Much is being made - in the print and broadcast media - about Oprah's touring with Obama in recent political campaign stops. Obama enjoyed several bumps in the polls lately, and you can either credit them to his "message" getting through, the stumbling of the race leader or the addition of the world's most powerful, famous woman. (I personally don't understand the draw of Obama, and agree with Hillary's questioning: since when did running for president become qualification for being president?)
An upcoming campaign stop featuring Obama and Oprah had to be moved to a stadium, due to, "ticket demand," which has the pundits all clucking. But I wonder how much of the desire to attend the rally actually has to do with the candidate, and his "message". I mean sure, Oprah gets the butts in the seats, and at that point, they can hear the candidate's "message." But is that really how we want to select our next leader? Really?
In the wake of an unjust, illegal war, the trampling of our sacred legal doctrines (wire tapping, anyone) and the recent legal bungling of current president, do we really want to pick our next executive officer via daytime television? I for one, think the doctrine of equal time should apply in this case. If Oprah nets Obama 30 more hours of on-air coverage, then the other candidates should get similar, if not exactly the same amount of coverage.
Or we could just let the woman duped by James Frey tell us who to vote for.