The most absurd aspect of the whole story is not his votes — which are already pretty absurd — but rather his attempted defense of those votes. Obama’s defense of not doing the job he was elected to do? He couldn’t vote on those bills, because his votes would’ve been used against him when he ran for reelection.

HUH? Since when is it a legitimate argument to say, “I didn’t vote on that bill, because it would hurt my political future.” Even worse is that much of the liberal press has actually accepted this ridiculous, indefensible opportunistic point of view. So, pretty absurd and inexcusable, right?

Oh, but wait — it gets better! Not only does he admit his votes (or lack thereof) were based on purely political calculations, and not only does the mainstream media accept and defend his argument. Deciding to just take the ball and run with it, Obama and his supporters say that not voting out of personal political opportunism is in fact an example of true leadership on these issues he wouldn’t vote on!

What is interesting is that during all this examination of Obama’s record in the Illinois Senate, nobody is raising the issue of Obama’s serial non-voting in Congress. Let’s take a look at how he voted during his long one-year career in the U.S. Senate:

He skipped voting on 26 of 59 budget, spending, and tax measures – that means he didn’t bother to vote on 44% of these measures during his entire career in the Senate. He skipped NINE out of fifteen votes on health related measures. He skipped voting on FIVE of six transportation measures in 2007. He skipped voting on FOUR of five welfare-related measures. He skipped voting on about half of environmental-related measures. He skipped voting on half of education measures. He constantly skipped out on votes relating to farm subsidies and agriculture expenditures.

He voted AGAINST a bill that would deny legal status to undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms. But then he voted FOR a bill reducing the number of guest workers. Now, regardless of one’s view on immigration in general, if you had to choose between allowing in MORE criminals or MORE legal workers, which would you choose? That’s all I’m saying!

He skipped voting on future military funding for Iraq, as well as multiple other Iraq funding measures, skipped voting on the Iraq Withdrawal Amendment, after first voting AGAINST it a few months earlier; and he also skipped voting on the measure designation Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. But he’s been running around the country for months saying he opposes the war and that he’ll end the war, while being unwilling to go on record about any of it. I’m not saying he should have voted for a withdrawal, I’m just saying he’s like a lot of cowardly liberals who say something but are unwilling to actually risk backing it up with action.

Finally, in an apparent attempt to continue his strong record of leading by non-example from his grand days in the Illinois Senate, Obama skipped voting on two of three abortion-related bills in Congress. At least on this issue, his vote — or rather, non-vote — has remained consistent, I guess.

Well, that’s one way to ensure the Republican candidate won’t be able to attack him for his record in the Senate — just avoid having one!

I was watching a news clip the other day and heard her speaking to a rally in California. In a very aggressive and condescending tone she stated something to the effect of, “Some people are upset with me because they think I should have supported a woman for president. I tell them, I’ll do whatever I want.” While on the surface, the comment doesn’t seem all that bad. It makes logical sense that she would, of course, do what she believed was best in terms of supporting a candidate for president. Yet, this tone and attitude certainly does not reflect that “Oprah” that women throughout the country have helped to make extremely popular over the years. Instead of Oprah, being that champion of women’s rights that so many women have made her out to be, expressing some genuine understanding for why women would be disappointed that she chose to support the male candidate, when in front of a group Obama supporters, she intentionally cites these women and belittles them for how they feel. She makes a point of how the women feel and then goes on to minimize their feelings of essentially being betryaed. Her comment is meant to embarrass the women are disappointed and essentially shame them into believing that their feelings are unjustified. Now, as a woman, I recognize what she did and I’m confident that every female does. Isn’t this kind of behavior exactly what women look to Oprah to fight against? It’s a very female quality to have feelings. As women, I would expect a stereotypical male to respond the way that Oprah did. But, because Oprah has always seemed to defend a woman’s right to feel validated in her feelings, I would expect Oprah’s response to these women to be much more in tune with what actually works to motivate women versus delivering comments that will only further alienate them.

These are her constituents that she is disregarding in her efforts to assert her right to choose a presidential candidate. Does she really have to bury them in order to support the candidate? Is that her intention? If not, I think that all Oprah needed to say was something like, “I know that there are women who feel that by choosing the male candidate in this race, they are not only letting Hillary down, but they are letting all women down. I want you to know that as a women, I considered that, too, but upon doing so, I made the deicision to support Obama because I believe that he will create opportunities for women and I believe that he has the best chance to also make society better as a whole. First and foremost, I want women to know that in my decision to support Obama, I am in no way asserting that we don’t have a long way to go in terms of improving women’s rights as well.” Had Oprah said that, she would have essentially told the disappointed women that she understood things from their perspective, but that in the end, she believed that the best way to address the issues that they all shared was to support Obama. Even if the women didn’t agree, they wouldn’t feel alienated and belittled by her. They just might be disappointed, but in the long term, they would move on with no hard feelings. For Oprah, that would translate into no negative affect on her status and frankly, on her financial well being. But, when push came to shove, Oprah showed that maybe she’s not the champion of women’s rights that we have idolized her to be. She has a chance to make up for this and regain the support of many women who feel slighted by her. These are women who have been extremely loyal to her over the years and it’s understandable that when you feel that strongly about someone, you expect something in return. It’s too bad that Oprah doesn’t seem to get that at this point because considering how loyal these women have been to her, it wouldn’t be that hard for her to make it right and yet, she now seems to have the arrogance that only someone with money and power seems to garner. Maybe she’s not so special after all.

To say that Obama isn’t black is merely to say that, by virtue of his white American mom and his Kenyan dad who abandoned both him and America, he is an American of African immigrant extraction. It is also to point out the continuing significance of the slave experience to the white American psyche; it’s not we who can’t get over it. It’s you. Lumping us all together (which blacks also do from sloppiness and ignorance, and as a way to dominate the race issue and to force immigrants of African descent to subordinate their preferences to ours) erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress. Though actually, it is a kind of progress. And that’s why I break my silence: Obama, with his non-black ass, is doing us all a favor.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/

If Obama becomes President, they’ll probably put an asterisk by his name in the record books because of his mother, and some guy 40 years from now will claim to be the first “real” African American President.

Are we going to start calling Obama a “mulatto,” too?

God, I wish we could get over this BS. Are we back to the 200-year old argument of “how much Black blood makes a person Black?” Is it 1/2, 1/4, 1/8? They had names for all of those, too.

he can put the White and the Hispanic vote on the same bandwagon.

Well, by that logic, Obama should have things sewn up.

A comment by a woman:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/obama_the_audacity_of_hype.html

“And while women may dig Oprah, I doubt she’s the most popular public figure for men. Then possibly you’ll get men thinking, on some level, that if Obama is so great why’s he need a dame standing up for him – can’t he stand up for himself, maybe he’s not a real man like us…” Again, guys who call women “dames” and think a “real man” is defined by his dominance over women are probably not going to vote for any Democrat. My guess is that they’ll probably vote for Rudy Guiliani. Fortunately, such men are now about as rare as the cast of current remakes of South Pacific, which is how many votes Guiliani is likely to get.

The power of her celebrity may well diminish him, like a candle next to a spotlight. All in all, I’m really inclined to think she’ll be a wash, no gain, no loss.

Most endorsements do little to sway votes, but I expect Oprah’s endorsement will be different because of the type of celebrity that she is. She is not famous as an actress in a role. She is not revered for her athletic ability. She is famous and popular as herself for her personality and character. People actually know and like her. They welcome Oprah into their living rooms every day and listen to what she has to say on a variety of issues. Not all of Oprah’s fans will change their votes based on her endorsement, but I bet they will pay closer attention to Obama than they might otherwise, they will listen to what he has to say, and they just might like what they hear.

In S.C where his lead has been non-existent until recently and where his lead among blacks has been tepid, her support definitely helps. 66% of the people who went to that event there had never, and probably would have never, gotten in contact with his campaign. Plus all of the free media attention and Lady O’s high favorability i think will translate into ENOUGH votes.

And her support of him was in all likelyhood not racially motivated at all. Oprah probably because she know him better, because he has stricken a cord in her (like in many other people), and the man talks about her favorite side dish of life, HOPE!!

I know several people, and I very much doubt that they are alone, who feel that accepting this endorsement is proof of his lack of confidence in his ability to get the votes himself and also is a tribute to commercialism – something they don’t want to see sitting in the oval office.

This has to be one of the more ridiculous things I’ve read in a while.

RWD

As for Oprah’s support for Obama, I cannot understand why ANYONE would support him. He has the least experience of any candidate in the field. Clinton, at least, has a whole term in the Senate under her belt, but even that has been uneventful.

Tell me, why are the three leading Democratic candidates the three with the LEAST experience?

I have enjoyed the comments to far. I did read an article about her endorsement and it was really interesting b/c it said that where Oprah goes so does Middle America. She is like Walter Cronkite like that. To me her endorsement of Obama says she is against the war more than anything. She could have picked any Dem Candidate and she picked him. I don’t think it is because they are both black and I can’t believe some people do…like someone else said…probably the same people who also say America isn’t “ready” for a black president (or a woman for that matter).

Do people who hold that view also hold the view that any woman who supports Hillary Clinton does so solely because both have vaginas?

It certainly has been suggested that is the case.

As for Richardson ~ well, there are a whole lot of folks that don’t know he’s Hispanic.

Interestingly enough, I was talking to one of my sisters yesterday (a non-political) and she said something very similar. She said she thought Oprah was supporting Obama, not because he’s the most qualified, but because he’s black. And she felt that was a bad strategy on Oprah’s part.

I think way too many people have that view toward Oprah supporting Obama, and I think it’s narrow-minded. Never mind that she may think he is the best choice for the job. Never mind that they are both from Illnois and he is her Senator. No way! He’s a darkie, she’s a darkie, and that’s why she supports him, they’re both darkies! Do people who hold that view also hold the view that any woman who supports Hillary Clinton does so solely because both have vaginas? How many Latin@s support Bill Richardson and why?

I noticed that EVERY SINGLE COMMENTER on the question of Oprah’s influence on the network news, CNN, and MSNBC was male. Two of the three articles cited above were written by men. The third was written by a man and a woman. What, you can’t find any women on the network news or cable channels or newspapers to address the question of what women think of Oprah’s involvement? I really thought we had come a little farther than that. Not that men are disqualified, but even if the stories were randomly assigned, there should have been plenty of women to address this question.

I think Clare Gastanaga was right when she said that a significant percentage of educated women voters do not like Hillary. Count me among them. It’s not a “historic first” when your main claim to fame is that you decided to “stand by your man” and let him walk all over you and humiliate you, publicly. Please, spare us the sister act. I don’t need any kind of political cover to feel that way, either. Hillary Clinton is very, very smart and very qualified, but she would not be my first choice. I teach my daughter to stand up for herself, and I think public figures should serve as an example to reinforce the values we teach our kids.

i was disappointed with oprah. obama isn’t, in my opinion, the most qualified, and with oprah’s support of women and women’s rights, i was shocked she wasn’t supporting clinton. sorry, but it seems like race has become more of an issue for oprah which truly baffles me. i love oprah, but her endorsement of obama was a mistake and in the end, i think it will hurt him.

Interestingly enough, I was talking to one of my sisters yesterday (a non-political) and she said something very similar. She said she thought Oprah was supporting Obama, not because he’s the most qualified, but because he’s black. And she felt that was a bad strategy on Oprah’s part.

Although I do not hink Oprah hurts Obama, I DO believe that Obama hurts Oprah. She has just divided her audience… She has even divided her liberal fans.

Obama wins if he promises to appoint her to some position. Hillary WILL appoint her celebrity, Bill, to a position and that helps her.

The only way world leaders will take Hillary’s calls is if Bill is the UN Ambas. or the Sec. of State.

The endorsements I am waiting for (unless I have missed them) are the big three Democrats: Kennedy, Kerry and Gore. My guess is Kennedy and Kerry, given their leadership positiions in the Senate, will go for Clinton. She is the establishment candidate and for the time being seems the likely candidate. Gore, on the other hand, doesn’t owe anyone anything and can afford to gamble. I always sensed a little friction between him and the Clintons so I don’t think sentimentality or loyalty is a factor. If he endorsed Clinton and she won he would be one of a thousand other people who endorsed her. However, if he endorsed Obama and Obama won, Gore would be looked at as a kingmaker (or something close to it). We’ll see.

Are you ()*#@#@ kidding me? Any politician in his/her right mind would *kill* for an Oprah endorsement. She’s better known than you are, better liked than you are, and is probably a better public speaker than you. (and that that statement almost certain works no matter who “you” are.)

All Obama needs to worry about here is Oprah accidentally promising everyone at the next rally a new car or something.

My vote is Oprah helps Obama because he is able to convince and motivate audiences.

My vote’s still for Hillary, though.

Traditionally, celebrity endorsements and campaign appearances gain publicity but don’t have much impact on voters. Oprah Winfrey is a celebrity, but she’s an unusual celebrity. Barack Obama is also an unusual candidate in many respects. His chief rival, Hillary Clinton, is also an unusual candidate.

So, I say — who knows? The pundits are just guessing. We’re in uncharted waters.

My gut feeling is that Oprah is helping Obama at this point. And, I will guess that down the road her participation will continue to help him, unless it’s overdone.