Poor Oprah. Of course, Oprah is not poor by anyone's definition (we should all be so poor), but she found herself between a rock and a hard place on the question of whether to invite the newest, and right now probably the biggest, celebrity in the world on her show. To do Sarah or not to do Sarah? No good answer.
Of course, the ratings would be huge. And when someone in the entertainment business decides NOT to do something that would garner unbelievable ratings and attention, that decision is always subject to scrutiny.
But Oprah's decision to endorse Barack Obama for president last year has put her in an awkward place, straddling the roles of celebrity and politico, of entertainer and advocate, in a way that has probably done her far more harm than good, financially speaking. Endorsing Obama did not endear her to her many fans who counted themselves Hillary supporters, and who thought that if there were anyone in the world who should stand up for the first woman to mount a serious presidential campaign, it was Oprah. Was she putting race ahead of gender, racial solidarity ahead of ladies first?
Maybe. I didn't agree with her preference, but I respected the courage and commitment it reflected. It did Obama a great deal of good, but it didn't help Oprah any. Given that, the only reason to do it was principle.
Having endorsed Obama, and having taken heat for it, Oprah has since tried to keep her personal politics separate from her show's agenda. The minute I heard Sarah Palin wasn't going to be invited, I checked, and indeed, it is absolutely true that since endorsing Obama, neither he nor his wife has appeared on her show.
So why should Palin? Because people are curious? Because she is, without question, the woman du jour? Because it would show Oprah's "fairness"?
Or would it?
The problem for Oprah is that if she were to ask tough questions of Palin, ask her to defend her view that abortion should not be allowed even in cases of rape or incest, ask her about her support of "abstinence only" as the only form of sex education, ask her about her struggles to balance family and work, ask her the usual mix of personal and policy questions that she asks everybody else, she would almost certainly have everyone attacking her.
If it seemed like she was being tough on Palin, conservatives and their friends would say Oprah is beating up on her, Oprah is using her show for political purposes, Oprah is demeaning another woman to help her friend Barack.
Precisely because she is Obama's most famous supporter, even a completely straightforward interview would be dissected for moments of bias.
The truth is, only what we call a "wet kiss" — an interview that consisted of one softball after another — would avoid that charge of bias. But a wet kiss would inflame the Obama supporters among her viewers, who would then, with reason, accuse her of betraying her principles for her own sake, betraying her candidate and hurting the chances of the man she went out on a limb to support.
Heads: Sarah wins. Tails: Oprah loses.
Not a winning sort of choice for America's leading lady.
So Oprah did the only thing that seemed fair under the circumstances. She issued a statement saying Palin would be welcome, but after the election. It hasn't stopped critics from piling on. But nothing would have. That's what the space between a rock and a hard place looks like.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
10 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Susan, as a 66 yr old woman who has been a political junkie,rabid book reader, talk/news show listener, I have never responded in any way; however, I have observed you for many, many years and want to tell you that I really like and respect you. You are a rare bird out there now and a breath of fresh air. I don't often agree with you, but I have come to trust you to be an honest and patriotic American. As a very committed Christian, one who has devoted many many years to the study of the bible, I feel a kinship with you as an intellectually honest person...I have been watching Sarah closely because I need to know that she is not some kind of 'nut job', and have concluded that she is not. I believe that we do not live in a theocracy and that I have promoted my beliefsabout issues like abortion by supporting girls facing this decision on a personal level. I have lost respect for almost everyone in Congress - corruption is going to destroy us - don't want them to legislate about my body. Just want to encourage you to stay who you are - don't let any of the political whores pressure you to change.....opposite views, but I view Tammy the same way. We were founded on debate, and that is what has kept us free - but only the debate of sincere, intellectually honest people who strive to have an agenda that is more than just self-serving will preserve us all. Thank you
Comment: #1
Posted by: gayle rittgers
Tue Sep 9, 2008 10:33 PM
|
|
|
|
And I thought this week's column was going to be on McCain hitting the Big 5-0???
Comment: #2
Posted by: Carmen
Tue Sep 9, 2008 10:54 PM
|
|
|
|
While it is Oprah's show and her choice, I do think she missed the mark here. I think it would have been possible to interview Governor Palin as a person and not as a politician. Oprah created the school for girls in Africa to educate and teach leadership. The guests she has on her show are women in leadership roles, positive image types. Without getting into her politics I think she has a story that many women can relate to. Instead of a "gotcha" moment with key firestorm questions, she could have presented a human story. It makes Oprah looks like she talks the talk and misses the rest.
Comment: #3
Posted by: jbaugher
Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:27 AM
|
|
|
|
While Ms Estrich and I are rarely on the same side of the issues, I believe she (and Oprah) are absolutely right here. IMHO, Oprah is acting more responsibly than most of the so-called 'journalists' in the media. Most of the hollywood crowd would not hesitate to use every means at their disposal to promote their agenda. Oprah has doubtlessly already missed out on big ratings by not having either Obama on since his clinching the nomination. And, of course, nobody ever accused her of being stupid. Sure she forfeits some short-term success for a couple of months. The boost in her reputation for integrity is much bigger long-term. Given her past, I doubt this was the real motivation though.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Drew
Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:19 PM
|
|
|
|
I rarely watch Oprah. Now I will never watch Oparh again. I just following the lead of many others who gave me the logic. Why watch someone who uses celebrity to support politic candidates based on their color. She is in essence a true racist. Before she would never support a candidate and she would have them come on even Bush. Now we have a black candidate for President and she let him on and no others. My only counter to racism is to disassociate myself. So Oprah don't call me to ask if I saw your show. I didn't so there is no need.
WT
Comment: #5
Posted by: Bill Taylor
Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:16 PM
|
|
|
|
As much as I would like to see "Scripted Sarah" answer a few hardball questions, I have to agree with Susan that Oprah probably isn't the right place to do it. Where is Larry King? Or better yet, Jon Stewart?
Comment: #6
Posted by: Robert Underwood
Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Ms. Estrich, you are doing no less than covering for Oprah, and it is painfully obvious in your biased column. Winfrey is a partisan and, yes, a racist (the not prone to violence type) who feels totally free to flaunt her politics because she has lulled a mildly intelligent daytime audience of confused, looking-for-a-human-messiah women into blind loyalty.
In refusing Palin an interview she has only solidified any suspicions that she might be willing to be unfair, unsaint-like, if you will, and you are not fooling anyone who can distinguish between demagogue and saint.
If Obama gets elected you will really have your work cut out in covering his gaffes, miscues, overt reversals of campaign promises, marxist-based policy implementations, etc. Rest while you can, and keep worshipping Oprah Winfrey, the other black person who can do no worng in the eyes of the media of which she is Queen.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Lawrence Cataldo
Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:21 AM
|
|
|
|
I'm a Conservative and I actually like seeing Susan on FOX. I also agree that Oprah has every right to have whom ever she wants on her show. Ever hear of the Fairness Doctrine? It's something the Left dearly wants to introduce if they have the opportunity to do so. For those of us who disagree with the Fairness Doctrine it would be disingenuous of us to pounce on Oprah for not inviting Sarah on when we all know she's in the tank for Obama. Besides, it was her hard work and risk that made her into the succesful women she is today, so that said, she has every right to do what she wants with her show.
Comment: #8
Posted by: dgates
Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:40 PM
|
|
|
|
Who was the Oprah impersonator who "cried my eyelashes off" at the coronation of Obama at the convention if Oprah isn't pushing her agenda for Obama?
Comment: #9
Posted by: Von
Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:15 PM
|
|
|
|
I don't like Oprah's show or her politics. But I remember many years ago when she was a young reporter at WJZ in Baltimore. She was treated like DIRT by the two lead news anchors. She persevered and look at her now. No matter your politics or your entertainment preferences, you have to respect Oprah for all she has achieved.
I don't watch you anymore Oprah, but (and I have NEVER used these words before), you go girl!
Comment: #10
Posted by: Lenny
Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
