So who, then, in the long list of Sen. Barack Obama’s endorsers will prove to be the most important- and most telling- of all?
The answer, in just one word: Oprah.
Don’t get me wrong, every endorser brings voters, and is, therefore important.
In fact, currently, all the candidates seem to be waiting anxiously in the wind, vying for Gov. Bill Richardson’s endorsement, which the Obama camp preemptively, and wrongfully claimed access to this past weekend.
But there is one problem with calling Richardson the Big Kahuna endorser in this election: He is neither a woman, nor black, and therefore can’t speak the loudest for
either group.
Oprah is both, and not only that, but a virtual “champion” of both persuasions. She had to make a choice that necessarily left part of her identity unrepresented. I can’t imagine a louder voice.
As the head of a media empire dominated entirely by female consumers, Oprah went with Obama. So what does tell us about the candidates and how race and gender will play into the election?
Will other black women, or women in general be inclined to abandon their gender roots to vote for Obama?
Studying the list of endorsers for a candidate is a really helpful way to see what direction our nation is heading in, while not entirely indicative of America’s stance on our presidential candidates. So I have provided a list of both candidates’ endorsements, thus far, at the end of this column.
As actress Tina Fey said on Saturday Night Live a few weeks ago,“…Women have come so far as feminists that they don't feel obligated to vote for a candidate just because she's a woman. Women today feel perfectly free to make whatever choice Oprah tells them to.”
When this election process began, I was initially concerned about the effect racial and gender pride would have on the democratic process. Will the old adage “blood is thicker than water” prove true in America’s political context, where blood signifies race and gender and water signifies political views?
Will, for instance black republican voters abandon their political loyalty at the polls to further their racial cause and progression of African Americans in America? We obviously don’t know just yet.
But it seems Oprah’s decision is somewhat telling, because she has never before endorsed a candidate. The question here is not necessarily who she endorsed, but why. Why did she choose this election to sway her masses toward a politician, and not before? Why didn’t she just abstain as she has every other year?
Her decision to stand up for the African American candidate and never a candidate before him may indicate how other blacks will vote if it comes down to issues versus race. Oprah said herself, “I have not one negative thing to say about Hillary Clinton.”
Either of these candidates would further her cause for civil rights justice in America.
Perhaps in choosing, and endorsing a candidate for the first time, she is sending a message to the 47 percent of Blacks who did not vote in the last election, that because she is stepping up for the first time, they should too.
If she had been an avid political endorser in every other election, it would be different. It would be more conceivable that he choice was based on politics. But she chose this election, which has been so centered on race and gender, each of which she represents, it seems questionable that her motives are truly issue-based.
It will be very interesting to see how the additional diversity plays into vote counts in November. Whether racial and gender blood is thicker than political water, we soon shall see.
Certainly in the case of Oprah Winfrey, it seems to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment