Vilsack Takes On Oprah — Good Luck!

Comments (30)

Geek, Esq. wrote on November 27, 2007 11:09 AM:

Vilsack should have learned the lesson that the Texas Cattlemen learned: Don't f@ck with Oprah.

If this were a sporting event, that would be bulletin board material for the locker room.

Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 11:09 AM:

Gov. Vilsack is just jealous!

bob wrote on November 27, 2007 11:16 AM:

What's Vilsack doing talking to the Washington Times anyway? His claim that they have the support of the most retired Dems is dubious as well, depending on which poll you look at.

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a national co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, told the Washington Times that Winfrey has fewer fans in Iowa than in other states, largely because a high number of working parents are not home during the day to see her show.

Iowans are more interested in who their neighbors, friends or family support, Vilsack said.

"I'm not sure who watches her. Maybe young moms, maybe people who are retired. But we have the support of most retired Democrats," Vilsack told the Times.

RalphB wrote on November 27, 2007 11:21 AM:

I would have thought that Howard Dean's experience with out-of-state supporters swarming all over Iowa with their orange hats plus all his endorsers vs their neighbors opinions would have settled this argument.

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 11:26 AM:

Vilsack should have just kept quiet; it makes HRC's campaign look nervous.

Daniel wrote on November 27, 2007 11:27 AM:

A NEW poll from IOWA just came out, and it has complete toss-ups for both the Democratic and the GOP race -- Obama/Clinton and Romney/Huckabee are pretty much tied! Check out the very tight numbers here.

Jesse wrote on November 27, 2007 11:28 AM:

With all the issues in this country (and the world) I'm not interested in a tv celebrity going out and telling me who I should vote for. I would much rather (and I hope the people of Iowa would) listen to the issues and choose the person who I believe can best implement their proposals. Obama is just another politician who will do anything (and he has) to get elected. Yesterday there was a damning article in the Washington Post talking about how Obama basically paid off people to support him...so how does he react? By bringing out the Oprah card and having that overshadow the fact that he did something really inappropriate and very close to being illegal. I wonder what he promised Oprah????

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 11:43 AM:

Jesse:

Unless I missed something, the FEC hasn't opened an investigation or alleged he (the Hopefund) did something illegal (or Joe Biden for that matter). Hillary Clinton's campaign did, but that's hardly the same thing. And Ben Smith basically ran this issue down yesterday.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Obamas_defense.html

As for Oprah, Obama said it best: Oprah may bring out people, but he's got to close the show.

hadenough wrote on November 27, 2007 11:47 AM:

Send in the clown.

Tip for ya:
When you have to quote the republican funded washington times to make a point you don't have a point.

Actual Vilsack quote:
""I'm not sure who watches her. Maybe young moms, maybe people who are retired. But we have the support of most retired Democrats," Vilsack told the Times."

That's not a clown's spin. That is what Vilsack said.

The clown:
"Vilsack's logic was that not many women in Iowa actually watch her show, as they're too busy working.

As it turns out, though, a whole lot of Iowans watch Oprah Winfrey."

What in Vilsack's actual quote lead you to your 'logic'? Humans want to know. Because what Vilsack actually said was maybe 'young moms' watch. Last I knew 'young moms' were women. So Vilsack says just the opposite. The clown's 'logic' lead else where.

As dumb as it gets. Now look closely and read the clowning carefully:
"Vilsack's logic was that not many women in Iowa actually watch her show, as they're too busy working.

As it turns out, though, a whole lot of Iowans watch Oprah Winfrey."

Does Vilsack say 'not many women in Iowa actually watch her show'? No. He says just the opposite. Does the clown prove lots women watch oprah? No. he says 'a whole lot of Iowans watch Oprah Winfrey.' See the trick there?

It's really sad to see tpm sink lower and lower.

osage wrote on November 27, 2007 11:49 AM:

The FREE positive publicity Oprah offers Obama should not be underestimated. She can significantly undercut the strength of Hiliary's female voting faction. If Obama wins in Iowa, it will be because of female voters.

KJ wrote on November 27, 2007 11:52 AM:

The biggest impact is that she energizes the race at a time, when I'm sure, most in Iowa are getting a bit fatigued of the whole thing. Obama still has to close the show though.

jbryan wrote on November 27, 2007 11:54 AM:

"Does Vilsack say 'not many women in Iowa actually watch her show'? No. He says just the opposite. Does the clown prove lots women watch oprah? No. he says 'a whole lot of Iowans watch Oprah Winfrey.' See the trick there?

It's really sad to see tpm sink lower and lower."

Did you read the Des Moines register story? This is what they said in full:

"
Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a national co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, told the Washington Times that Winfrey has fewer fans in Iowa than in other states, largely because a high number of working parents are not home during the day to see her show.

Iowans are more interested in who their neighbors, friends or family support, Vilsack said.

"I'm not sure who watches her. Maybe young moms, maybe people who are retired. But we have the support of most retired Democrats," Vilsack told the Times."

You're arguing that TPM is misconstruing things when the paper said exactly what TPM alleged. You're basing this off a partial quote from Vilsack... do you have the full extent of his remarks?

Michael wrote on November 27, 2007 11:58 AM:

Stupid comment on vilsack's part no matter how you parse it. He should have just kept his mouth shut.

Jesse, how much did a night in the lincoln bedroom cost during clinton I? I forgot. Do you remember?

Jesse wrote on November 27, 2007 11:59 AM:

Keith:

Quote directly from WaPo

Fundraising vehicles known as leadership PACs, which can raise money in much larger chunks than candidates can for their own campaigns, have been a frequent target for criticism by watchdog groups. They argue that leadership PACs allow candidates to skirt campaign contribution and donation limits.

Scott Thomas, a Democrat and a former FEC chairman, said "there's probably no doubt" the PAC donations were aimed at increasing support for Obama's presidential race. "But in my experience, the commission has not had the stomach to reach out and characterize those kinds of contributions as impermissible," Thomas said.

Kent Cooper, the FEC's retired chief of public disclosure, said the commission, if it chose, could declare that Obama's presidential campaign and PAC were "affiliated," meaning some activities involving the PAC could be declared in-kind contributions to the presidential campaign that would exceed current donation limits.

"At this stage of the race, for a presidential candidate, it is a brazen effort to use every avenue to influence an election," Cooper said. "I can't believe the Obama people can keep a straight face and claim these aren't part of the presidential race."

Maybe its not illegal YET...but it really looks bad especially from someone who says he holds himself at a higher standard than everyone else. Also, I met Congressman Hodes from New Hampshire (one of the lucky recipients of the Obama money who once he banked the money came out in support of Obama)....he would do or say anything for a handout.

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 12:02 PM:

Here is something directly from the Times:

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2007/11/vilsack_suggests_iowa_has_fewe_1.html

Based on that link, I agree that Vilsack was less definitive on the subject of Oprah's Iowa viewership than the Des Moines Register suggested (and hence less definitive than Eric suggested).

That said, when askled about Oprah's viewership, Vilsack clearly should have stopped at "I don't honestly know." The less people like him talk about Oprah, the better for his candidate.

Jesse wrote on November 27, 2007 12:03 PM:

Michael

I don't know how much a night in the Lincoln bedroom cost...maybe you could enlighten me about Obama's relationship with Renzo...or if Edwards moved into his $10 million (energy inefficient) house yet! As I said yesterday people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 12:08 PM:

Jesse, I would ask you to look at the source of the WaPo article: John Soloman. Mr. Soloman has a long and distinguished career of implying impropriety by Dems when there was no "there" there.

Read Obama's response and Smith's reporting and make up your own mind.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Obamas_defense.html

Michael wrote on November 27, 2007 12:09 PM:

Not arguing with your point on the glass houses thing at all. So why do clinton II lovers throw bolders? Of all the candidates with problems associated with campaign finance clinton II and clinton I lead the pack by a huge, huge, HUGE margin on the dem side. Sounds kind of hypocritical to me to be harping on this non-issue about obama.

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 12:09 PM:

Jesse,

It turns out from other reporting that the PAC apparently distributed the funds widely, including to Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, uncommitted officials, candidates in early primary states, and candidates in later primary states.

Also, it turns out that apparently the FEC has been considering this issue for something like 20 years, and has yet to rule that this sort of contribution is impermissible (note that what Scott Thomas said to the Post is consistent with that history).

And most importantly, all this information is coming from reports filed with the FEC. So, if the FEC does think there is a problem, presumably it will notify the PAC and seek a remedy.

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 12:15 PM:

Jesse:

I read the article, did you bother to read the post from Ben Smith? It's not illegal, it's not consider illegal and, until there is a change in the law, it won't be illegal.

Here's the proof: At least a handful of the recipients of Hopefund contributions have backed HRC: why haven't any of them come forward to suggest that the contributions were offered as a quid pro quo?

This is a non-story; a desperate attempt by HRC to cut into Obama's message. Which not only fails, but reminds us that back in March she paid off Vilsack's campaign debts after he endorsed her, or that Susan Lynch and Harkin's wife have both received money from HRC's campaign, or that she's paying a legislator who endorsed her $10M per month in South Carolina. We can keep going if you like, but I don't you will convince me of Obama's illegal behavior and I KNOW that it would be futile to convince you that HRC hardly has clean hands on this or any other issue related to campaign finance.

hadenough wrote on November 27, 2007 12:15 PM:

"You're arguing that TPM is misconstruing things when the paper said exactly what TPM alleged. You're basing this off a partial quote from Vilsack... do you have the full extent of his remarks?"

Well no. I have the actual quote provided just like kleefeld did. The actual quote that says just the opposite of what kleefeld does.

The clown:
"Vilsack's logic was that not many women in Iowa actually watch her show, as they're too busy working."

That is what tpm said. kleefeld fired up his brain cell and decided that's what Vilsack meant. Of course what Vilsack actually said was completely different.

And the papers said saddam had WMD. Here’s a tip just for ya: The papers lie. When there is an actual quote it's best to go with the actual quote.

DemAC wrote on November 27, 2007 12:17 PM:

Poor, poor little Michael,
But by all means, do harp. I mean: that’s what you do after all. Why let your name calling and meanness towards Hillary Clinton get in the way of you harping about Obama a bit too. Harp on!

chigger wrote on November 27, 2007 12:34 PM:

I'm not all that sure Iowans care much what Vilsack says. Afterall, Vilsack, also a presidential candidate himself before dropping out early-on, could barely poll even into double digits in his home state of Iowa, if I recall correctly.

votenic wrote on November 27, 2007 1:12 PM:

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

jr wrote on November 27, 2007 1:18 PM:

Who knows? Perhaps Oprah's support for Obama will go down like her movie "Beloved." Don't discount her power, though... Like her or not, she's built her career on integrity. She's not about to risk her own reputation by playing political games. That fact alone gives her far more credibility than Bill Clinton.

Those that dismiss her as a mere book-mover are missing the point. Oprah Winfrey sells IDEAS. Many - most? - of her fans look to her for ways to improve their life. I've been known to roll my eyes at her on many occasions. Still, I believe that if Winfrey chose to run for President, the race would be all but over.

DonnaG wrote on November 27, 2007 1:30 PM:

Just lamenting once again the change in EC since August/September.......this site seems now to be troll heaven wih new troll DemAC just the latest embodiment of those who can live and thrive under the new EC bridgework.

bob wrote on November 27, 2007 1:42 PM:

While this is certainly a silly "story" for anyone to cover, the real issue is that Vilsack's wife probably would compete well with Oprah. She is very well regarded in Iowa and would rival Oprah in reaching out to the Iowa women.

megisi wrote on November 27, 2007 2:08 PM:

Vilsack got it wrong ... Iowa women, along with hundreds of millions of other Americans, are too busy going to Ron Paul events to watch Oprah.

slcathena wrote on November 27, 2007 3:00 PM:

DonnaG wrote on November 27, 2007 1:30 PM: Just lamenting once again the change in EC since August/September.......this site seems now to be troll heaven wih new troll DemAC just the latest embodiment of those who can live and thrive under the new EC bridgework.

Seconded.

runescape money wrote on December 6, 2007 2:50 AM:

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold
buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve online isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve online isk

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)