Oprah Winfrey raising $3 million for Barack Obama. AP photo
by Christi Parsons and John McCormick
Barack Obama may have made a splash at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, but his appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" widened his path into a world of pop culture, a critical domain as he began to build his celebrity-infused political portfolio.
The relationship has grown along with Obama's rise, as the two Chicago celebrities have turned a passing acquaintance from the city's social circles into a powerful friendship with national implications.
Now the billionaire media magnate hopes to help Obama in his quest to win his party's presidential nomination, involving herself actively in politics for the first time. She is kicking off the effort here with a star-studded fundraiser this evening at her estate, with some of the entertainment industry's biggest names reportedly on the guest list, including Will Smith, John Travolta, Jamie Foxx and Halle Berry.
The soiree is expected to raise more than $3 million, making it the most lucrative fundraiser of Obama's political career. And it may be only the beginning of her support, with television ads featuring Winfrey and even speaking appearances possible.
For more, see the Tribune's story:
Is the 'Queen of Talk' also a kingmaker?
By Christi Parsons
and John McCormick
Tribune staff reporters
MONTECITO, Calif. --Barack Obama was running late for work at the U.S. Capitol one day, when a beefy security guard in dark sunglasses stopped the senator's car and peered in sternly to ask for identification.
All of a sudden, though, the Senate ID wasn't necessary for the freshman Illinois lawmaker.
"Hey, you were on 'Oprah'!" the man said, stepping back to direct Obama's car through the checkpoint with a friendly wave.
"It's at that point that I realized the power of Oprah Winfrey," Obama recalled in an interview Friday about his talk-show-host friend. "Her reach extended beyond the stereotypical demographic ... And the appearance on her show amplified my profile around the country."
By that time, Obama was several months past the 2004 Democratic National Convention speech that made him a political star, and his first published memoir was selling well.
But an appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" had widened his path into the world of pop culture, a critical domain as he began to build his celebrity-infused political portfolio. The relationship has grown along with Obama's rise, as the two Chicago celebrities have turned a passing acquaintance from the city's social circles into a powerful friendship with national implications.
Now the billionaire media magnate hopes to help Obama in his quest to win his party's presidential nomination, involving herself actively in politics for the first time. She is kicking off the effort here with a star-studded fundraiser Saturday evening at her estate, with some of the entertainment industry's biggest names reportedly on the guest list, including Will Smith, John Travolta, Jamie Foxx and Halle Berry.
The soiree is expected to raise more than $3 million, making it the most lucrative fundraiser of Obama's political career. And it may be only the beginning of her support, with television ads featuring Winfrey and even speaking appearances possible.
It is not a simple prospect for any star, especially for one who so jealously guards her brand identity. In joining Obama's campaign, Winfrey is flouting the lessons of celebrities who have closely associated themselves with candidates, only to turn off a certain segment of their audiences and diminish their own marketability.
Testing the limits of her power
She's also testing the boundaries of her own power. Winfrey has demonstrated an ability to turn obscure writers into best sellers and start a top magazine from scratch, yet she has never before tried so tangibly to translate her influence into the political realm.
Some suggest that if any star is well-established enough to risk it, it is Winfrey. She is especially popular with women and African-Americans, critical demographics for Obama as he competes against front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, who enjoys solid support from both those groups.
"As a marketer, [Oprah's] power lies in being able to make her recommendations seem very friendly, like they are coming from a girlfriend," said Kathleen Rooney, who is updating a 2005 book about the influence of Winfrey's book club.
Or, as Winfrey herself said recently, "My support of him is probably worth more than any check that I could write."
So when she expressed interest in helping Obama, his staff was more than happy to start the discussions. They didn't need a recent Gallup Poll to tell them Winfrey is considered one of the most influential women in America. (She ranked second in the most recent poll to Clinton, a New York Democrat.)
Winfrey, who declined an interview request, has become good friends with both Obama and his wife, Michelle, in the last couple of years.
They knew each other before his run for the U.S. Senate that began in 2003, said Dan Shomon, a longtime Obama aide who worked for him in that race.
But the two didn't really know each other well until the fall of 2004, when Winfrey, inspired by Obama's national convention address, asked to interview the Obamas for her magazine. She visited their house and, as is evident from the laughter and warm chatter in the recording of their conversation, the three hit it off right away.
After that interview, say people who know them, Winfrey and the Obamas became social friends, with the couple even visiting her Chicago home. Later, Winfrey and the senator flew together from Chicago to view the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and displaced Gulf Coast residents.
Just months after Obama's Senate term began, a close confidant says, he told friends of a visit he and his wife paid to Winfrey's California home as part of her Legends Ball weekend honoring African-American women.
As a group that included jazz great Quincy Jones sampled snacks, it was on that May 2005 visit to Winfrey's Montecito estate that the idea of Winfrey hosting a political event apparently first came up.
Obama has said he was not actively planning a White House run at the time, but it may have been something Winfrey was contemplating for him.
" 'Wouldn't this be a great place for a fundraiser?' I said jokingly," Winfrey recalled of the gathering that weekend during a recent interview on her own satellite radio channel.
The glitz that weekend will be nothing compared to this one on Winfrey's 42-acre coastal property, which features a man-made lake and a 23,000-square-foot mansion. Winfrey calls it "the Promised Land."
The sold-out gathering is the flashiest fundraiser yet in this election cycle, with about 1,500 guests expected. Stevie Wonder, an Obama favorite, is expected to perform.
One of Obama's top national fundraisers said more than one high-wattage guest cut short a European vacation to be there. "It's going to be a zoo," the California fundraiser said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of angering Obama or Winfrey.
Because so many celebrities and wealthy donors have already given the maximum allowed by federal law, the fundraiser said many needed to raise money from smaller donors in order to get a ticket. "It's hard to find people who haven't given to him," he said.
Many Hollywood actors have already given the maximum allowed to Obama. Morgan Freeman has, as have Halle Berry, Eddie Murphy, Leonard Nimoy, Chris Rock, George Clooney and Jennifer Aniston.
Others are doubling down, giving to two or more candidates. Actor Tom Hanks, for example, has already given the maximum allowed to Obama and Clinton. Ben Stiller, meanwhile, has given to those two, as well as former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
While the scene will be flashy even by Hollywood standards, the dress will be casual, reflecting the candidate's trademark open-collar look and the conditions on the ground.
The guests must behave
Calling her estate a "special, sacred, spiritual" place, Winfrey said guests will need to be on their best behavior. "To offer it ... is no small thing for me," she said. "There are going to be some serious restrictions and requirements to get in here."
She's not kidding. Visitors have been instructed to wear flat shoes and other "garden attire," because the event will take place in a meadow on the property, and most guests will not be invited inside the house.
Recording devices, potentially cell phones too, will not be allowed on the property. Government-issued photo IDs will be compared to a guest list.
Students of the Oprah phenomenon recognize Winfrey's almost obsessive protectiveness, not just of her home, but also her image and brand.
The event has inspired speculation among political types about how the celebrity involvement could affect the campaign. Some are skeptical.
Bruce Gronbeck, a University of Iowa political communications professor, said celebrity endorsements typically are not very effective, especially in early voting states where Obama's fate will likely be decided.
"Iowa caucusgoers tend to take their political decision-making pretty seriously," he said. "It will be a positive sign for many, but I don't think at all it will be a definitive mark."
Obama agrees it is hard to predict how much Winfrey's backing will help.
"It's very hard to say," he said. "I think a presidential race is unique. The job is unique. People who might buy my book because of an appearance on Oprah are obviously going to have a much more serious and sober deliberation when it comes to deciding who the next leader of the free world is."
Still, he said, he has no doubt that Winfrey's support will help him, at the very least, to reach voters who might not otherwise hear what he has to say.
"Ultimately, they've got to be persuaded by me that I'm the right person for the job," Obama said, but "Oprah is somebody who has enormous reach, and that means that I may get a hearing in certain quarters."
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Seriously, Oprah has about as much power to determine the next president as the SWAMP fateful.
Oprah's crowd fears her, but most Americans won't follow her lead or care who she endorses.
If my memory serves me correctly, she hosted Bush on her show. It humanized Bush for some, but that wasn't the difference maker. The confused FL voter was.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | September 8, 2007 9:51 AM
Celebrity endorsement--Another reason to vote against Obama.
Lots of Democrats (79% of them in the latest Gallup Poll) seem to be finding reasons to vote for someone else. As Democrat Mickey Kaus observes at slate.com: "Michelle Obama maybe doesn't need to worry so much anymore that her husband will become a god-like figure requiring her unique humanizing skills. He's losing by 15 points in the Democratic party to someone who voted for the war and hasn't apologized."
Posted by: Bruce | September 8, 2007 9:58 AM
Maybe Rudolph could get TV & movie star Freddie to host a fundraiser for him?
Quite alright, just trying to help.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 8, 2007 10:11 AM
no what opera does or anyone does......obama will never get my vote....she is supporting a candidate that is black...if he were white she would not be doing what she is doing.....i lost my respect for her....
Posted by: billy | September 8, 2007 10:34 AM
billy,
I don't remember Oprah supporting Alan Keyes.
I long ago lost respect for dopes like you who spout out nonsense without the facts to back them up.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | September 8, 2007 10:46 AM
Billy,
What's your beef with Obama?
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 8, 2007 11:00 AM
I could care less whether Obama is black, white, Hispanic, green, purple or plaid.
The problems with Obama are many:
1. No experience.
2. No experience running or leading anything.
3. Way too liberal on all fronts.
4. All packaging and no substance.
5. Never really explained his money-making relationship with Tony Rezko.
6. Never has said a word about all the corruption in his own party here in Illinois.
7. What exactly has he done for Illinois as a U.S. Senator?
8. Where has he been while Illinois has been a rudderless ship the whole summer with intrparty squabbling and no budget?
9. Would be eater up and spat out by most world leaders.
10. Weak on defense.
11. Weak on illegal immigration and the borders.
12. Wants higher taxes.
Posted by: John D | September 8, 2007 11:57 AM
Oprah is and always was a closet raciest.
Posted by: Big Kielbasa | September 8, 2007 12:06 PM
"the two Chicago celebrities"
Yes, Christi Parsons and John McCormick. That phrase says it all -- two vacuous narcissistic TV stars working together.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2007 12:44 PM
It doesn't matter. On a cold Jan. day would you get out of your warm house to vote for Oprah's choice? He may be helped in the polls but not when it counts.
Posted by: whatnow | September 8, 2007 1:01 PM
whatnow,
I know a lot of Democrats in Iowa and not only are they willing to leave their warm houses to go caucus for Obama - they're going to do it.
What Oprah brings to the table isn't just some $$$$. Oprah's endorsement will get a lot of people, especially suburban white women, to evaluate Obama, and maybe, just maybe - vote for him.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 8, 2007 1:43 PM
They both seem spiritually connected which is exactly what this country needs at the time.
Posted by: mslillief | September 8, 2007 1:44 PM
John D.: What has the present done before he became President? What Foreign Policy experience did he have? He had none, my friend. What he had, was a "name" and the backing of the "Right-Wing Republican Conservative machine", and they spinned, every negative into a positive.
Now, all these Presidential hopefuls have some wealthy interest holding fundraisers for them. Since Obama and Oprah, are Black, the American News Media has been having a "frenzy" in making everything Major News.
Back to experience. What experience does Hillary have? None. Gulliana, what experience.NOne. Just a New York mayor and a prosecutor. People can make an argument to fit their agenda. Barrack Obama is just as qualified, and better suited to lead this country than George Bush, with all his two term disaster as president. The Republican Faithful backs Bush even though he has screwed up our National Treasure, and has this country in a illegal war; and, done zero for as Domestic Policy is concern.
Posted by: Maurice | September 8, 2007 3:22 PM
Bruce & John D,
Please tell us what Bush accomplished ON HIS OWN before he was president. You know, without the help of daddy's people. If you're lucky, you may be able to stretch it out and take up a whole 30 seconds.
Here are some reference links that you can use as sources:
http://monkeydyne.com/bushresume/resume.html
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushresume.html
http://www.idontfeelsogood.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_idontfeelsogood_archive.html#106122460965525511
Posted by: BC | September 8, 2007 4:11 PM
"What has the present [president] done before he became President? What Foreign Policy experience did he have?"
Posted by: Maurice | September 8, 2007 3:22 PM
Maurice, that's not an argument in favor of voting for another neophyte like Obama. It's exactly the opposite.
As for the other people you mention: Hillary has spent 8 years involved with the inner workings of a presidency; Guiliani has been the mayor of the largest city in the US (that's called executive experience). So they're both better suited for the job than Obama.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2007 5:47 PM
Bud,
It is sad but true - Oprah can probably deliver a million votes for a canidate with her endorsement. She even does better than a Chiago cemetary.
Posted by: Terry | September 8, 2007 8:53 PM
I worked in a bookstore and we would get alot of copies of books slated to be on Oprah's show because they sold so fast.
of course a politician is not a book but, I do think Oprah is more than just a celebrity to her many fans. She is someone who influences their choices and taste. And though it may not make someone vote for Obama, she would cause many to stop and listen to him and hear what he has to say.
Alot of her audience are supporting the worst candidate ever, Hillary.
She is so unsuitable for president. but, their support is not due to more than her last name and gender. this would at least make many look closer not just at Obama but, many others and to an extent, investigate the many troubling aspects of Hillary.
As for those who thing he is too inexperienced or young, TR, JFK and Clinton - Bill, were all younger than Obama when they took office. obama has alot more than Hillary or Edwards with his years as a constitutional lecturer, a state senator and the 3 in the US senate. and his legislative record in the US is quite impressive. Hillary's is rather sparse.
Seems to me you get alot more of a president who is able and capable with Obama than with Hillary.
And someone alot more ethical and caring about the country and the people than queen of outsourcing.
Posted by: vwcat | September 8, 2007 9:51 PM
BC, your examples of proof are just as silly and moronic as the fact you think John Edwards pays more for his haircuts than he does his suits.
Maurice, do you understand what experience means? Let's look at Guiliani, whom you say was just a mayor and a prosecutor. First of all, New York is more populous and has a bigger budget than many U. S. states. Like governors, mayors also have to govern and lead. Senators do not govern nor do they lead. Mayors and governors also have to manage. Again, senators do not.
In two years as a U.S. senator, what exactly has Barack done? Or as a state senator, what all did he do? What has managed? What has he bargained or negotiated? Where has he lead?
Before becoming president, Bush at least was a governor and business owner. Now before you Ding Dongs say "his businesses went out of business." Well so do about 90 percent of all small businesses. Bush did run things. He also worked in his dad's administration.
Posted by: John D | September 9, 2007 3:09 AM
I hope she can pull it off because I sure don't want another spoiled rich kid or old a%s white guy running the show anytime soon. Bush is lame. Bruce and that nut John D are even lamer. Bruce who do work for again? The RNC?
Posted by: Former Brainwashed Republican | September 9, 2007 4:14 AM
It is sad but true - Oprah can probably deliver a million votes for a canidate with her endorsement. She even does better than a Chiago cemetary.
Posted by: Terry | September 8, 2007 8:53 PM
That's certainly true and sad, I agree. However, I doubt if its enough to save Mr Fluff's foundering campaign.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2007 8:23 AM
Anon - we can only hope.
Posted by: Terry | September 9, 2007 9:54 AM
Obama didn't need Oprah's blessing to get a quarter of a million people to give money to his campaign last quarter..many of whom gave less than $50. She didn't need to hold any parties to get thousands of people from all walks of life flocking to his appearances for the last 6 months.
Anyone who calls Obama fluff without substance clearly has once again been taken in by the spin and manipulation of party politics and a lackluster media. Just a small amount of true research shows the appalling lack of information they so proudly display here, along with the kind of pathetic racism that goes hand in hand with a lack of intelligence.
You want substance..REALLY check out his record..800 subsantial bills in his Illinois Senate terms alone in areas of health care, poverty, crime, civil rights, ethics, and immigration. Look at his legislation passed in the US Senate to open up transparency of lobbyists' ties to congress members, or securing arms from getting into the hands of terrorists. Remember this man spoke out vehemently against this disastrous war, when it was highly popular and politically dangerous to do so --when all others now running took the safe poltical route--and called the results to a tee - in 2002! And if his plan had passed, careful withdrawl of our troops, along with political solution-solving with the many factions within and surrounding Iraq, would have started in May! We'd be months into it by now.
You want foreign policy experience, go read his 'The War We Need to Win', and tell me anyone else has proposed anything even close to this in its firm grasp and broad comprehension of the complexities we face in the world and intelligent solutions to get to the very root of them. Much of what his detractors deemed 'naive' is now being echoed by them, and lauded by some of the most respected foreign policy experts in the world.
If you all want to wallow in political gamesmanship and baseless accusations, then be prepared to get more of what we got the last 7 years at least. If you want to get this country back on track with a man who actually taught the constitution this administration has all but destroyed, then get yourself informed or do the country a favor and stay home on election day.
Posted by: Terri | September 9, 2007 11:11 AM
Anon:
You said,
"As for the other people you mention: Hillary has spent 8 years involved with the inner workings of a presidency; Guiliani has been the mayor of the largest city in the US (that's called executive experience). So they're both better suited for the job than Obama."
Eight years as First Lady would make Laura Bush qualified...is that what you're saying? That aside, in those 8 years Hillary's great 'accomplishment' was a pathetically horrid health care policy fiasco. Those eight years were some of the most scandal-ridden we've had in recent years. This makes her more suited?
As for Giuliani, his 'Hero of 9/11' personna belies the fact that he is personally responsible to the non-working radios that caused so many of our bravest (I lived in NY at the time!) to lose their lives. Even after the World Trade Center being attacked in 1993, he STILL put emergency operations in the biggest target of the city. Yeah, great leadership qualities.
Posted by: Terri | September 9, 2007 12:27 PM
Look on the bright side Terry, Mr Fluff couldn't do much worse than our current President. Would you care to suggest who you think will do a better job? Just curious if your leaning towards someone.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 9, 2007 12:52 PM
Terry and Anon,
Most endorsements are an annoyance than anything else.
I'm not sure how you can even begin to measure how much an endorsement means. I don't think I've ever heard of any polling that measured the power of someone's endorsement.
Voter: "Yeah, I was going to vote for candidate 'X,' but I decided to vote for candidate 'B' because I heard candidate 'B' was being endorsed by celebrity 'O.'"
I've never heard of such polling. And I don't think most voters (actual voters, mind you, not the people who applaud on "The Tonight Show") base their votes on an endorsement.
In the case of Chicago politics, of course, now you're talking service delivery. That's another thing altogether.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | September 9, 2007 3:28 PM
If you all want to wallow in political gamesmanship and baseless accusations, then be prepared to get more of what we got the last 7 years at least. If you want to get this country back on track with a man who actually taught the constitution this administration has all but destroyed, then get yourself informed or do the country a favor and stay home on election day.
Posted by: Terri | September 9, 2007 11:11 AM
Teri has a point. More than one in fact. I really dislike when people brush off Obama as some kind of media creation, or fluff if you will. I repect him a great deal.
I would take exception to Terri's comment on Hillary though. Anyone who doubts her abilities as a candidate or as a leader does so at they're own peril.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 9, 2007 10:07 PM
Terri,
HC and Laura Bush are two entirely different people, and Bush's First Ladyship and Clinton's were two very different things. HC was more than usually involved in the presidency.
Re: Guiliani, 8 years of executive goverment experience is 8 years more than Obama has. And yes experience counts for something, especially when one (like Obama) posits no new ideas. At least he could claim that he knows how to run the office.
That said, neither Clinton nor Guiliani would make an ideal president, IMO. My only point is that they both have more qualifications than Barak "Fluff" Obama. But I want to emphasize that I find the whole field of candidates dissapointing.
"I really dislike when people brush off Obama as some kind of media creation, or fluff if you will. I repect him a great deal."
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 9, 2007 10:07 PM
Why do you respect him? because of his ability to turn a great real estate deal? His endorsements of creatures like Stroger, Peraica (spelling?) and Tilman? Or is it his ability to decry the influence of Lobbyists while raking in their money?
Maybe you don't, but I consider those serious negatives. And I'm drawing a blank trying to come up with reasons to hand him the presidency.
Somebody here once said that Obama is the Paris Hilton of politics -- he's famous but nobody can really say why.
I'm reminded of a witticism of Teddy Roosevelt's regarding a political contemporary: "He has all of the salient qualities of a sphere." That's perfect for Obama.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 7:34 AM
Anonymous, I don't suppose you've ever met or talked to Obama??? He's a pretty impressive man. Very smart.
Anonymous, if I have to explain (respect for Obama) it then you wouldn't understand, or agree. I like Hillary a great deal, and have in fact donated money to her campaign. I would say the same things about her. Very bright with great leadership qualities. I like Ron Paul on the Republican side.
There is not one among us in whom a devil does not dwell; at sometime, on some point, that devil masters each of us; he who has never failed has never been tempted; but the man who does in the end conquer, who does painfully retrace the steps of his slipping, why he shows that he has been tried in the fire and not found wanting. It is not having been in the Dark House, but having left it, that counts.
Theodore Roosevelt
The man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done.
Again Theodore Roosevelt
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 10, 2007 10:37 AM
[quote]
BC, your examples of proof are just as silly and moronic as the fact you think John Edwards pays more for his haircuts than he does his suits.
Posted by: John D | September 9, 2007 3:09 AM
[/quote]
JOHN D GETS CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!
I never said any such thing - but I'll still CHALLENGE you to PROVIDE A LINK to any Swamp post where you think that I said that.
Why are you too lazy to provide a link that PROVIDES PROOF for your allegation that Edwards pays as much as Bush does - is it just possible that NO SUCH PROOF EXISTS?
Not that you'll ever be man enough to admit it.
Posted by: BC | September 10, 2007 11:10 AM
Logic Prisoner,
I've never denied that he's smart.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:13 PM
Logic Prisoner,
I've never denied that he's smart.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 12:13 PM
Fair enough.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 10, 2007 9:24 PM