Where’s Oprah?

And other questions in the wake of Barack Obama’s loss in Pennsylvania last night.

1. How low is the candidate of hope and change willing to go?

“In the two weeks leading up to the Indiana primary, a Democratic strategist familiar with the Obama campaign said aides are likely to turn to the controversies of Bill Clinton’s White House years – Hillary Clinton’s trading cattle futures, Whitewater and possibly impeachment,” the Washington Post reports.

“[Obama campaign manager David] Plouffe would not say the campaign planned to address that period, but seemed open to the possibility in the future: ‘The Republicans certainly are going to look at those issues, the Clinton finances, the record issues. We have chosen not to go there.'”

I think you just did.

2. Will John Edwards make an endorsement in his home state of North Carolina?

Not likely, but Elizabeth Edwards apparently will appear at a couple Clinton events (fifth item). The Edwards’ like Clinton’s health care plan better and believe you have to fight – not unite – to achieve policy solutions. They think Obama is naive, but they aren’t thrilled with Clinton’s insider ways.

3. Is John Mellencamp bitter?

Only at the fact that he can’t get on the radio anymore; that’s why he’s playing both sides of the fence these days.

4. Are Indiana and North Carolina really the next battlegrounds?


5. Where’s Oprah?

She suddenly got very, very busy with other things.


2 responses to “Where’s Oprah?

  1. Unindicted Co-conspirator

    Oprah took a big hit for her Obama support in Iowa.
    She got more media coverage than he did & maybe his people told her to stay away.
    I also think that her big head got her to thinking she could run & win something.
    Her TV ratings have also tanked since Iowa & her ‘Giving’ show has been a major failure, both in ratings & general support of what she claimed was a charitable work, but like all Oprah projects was about the most important person in the world to Oprah, Oprah of course, silly!

  2. thegreatgeno

    So Hillary Clinton gets to talk about her role in all the positive things that happened during those years (even if what’s said is not so truthful), but Obama can’t point out the negatives?

    Certainly there are tasteless ways to attack the Clinton Presidency, but I also think there are legitimate attacks to be made. Saying Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be President because of Bill’s sex scandal is tasteless. Saying that it would be hard for Hillary to win because nobody mobilizes Republicans like a Clinton, and using his unjust impeachment as illustration of such a fact, is indeed legitimate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s