Egads, has it really happened?
Has you-know-what finally frozen over?
The big news on the campaign trail has been TV megastar Oprah Winfrey’s hitting the hustings with Democratic Senator Barack Obama, campaigning intensively for him, making it known to all and sundry that she supported him, believed in him and wanted those who admire her to trust her and support him.
It was a quintessential moment in early 21st century politics: the celebrity who some thought had the power to “make” a candidate. Not that it hasn’t been done before (such as with singer Frank Sinatra’s big push on several fronts to help JFK get elected in 1960).
But now the question is seriously being asked: could this BACKFIRE on Oprah and Obama?
Can it be that celebrity is no longer the magic wand in American society that may not always produce shock but does generate awe?
A new poll suggests Oprah’s stellar intervention could have backfired — indicating that being embraced by the celebrated could now actually be a political negative:
Oprah Winfrey’s campaign swing last weekend with Democrat Barack Obama was greeted with record-breaking crowds and an equal amount of speculation over how much impact the media mogul might have on the White House race.
After all, Oprah has sent several books to the top of the bestseller list. Why couldn’t that magic touch take a candidate to the top of the polls?
But a new survey out Monday night shows Winfrey’s endorsement is unlikely to nudge Obama higher in the polls -– and could potentially hurt the Illinois senator.
According a New York Times/CBS News poll released Monday, only 1 percent of Democrats polled reported that Winfrey’s endorsement would make them more likely to support Obama, while 14 percent said they would be less likely to vote for the candidate because of Winfrey’s support.
The CNN piece notes that Obama rival Senator Hillary Clinton has a celebrity on her side, too — her husband, former President Bill Clinton, but it’s likely to be more of a positive for her.
Meanwhile, Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin, writing before the poll results came in, predicted Oprah’s big push for Obama might not give the Senator what he needs:
To win the Democratic nomination for President, Barack Obama still needs the same thing he has needed all along — for voters to see him as ready to be commander in chief by January 2009. So now the question is: Will appearing at weekend campaign rallies with Oprah Winfrey help him achieve that goal?
Mark me down as more than a bit skeptical.
He notes that Oprah could bring to Obama’s campaign cash, celebrity, excitement and big crowds — four things he could bring to his campaign himself.
And then he wrote this:
So yes, expect loud, rousing rallies in all three early voting states when Oprah Winfrey comes to town with her friend Barack Obama in early December, with gobs of media attention, raucous crowds, emotion and great pictures. But don’t expect those events to do anything productive to allow Obama to get over the biggest hurdle standing between him and the White House. American voters are not looking for a celebrity or talk show sidekick to lead them. Obama is an intelligent and thoughtful potential President, but Winfrey’s imprimatur is unlikely to convey those traits to many undecided voters.
In that respect, Winfrey’s events might even be — dare it be said — counterproductive.
It seems to be on the button. Why? Perhaps, if you analyze celebrity culture in the United States today, several factors are at play:
(1) Many of the people who Oprah got out to see her and Obama would have voted for Obama anyway.
(2) Americans are the most entertained people in world history. The NOVELTY and AWE of celebrities most evident during the early 20th century, with early celebrities such as Charlie Chaplin, or even Clark Gable, has been replaced by the info-entertainment revolution with a celebrity population explosion. Celebrities are still famous but there is a been-there-done-that attitude on the part of the populace now.
(3) Obama is in danger of looking diminished when on the stage with a mega TV star such as Winfrey.
(4) Celebrity used to stem from seeing a name in print or seeing an image on the media. But now, with the Internet, anyone who can type can get a post online (how do you think THIS post is being published?) and anyone with a video camera can get themselves on You Tube.
(5) Winfrey is a genuine star, as well as a skillful businesswoman. But, in general, the bar for celebrity has been lowered considerably, with some music and acting celebrities now more famous for being celebrities than for any real reason stemming from the quality of their current work.
So, on balance, Winfrey’s campaigning for Obama may have gotten some TV air time and generated some print stories, but it may not have served the campaign’s long-range goals.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.