Oprah for President?

In the run for president, Democratics always end up seeming stiff and unappealing… so why not start with a candidate whose grace in the spotlight is well-proven?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Article created by The Century Foundation.

Al Gore was mocked for stuffiness when he ran for president in 2000. Now he’s the star of a smash movie with a #1 bestselling book. Bill Clinton, as president, was a sexual predator on trial before the Senate. Now his appearances before starry-eyed youth conventions (and high-paying motivational sales meetings) are revved by strobe lights and rock music.

Wes Clark returned from Kosovo a little-known general who had been abruptly replaced by the Pentagon. He wrote an excellent book about war, became a charismatic CNN commentator, made the cover of Newsweek, and ran for president in 2004. He was aware, he told me at the time, that once actually a candidate, he would stop being exciting and become just another guy in a suit on the debate platform between Dick Gephardt and Al Sharpton.

Now the Democrats are sizing up potential candidates for 2008, a great opportunity to retake the White House. The recent list includes Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Clark, and the sizzling Barack Obama. Does anyone doubt that once the gun goes off, every one of these contenders will be faulted for lacking some essential quality: gravitas, experience, wit, integrity, eloquence, money? One battered candidate will emerge triumphant and, win or lose, has a shot at a future on television, in the movies, in books, or on a lucrative lecture tour.

So here’s a suggestion. Let’s reverse the process and put forward a Democratic candidate for president who is already a television star, a movie-maker, a best-selling author, a philanthropist, and, oh yes, a billionaire business woman: Oprah Winfrey for president.

By today’s standards, Oprah has it all. She has more direct influence than any other public figure in American life. Who else could have made huge bestsellers out of Faulkner, Dostoevesky, and Elie Wiesel on the Holocaust? She genuinely cares about race, poverty, and social justice. She has skillfully navigated the shark-infested waters of Hollywood, Broadway, and business boardrooms. She is a chief executive who runs her enterprises without, as far as we can tell, the consultants, lobbyists, and financial handlers who dominate the lives of our career politicians. She is African American and a woman, and has struggled with her weight, qualities that make her empathetic with a majority of Americans.

She doesn’t have experience in political compromise and dealmaking. Neither did Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he is now responsible for California, and while the record is far from clear, he seems to be at least on par with his predecessor, Gray Davis. She certainly doesn’t know about making war. But as we all now are ruefully aware, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, with ample experience in Defense and the White House and having finessed the revered Colin Powell, guided us into battle with ineptitude that is historic.

In fact, the main reason for not including Oprah on a list of credible Democrats is that on its face, the idea is preposterous (I’m assuming she is a Democrat, but if she is either a Republican or a certified independent, I would be glad to revise this column accordingly). Many years ago, Russell Baker devised the concept of “The Great Mentioner” the process in journalism by which names became insinuated into political discussion. All it would take to transition Oprah Winfrey from the realm of ridiculous to a serious; candidate for the presidency would be a succession of quick hits: discussion on a major political blog or two, asides by television talking heads like Anderson Cooper and Tim Russert, furious denunciation by Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly, and finally, consideration by a sage, like the esteemed David Broder or David Brooks. And if Oprah herself then gave the merest hint of interest, the result would be the greatest groundswell of outsider cachet since Ross Perot in 1992, who put together a top-flight political team after he gave out an 800 number on the Larry King show. For much of that spring, Perot led the polls.

Oprah Winfrey is by any measure an extraordinary character. Maybe we should find out how she’d do in a primary.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate