Oprah's Kissoff

Now that she has smooched you-know-who this week, the talented Ms. Winfrey is ready to end the talk show that made her a billionaire and start the next phase of her life as a media mogul with a cable channel aptly named OWN.

Like the would-be VP but for much longer and in a far different way, Oprah has been a phenomenon, rising from the depths of poverty to become an American icon with empathy, intelligence and enthusiasm, an Everywoman in constant battles to control her emotional life as well as her weight, educate herself and her audiences with a book club, overcome all obstacles in a world still dominated by men.

Her embrace of Barack Obama last year was the climax of a career that went well beyond race, giving a rhetorically gifted but emotionally standoffish candidate just the touch of humanity needed to connect with her constituency, to say nothing of the $3 million and more she raised for him.

Trading her celebrity at 55 to become a mostly behind-the-scenes Rupert Murdoch, Oprah leaves more than two decades of what has been called "a talk show as group therapy session" for millions

As in her ratings coup this week, Ms. Winfrey has occasionally stooped to conquer--i.e., her promotion of the cultural embarrassment known as Dr. Phil.

But as a fiery New York mayor of my childhood Fiorello LaGuardia used to say, "When I make a mistake, it's a beaut."

Hillibrand and Burris, Hillary and Obama

A year ago, Americans were excited by the breakthrough of electing a woman or an African-American for president. Now, after the euphoria of Obama's inauguration, we have the sad spectacle of selecting a woman and an African-American senator for all the wrong reasons.

Turning back the demographic clock, here is the peerless Rod Blagojevich in the media spotlight, after choosing Roland Burris for racial reasons alone, bragging that he had considered Oprah for the spot.

And here we have Kirsten Hillibrand, with all of two years in Washington, chosen by Governor David Paterson for being a woman and living in upstate New York, lunching at the Waldorf with Hillary Clinton and burbling, “It’s thrilling. You will see me everywhere in the state. You will see me wherever you want to see me.”

In November 2010, voters in Illinois and New York will pick the person to represent them in the US Senate (and govern their states as well). Until then, they will have to live with the choices of a future felon and an accidental chief executive who got his job because a predecessor failed to keep his fly zipped.

Is this a great country or what?

What Obama Has to Do Tonight

In the words of E.M. Forster, only connect. He has spent two years inspiring and dazzling crowds with eloquence, maintaining his rational calm in debates, acting presidential under fire. For tonight's debate, Barack Obama needs a little less JFK, a bit more Oprah.

What may be missing for some undecided voters is a visceral connection to their lives, especially in today's distress, the absence of which has allowed Republicans to stereotype as elitist and detached the man who grew up with a mother on food stamps opposing a privileged son of the military upper crust.

His cerebral, scholarly attitude is central to Obama and, consciously or not, he may feel impelled to separate himself from the emotionalism of the civil rights era. But in his own style, he needs to project some of Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" empathy to win over voters being besieged by attacks about how "different" he is.

In Joe Klein's "Primary Colors," there is a scene in which the Clinton character and his cronies indulge in a maudlin "mamathon" about the virtues of their mothers. As dogged by scandal in 1992 as Obama is now by attacks about class and race, Clinton managed to reach through the TV screen and touch voters in a time when they needed emotional connection much less than they do now.

Perhaps Obama could use a pep talk from his most vocal supporter, Oprah, on how to pass on to Americans a measure of the warmth and compassion that brought her from the depths of poverty to the pinnacle of wealth and power.

With everything else going his way in the final days of the campaign, that might be the last piece of the puzzle to give undecided voters a picture of him in the White House.

Oprah, Palin, Drudge and Agnew

In her convention speech, Sarah Palin bashed the media with "a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion." Her defiance harked back to another GOP VP, Spiro Agnew, who assailed the "nattering nabobs of negativism" before being forced to resign for taking bundles of cash when he was a governor.

Palin is, among other things, the Agnew of a McCain campaign as eager to blame the media for its problems as the Nixon Administration was back then, and now good old reliable Matt Drudge has started the ball rolling with an assault on Oprah for not inviting Palin to appear on her show.

"Oprah's staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin," the Drudge Report quotes its usual anonymous sources as confiding. "One executive close to Winfrey is warning any Palin ban could ignite a dramatic backlash!"

Never mind that Oprah denies any such discussions, confirms that she will not interview any of the candidates and expresses interest in having Palin on after the elections. That hasn't deterred her competition such as ABC from picking up and running with the story by asking, "Is Oprah Biased?"

In stirring this first little media tempest in a teapot, McCain backers get a twofer--discrediting Oprah for backing Obama and painting Palin as a victim of gender bias. If they had picked Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, would anybody be badgering Oprah?

The next stage, which has already started, will be a sustained attack on journalists for investigating Palin's background and beliefs and questioning her claims such as selling the state jet on eBay or rejecting federal funds for the Bridge to Nowhere.

Somewhere in political rogue purgatory, Spiro Agnew must be smiling.

Unbelievably Fascinating Lives

When George W. Bush starts on his memoirs next year, he could find inspiration in a new trend--faking it.

The latest made-up life story is by a 33-year-old Valley girl named Margaret Seltzer who concocted a critically praised account of life in South Central LA as a half-white, half-Native American girl in a drug and gang culture, published last week as "Love and Consequences" by Margaret B. Jones.

The love et al were fake, but the consequences real as her publisher had to withdraw all copies from the book stores. Before that, it was a Holocaust memoir and two years ago an Oprah-touted best-seller about drugs and addiction by James Frey that turned out to have been invented.

Since our 24/7 news culture has made real life seem so drab, it's understandable that a new generation of writers would be compelled to invent alternate realities, but when I was a book publisher, we called it fiction.

Ms. Seltzer now admits she wrote her book "sitting at Starbucks" in South Central and drinking in the atmosphere. President Bush has been doing the same in the White House, and there is no reason he shouldn't be able to turn out a narrative as gripping as hers. But he will have tone down Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales if he expects anybody to believe it.

Dr. Phil's Bedside Manure

If Hillary Clinton supporters want to attack Oprah for backing Barack Obama, they could question her judgment about people in creating the cultural embarrassment known as Dr. Phil.

The good Dr. McGraw's latest misadventure in poisoning the well of psychology as a profession involves a reported complaint about his hospital visit to Britney Spears this month, which may constitute practicing without a license in California, and promoting his excursion to the pop star, which could be a violation of doctor-patient privilege.

Since advising her in a lawsuit over dissing beef over a decade ago, McGraw has parlayed appearances on Oprah's show into his own syndicated program, frequent appearances on Larry King, a weight-loss business and a number of legal hassles of his own making.

Peddling pious platitudes and pep talks as psychological insight pays well, starting with Dr. Phil's $15 million syndication deal and a new show later this year in which he will be coaching other medical "experts" in how to connect with TV audiences.

Off-camera, however, he is not that popular. In addition to the possible Britney Spears problem, Dr. Phil is being sued by brothers involved in the case of Natalee Holloway, victim of a headline disappearance in Aruba, for "invasion of privacy, fraud, deceit, defamation, emotional distress, and civil conspiracy."

TV's favorite psychologist lost his license to practice in his home state as a result of disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1989 after a former therapy client filed a complaint, claiming their relationship was inappropriate.

Since then, he has made a brilliant career out of being inappropriate in public. Obama admirers can only hope Dr. Phil doesn't join Oprah in stumping for him and create psychological problems for his campaign.

Democrats Sowing Confusion in Iowa

If you look carefully at the Hawkeye State, you can find polls showing John Edwards is in the lead (b) Barack Obama is ahead (c) Hillary Clinton and Obama are tied or (d) after the "viability rule" excludes candidates with less than 15 percent of the vote, who knows?

Iowans have a reputation for being contrary, but this year they have raised sowing confusion to an art form. Yesterday, three of their journalists wrote a New York Times OpEd, saying "if a poll does manage to precisely forecast the results of the Jan. 3 caucuses, that is probably more coincidence than polling accuracy" because of the arcane, secretive way that Democrats report results of their caucuses:

"Under the formulas used to apportion delegates, it is possible that the candidate with the highest percentage of delegate equivalents--that is, the headline “winner”--did not really lead in the “popular vote” at the caucuses. Further, it is possible that a second or third-tier candidate could garner a surprising 10 percent or 12 percent of the popular vote statewide and get zero delegates. (That’s because to be in the running for a delegate a candidate must have support from at least 15 percent of the people at a precinct caucus.) He or she may have done two or three times as well as expected among Iowa’s Democratic voters and get no recognition for it."

Is that clear? For months now, we have been hanging on every word from voters in the Tall Corn State as they ogle butter sculptures, eat fried stuff on a stick and respond to the presence of Oprah, Bill Clinton and Magic Johnson.

But do we get any clear answers from them? Not in your Field of Dreams. Maybe Meredith Willson had it right in the "Music Man" when he had them singing “And we're so by God stubborn/We can stand touchin' noses/For a week at a time/And never see eye-to-eye.”

Family Gathering

The Presidential candidates are beginning to look like relatives who came for the holidays and stayed too long.

At first it was just going to be the kids--Hillary, Barack, Rudy with his newest wife, and John, if he wasn't on one of his trips to Iraq. But then all kinds of kin you invite but don't expect to come started showing up.

Nephew Mitt drove up with a dog on the car roof, told all kinds of stories about where he'd been and got into a beef with Rudy about the people who were doing the yard work.

Great-uncle Fred arrived late and went up to the guest room for a long nap.

Cousin Mike came in from the cold and started eating everybody's lunch.

After Barack got reclusive Aunt Oprah to show up for appetizers, Hillary called Chelsea and her mother, and the old homestead started filling up like the Marx brothers' stateroom.

Somewhere in the attic, Ron Paul is checking his e-mail on a laptop, and who knows what all those distant relatives are yakking about in the basement?

It's great to have a big family, but how long are they all going to hang around?

Democratic Divas With a Difference

The names on the ballots are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama but, in Iowa and New Hampshire, a perfect storm of celebrity is brewing with two forces of nature named Barbra and Oprah on a collision course.

Like hurricanes, Streisand and Winfrey need be identified only by their first names, and they are lending their clout to Hillary and Barack to help elevate one of them to the ultimate celebrity.

The two women are a contrast in personal histories and styles. Winfrey, surviving an abusive childhood and early adulthood, created herself through empathy with millions of women. In backing Obama, she is taking her first steps into politics. When she appears with him next month, it will be a new experience.

At a fund-raiser that brought in $3 million, she reportedly told friends, "I haven't been actively engaged before because there hasn't been anything to be actively engaged in. But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States,"

Streisand, a decade older and now eligible for Social Security, is a self-made powerhouse with an ego that is outsized even by Hollywood standards. She has been involved in politics for decades.

After Bill Clinton was elected, she was omnipresent at his inaugural. When his mother died, Streisand arrived by private jet for the funeral and announced her $200,000 donation to start a breast cancer research fund in memory of the President's mother, who, Barbra solemnly noted, had spent the last weekend of her life at Streisand concerts in Las Vegas.

This week, she announced her support of Hillary with a historical flourish: "Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote,‘In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.’ More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us…and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."

Streisand will help Hillary with the Hollywood power structure, but Oprah will be giving Obama a unique advantage. Unlike 2000, when George Bush got a boost from appearing on her program, she won't be interviewing other candidates this time.

In light of her support for Obama, she has said, that would be "hypocritical," and nobody has ever accused Oprah of waffling about her feelings.

Obama Boomlet, Oprah to Come

As in Iowa, there are small signs of momentum for Barack Obama in New Hampshire.

In a new CNN poll today, he has narrowed the gap behind Hillary Clinton to 36-22 percent from 43-20, but more significantly, only 24 percent of likely voters tell pollsters they have made a choice. Another 29 percent are leaning toward one candidate, 47 percent are undecided.

Now the campaign is poised to bring out their big weapon. Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, a close Obama watcher, reports his telling voters that Oprah is coming to New Hampshire and will probably stump for him in Iowa, too. One of his supporters points out, "Oprah can say to women ‘You don't have to vote for the first woman president. Vote for what you need.'”

Even Rudy Giuliani is pitching in (for his own obvious reasons). After Obama told high-school students today not to emulate his own experimentation with drugs and alcohol at their age, America's Mayor expressed admiration:

“I respect his honesty in doing that. One of the things we need from our people running for office is not this pretense of perfection. The reality is...we’re all human beings. If we haven’t made mistakes, don’t vote for us, because we’ve got some big ones that are going to happen in the future.”

After that validation, it would be churlish of Obama to point out that Giuliani has kept making some big mistakes long after high school. At the moment, however, they are both busy chipping away at Hillary Clinton's image of perfection.

All the Money You Could Want

Most of us go through life wishing for more money but are never faced with deciding what to do with endless amounts. A news story today suggests how much imagination it takes to deal with no limits.

After a tax scam that yielded millions, the FBI raided a modest home and garage in Washington to find a Mercedes, tons of designer shoes and luggage, silver-plated iguana figurines, 13 watches including a Rolex, 90 purses (47 from Chanel), flutes and goblets by Steuben, a Faberge egg and a silver bar cart as well as courtesy cards used by regular gamblers in half a dozen Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos, phone bills of $1500 a month and travel receipts from all over. They filled 25 boxes with clothes and listed 414 unidentified pieces in the inventory.

But all this is only a testament to the banality of greed, a kind of Home Shopping Network vision of huge wealth. Without imagination, the woman who apparently embezzled more than $20 million from the D.C. government used it to become a glorified bag lady.

How much more complicated is it for the Warren Buffets, Bill Gateses, and Oprahs of the world, trying to do good, a Mike Bloomberg, pondering whether to buy the White House, or a Rupert Murdoch, too busy trying to acquire more power and influence to spend much actual money in his own life?

For some, it can produce deprivation by surfeit, psychological chaos (pace Paris Hilton and her ilk). For box-office actors and superstar athletes, there are booby traps of hubris and self-importance.

For politicians controlling huge amounts of other people's money, see the President and Congress squabbling over which is acting more like the teenager with an unlimited credit card.

For the rest of us, there is the iffy consolation of believing it's too much money that may actually be the root of all evil.

What Oprah Can Do for Obama

The money, power and influence are as obvious as the racial kinship. But there may be something more significant in Oprah Winfrey’s decision to go all-out for Barack Obama.

What she can bring to his campaign is the human connection with voters--the empathy that has made her the world’s most influential woman and that has so far been missing in Obama’s public persona.

For all the passion and fervor he aroused last year, Obama has remained a rather distant figure--cerebral, well-spoken and tentative as an in-fighter--through the early months of Presidential debating. In some ways, the idea of him has been more appealing than the actuality.

This weekend, at her California estate, Winfrey will be raising an anticipated $3 million for the candidate. That could be only a start.

"My money isn't going to make any difference,” she has said. “My value to him--my support of him--is probably worth more than any other check that I could write."

But the influence that can make best-sellers out of obscure books is not the issue. The phenomenon that is Oprah rests on her combination of openness, vulnerability and steely determination that has attracted millions of devoted admirers.

Barack and Michelle Obama are well-educated, highly attractive people from upper-middle-class America. If Oprah can pass on to them a measure of the warmth and compassion that brought her from the depths of poverty to the pinnacle of wealth and power, that could be her greatest contribution of all.

Another Clinton Blitz

Next week, Oprah, Larry King and David Letterman will be doing Clinton interviews, not with the candidate but the potential First Spouse.

Bill Clinton will be promoting his new book, “Giving,” about American efforts to help helpless people around the world, including Winfrey's "Angel Network," which has donated millions to schools in Africa and aid for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Lady Bird Johnson worked tirelessly on beautifying America. Nancy Reagan opposed drug use with her “Just Say No” campaign. Bill Clinton, as is his wont, would be visible on a world stage.

A Good Look at Do-Gooders

Bill Clinton, Oprah and Angela Jolie are often in Africa these days, with reporters and camera crews in their wake. This week the Christian Science Monitor is taking a long look at what they are doing:

“The world's poorest, sickest, most war-ravaged continent is now the charity of choice for many of the West's best-known political, pop, and Hollywood stars. Outside attention to the continent has fueled thousands of successful programs. But, despite the aid, the number of poor people in Africa has almost doubled in the past decade, and skeptics wonder whether some stars are most interested in boosting their own profile in the eyes of a public that expects a moral dimension to its heroes.”

In a two-part series, reporter Danna Jarman tries to go beyond the reflexive sigh or sneer at their efforts and offer insight into who is doing what and to what effect.

As she follows him on a week-long four-country tour, Bill Clinton tells her, "It's easy ... to say, 'Oh, this is not serious, they are just trying to get press' My experience has been this is not true. Not everything every actor does, works. Just like not everything I do works. Not everything Bill Gates does works. But it's not true that it's not genuine. By and large, it just is."

A visiting scholar observes, "The bang for the buck is high in Africa. You can leverage your money and time. So you are not only bringing in more mosquito nets, but potentially shaping the entire national policy."

For the open-minded and/or star-struck, the Monitor series is a whirlwind tour of what George Clooney, Don Cheadle, Mia Farrow et al are doing on a continent where nothing can be enough. If it stirs readers without big names to write small checks, that would add to their efforts.

Not Doing It for the Money

For those who wonder if public service would attract better people if it paid more, there is sobering news from the economic journal TV Guide.

Last year Oprah Winfrey earned $260 million, more than twice as much as Bush, Cheney, Congress, the Supreme Court and governors of all 50 states combined. As public servants struggle along on their six-figure pittances, voters might give a thought to how poorly they are paid.

During the Presidential campaign, we learned that John Edwards earned $479,512 from his part-time job with a hedge fund, and yet here he is working so hard to get a position that pays less than that for long hours and much more stress.

Policy wonks who study the latest figures should look for an explanation for the fact that Simon Cowell ($45 million), Judge Judy ($30 million) and Katie Couric ($15 million) earn more than the headliners of all three Federal branches combined.

Meanwhile, taxpayers can take comfort in knowing that they are getting such good government at bargain prices.