s response:

I‘m not sure it helps him.  These stars are trouble sometimes.  They don‘t stick to the script.  She might get off message.  She might say things the campaign doesn‘t want to be said.  They‘ve got their own issues.  They tend to over shadow the candidates sometimes.  He‘s already a rock star in his own right.  I think he was better keeping her at arm‘s length.

(Text bold-ify’d by me.)

I’ve got to take exception with labeling Oprah a “star.”  Yes, she is a celebrity.  Yes, she is famous.  And yes, she is a star.  But to lump her together with all sorts of other celebrity endorsements is ignoring the sheer reach and power of the Oprah brand and imprimatur.

Approximately 46 million people in the United States watch Oprah every week.  That’s about 1/7 of the entire population.  By comparison, according to the Clerk of the US House of Representatives, only 80 million people voted in 2006’s elections.

Now, I’m not saying that Oprah’s 46 million viewers are going to head out and cast a vote for Obama because she says they should, but I suspect more are going to vote for Obama because of Oprah and are going to vote for Hilary Clinton because Barbra Streisand says to vote for her.  And the inclination to join Oprah up with other celebrities is ignoring her considerable clout.