Oprah Winfrey versus John Mellencamp

DES MOINES -- The announcement of John Mellencamp's Wednesday night show to cap the Iowa caucus campaign of John Edwards did not provoke the media frenzy that accompanied Oprah Winfrey's Des Moines tarmac tap on behalf of rival Democrat Barack Obama.

For this, Edwards should be thankful.

Obama stalled in the Iowa polls after Winfrey visited the state on his behalf early in December. With hours to go before the caucusing begins, he's essentially where he was a month ago -- ahead in many polls, but mainly on the strength of young and independent voters who may or may not show for caucuses that traditionally have been dominated by older and more partisan Democrats.

In contrast, national front-runner Hillary Clinton, who fumbled repeatedly in November and early December, and Edwards, who had been written out of the race by some pundits, appear to have regained their positions going into tonight's voting.

Obama misread Iowa. He bet on style over substance in a state where activist Democrats take seriously the definitional role their play in the nominating process. The senator from Illinois, who had so much momentum at the beginning of December, calculated that the Hawkeye state might be locked up by a recommendation from a multi-media persona whose entry into presidential politics came off a little like the launch of a new "project."

None of this means that Obama should be counted out in Iowa. He has spent far more money than the other candidates on slick TV ads, he has hired some of the best caucus strategists and his campaign is tossing every charge and claim it can muster into a drive to blunt the momentum that has belonged to Edwards since he dominated the last pre-caucus debate between the Democratic contenders.

Obama is still the safe bet to win tonight.

But, despite his many advantages, the Illinoisan could well finish behind Edwards.

That's because the 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president has waged a dramatically different campaign than Obama's feel-good effort. Where Obama has run the softest sort of campaign, Edwards is mounting a edgy, muscular effort that owes more to the memory of Paul Wellstone or the sensibilities of Ralph Nader than to the smooth triangulations of Bill Clinton or the not-so-smooth compromises of John Kerry.

Edwards has fought his way back into contention with aggressively populist positions, anti-corporate rhetoric and a campaign that eschews glitz for grit -- as evidenced by a grueling 36-hour marathon campaign swing that includes the Mellencamp visit. Necessarily, the former senator from North Carolina opts for a different sort of celebrity than the other contenders.

So it is that Mellencamp comes to Iowa to close the Edwards celevrate the Edwards campaign with a "This Is Our Country" rally at the not-exactly-Hollywood Val Air Ballroom in West Des Moines. (In case anyone missed the point here, tickets were distributed not through some slick internet delivery system but from the United Steelworkers Local 310 hall.)

Where Winfrey brought a big name but little in the way of a track record on issues that are fundamental to the rural and small-town Iowans who historically have played a disproportional role in tonight's caucuses, Mellencamp is more than just another celebrity taking a lap around the policy arena.

For a quarter century, the singer has been in the thick of the fight on behalf of the rural families he immortalized in the video for "Rain on the Scarecrow," his epic song about the farm crisis that buffeted Iowa and neighboring states in the 1980s and never really ended.

Mellencamp has not merely sung about withering small towns and farm foreclosures. As a organizer of Farm Aid, he has brought some of the biggest stars in the world to benefit concerts in Iowa and surrounding states, and he has helped to distribute the money raised at those events to organizations across Iowa.

Farm Aid is nonpartisan. It's not endorsing in this race. But Mellencamp is. The singer, who this year will be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame but whose music remains vital enough to have earned a 2008 Grammy nomination for Best Rock Vocal Performance, was lobbied for support by other campaigns, especially Clinton's. But he has a long relationship with Edwards. He has an even longer relationship with the issues that Edwards is talking about. Indeed, his credibility is grounded in the recognition that Mellencamp has repeatedly taken career-risking anti-war, anti-racist and anti-poverty stances that other celebrities of his stature tend to avoid.

What matters, of course, is the fact of that credibility -- and the fact that it is so closely tied to the farm and rural issues that have meaning even in the more urbanized regions of Iowa. That is why, if there is an endorsement that is going to have meaning with the people who drive down country roads to attend caucuses Thursday night, it could well be that of the guy who proudly sings that, "I was born in a small town..."

Comments (36)

1. i imagine all of these candidates will abandon farmers the way they have abandoned manufacturing workers.

   the breadbasket of the world will be divvied up between monsanto, adm, cargill, etc. to grow pork corn for ethanol,

   and north american food will be grown in china.

   bon appétit!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/31/2007 @ 01:16am

2. I wonder if Mellencamp would still support him if he had seen this:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

   John Edwards is about as down-home as a $400 haircut. How on Earth can you rail against greed all the while amassing a multi-million dollar fortune? Southerners know a fraud when we see one, that's why John Edwards didn't run for re-election for his Senate seat. I'm praying for Obama to win, and I've already cast my South Carolina absentee ballot for him!

   Posted by martincaver at 12/31/2007 @ 01:56am

3. How much does Hillary spend on her hair? Do you think Obama goes and gets a $12 trim at SuperCuts before his big appearances? Let's not even talk about the Republicans. I'm sure Mitt spends $400 on hairspray every month alone.

   And does any of this matter? Not at all, unless you're a right wing pundit that would rather avoid talking about the ailing middle class, the lack of universal healthcare, and our wonderful little adventure in the Middle East. Ever since Nixon first looked like a corpse debating Kennedy, making sure the candidate lives up to the unforgiving eye of the television has been the norm. Given the stakes and a busy campaign schedule, a $400 haircut doesn't exactly seem unreasonable to me.

   Posted by santacruzluke at 12/31/2007 @ 03:39am

4. Well, Mr Nichols....

   Gore Wins the Norwegian Primary BLOG | Posted 10/12/2007 @ 06:42am. by John Nichols

   Posted by Mask at 12/31/2007 @ 07:43am

5. FZ: just as long as I can get genetically modified rice with that unique flavor.

   Posted by steve foster at 12/31/2007 @ 11:09am

6. A Mellencamp endorsement might sell big in Iowa, but I have a feeling Oprah's endorsement will carry more weight on a national level. So, maybe Obama comes in 2nd or 3rd in Iowa, Oprah's blessing could come in more handy in other states. But I guess this article is focusing only on Iowa.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 12/31/2007 @ 11:09am

7. Jomama: yeh! let's get to some real endorsements - like the common person, down to earth tv evangelists, and mega church humble conduits of god.

   Posted by steve foster at 12/31/2007 @ 11:38am

8. Mellencamp is a bigger capitalist and money earner as Edwards....>/i>

   Posted by JOMAMMA 12/31/2007 @ 10:34am

   Right you are!!

   As the number of media options have exploded, Guerrilla Marketing has taken hold....it takes many forms. For `established' Celebs, one way to extend their shelf life at NO PR costs, is to come out into the open with their political views......Niche Marketing just like internet ads.....a win, win for themselves and their causes.

   Those of us who are less inclined (today) to spend money on the out-of-closet uber Lib/Celebs--Sean Penn as example--certainly can't retract the money we spent on them in building up their careers.....sigh! Sure glad I was never a Dixie Chick fan....;-)

   Posted by Happy at 12/31/2007 @ 11:39am

9. As has already been pointed out....FDR came from a very wealthy family, he lived in a mansion before he became President...but he certainly became a champian of the working class, poor, elderly and unions...didn't he?

   Posted by Chabuka at 12/31/2007 @ 12:20pm

10. Posted by JOMAMMA 12/31/2007 @ 12:28pm

    our whole monetary system is a ponzi scheme.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/31/2007 @ 12:36pm

11. I'll never forget this passage from a recent Vanity fair profile of him and his wife, Elain Irwin-Mellencamp; both of whom are well known in their community for their anti-war and anti-Bush stances:

    "[S}omeone slipped a nasty anonymous note into her car while her sons were working off excess energy at the local rock-climbing center. Irwin-Mellencamp says she went back into the facility and urged whoever had planted the note to come down off the wall and debate the matter face-to-face. No one descended."

    Can anyone doubt that the Mellencamps cares far more about their country than about making money, or maintaining their safety and solitude? After seven years of unchecked Republican wilding, this precicely the kind of fearlessness we need to take our country back. I'll take Mellencamp over Oprah's platitude peddlers, poseurs and razzle dazzle hyper-consumerism any day of the week.

    Posted by haskells at 12/31/2007 @ 1:13pm

12. For Edwards, it is not how many celebs you can fool with your progressive "talk", it is Iowans waking up to the fact that Edwards was NOT there for them when it counted, when he was in the Senate.

    He voted against the interest of the Iowan progressive and now hopes this same voter has an extremely short memory and is fooled by his slick lawyer "talk" that he used to fool juries for decades.

    Edwards is a fraud. And the more Iowans and other voters focus on his record and behavior - what he does rather than what he says - his campaign to be president will be exposed for what it really is - personal ambition over substance.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/31/2007 @ 1:16pm

13. Edwards is a great "talker" as you would expect from a trial lawyer. But when it wasn't just "talk", and he had to "vote" in the Senate, he DID NOT vote progressive and voted for free trade deals with China that the corporations he "talks" badly about wanted:

    1. Trade with China (Bill Number: HR 4444)

    Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

    2. Travel Ban to Cuba (Bill Number: S 1234)

    Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

    3. Religious Symbols in Public Schools (Bill Number: S 254)

    Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

    4. Strengthen Penalties Against Juveniles (Bill Number: S 254)

    Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

    5. Closure of Unnecessary Military Bases (Bill Number: S 1059)

    Edwards: No Feingold: Yes

    6. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)

    Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

    7. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)

    Edwards: No Feingold: Yes

    8. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)

    Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

    9. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)

    Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

    And NO "anti-corporate titan" would invest in and profit from the very anti-progressive corporations that he rails against such as oil stocks, defense stocks, and subprime lenders that prey on the poor.

    See this --> http://tinyurl.com/23emhw

    Edwards is an anti-corporate PHONY.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/31/2007 @ 1:22pm

14. Posted by METTEYYA 12/31/2007 @ 1:22pm

    I know that repetition is the essence of propoganda, but even you must be weary of cutting and pasting your tired old post over and over and over again. You should consider numbering them instead. That way you could just write: "M19" instead of trotting out votes that Edwards cast way back when Obama still had a little credibility as a progressive, that is before he came to Washington.

    Posted by haskells at 12/31/2007 @ 2:32pm

15. Mellencamp is about down to earth as it gets. Edwards had to toe the line in the senate not unlike the campaine. We all see how far Feingolds flash in the pan politic has gotten him. Edwards knows the game ,corparations fear him, dont shit yourself they love Hillary,and hope for Obama the rookie. Edwards is electable and has vision for the workers of this country,how you gonna pay the bills? Remember be carefull what you pray for.

    Posted by union made at 01/01/2008 @ 5:35pm

16. "Southerners know a fraud when we see one..."

    Posted by MARTINCAVER

    Then how did Reagan and Georgie Jr carry the South?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2008 @ 10:59am

17. Obama's vote on the credit card bill demonstrates exactly who he is and what he stands for.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2008 @ 11:01am

18. John Edwards is about as down-home as a $400 haircut. How on Earth can you rail against greed all the while amassing a multi-million dollar fortune? Southerners know a fraud when we see one, that's why John Edwards didn't run for re-election for his Senate seat. I'm praying for Obama to win, and I've already cast my South Carolina absentee ballot for him!

    Posted by MARTINCAVER 12/31/2007 @ 01:56am

    That's a strange argument to make. We can't support someone on account of their success? If we had followed that logic, FDR and JFK could never have been elected.

    What about noblesse oblige?

    Posted by hhemwm at 01/02/2008 @ 11:41am

19. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/31/2007 @ 01:16am | ignore this person

    notsofast, pal. I belong to a community supported agriculture project, and have been enjoying fresh veggies for a decade or more. the framer too is well taken care of. these kinds of projects have been growing all over the place. perhaps even in Ontariariario.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 11:42am

20. Posted by HHEMWM 01/02/2008 @ 11:41am | ignore this person

    to be honest, both FDR and JFK got their money from dad.

    when voting for one of two rich men, I'll vote for the one who shows concern for the less fortunate. Bush for instance has shown concern only for the rich and super rich.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 11:46am

21. Mellencamp, a mediocre rocker, is not even in the same universe of star power that Oprah is.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 11:51am

22. I just find it rather amusing that the Republicans and conservatives on here have such a problem with people on the left being wealthy. It's like they are angry because they are class traitors or something like that. Very interesting...

    On another issue, personally, they all are rich assholes, and I'm not so sure any of them are getting my vote. Stay tuned.

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/02/2008 @ 12:19pm

23. "Obama is still the safe bet to win tonight.

    But, despite his many advantages, the Illinoisan could well finish behind Edwards."

    Boy, talk about "hedging your bets", Mr Nichols. Heads you win, tails you win, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 12:26pm

24. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/02/2008 @ 11:51am

    Boy, don't you just love a campaign (primary in this case) that comes down to "My celebrity endorser is better than YOUR celebrity endorser!"

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 12:28pm

25. and I'm not so sure any of them are getting my vote. Stay tuned.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 01/02/2008 @ 12:19pm | ignore this person

    not voting will really show 'em. yeah, right.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 12:30pm

26. Bran: good to be part of local growing in order to get your needed foodstuffs, but, FZ has a good point about the biofuel thing. America can always import Chilean grapes, or whatever is no longer grown here to make way for corn. Hell, Americans have gotten so used to imported agricultural products that we don't even know what grows in what season anymore.

    More than the effect on the american consumer for diversified food products being overtaken by the quick fix, big money to be made in the subsidized biofuel market are countries like Brazil. They will adjust exports radically to meet the biofuel demand in the u.s. What about the sustaining agriculture of brazil (very heightened income dispartity) and other countries that would help take care of their own at home? This is nothing new, but, remains a real dilemna for agricultural exporters not the u.s. They will also use far more of their own petro energy to produce the biofuel products the u.s. will consume (biofuel production is very costly in fossil fuel).

    Off the editorial topic, but, pertinent to some of the posts.

    Posted by steve foster at 01/02/2008 @ 2:53pm

27. Hell, Americans have gotten so used to imported agricultural products that we don't even know what grows in what season anymore.

    America is so big that everything is in season somewhere in the US.this is not in itself a problem.

    I do see the point about biofuels, but the deathknell for the small farmer is premature.

    true globalisation would dramatically lower our food bills.see oranges from Brazil, sugar from Cuba, rice from I don't know where, etc,

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 3:02pm

28. When was the last time a poor person was elected president?

    If it were impossible for a wealthy person to care for the plight of the common man, then the common man would have no hope.

    I don't give a rat's ass about haircuts or mansions. I'm not interested in the minutiae about where Edwards' gazillions are invested. And his admission to being wrong on prior votes that progressives might otherwise find offensive is as close as any candidate has come to exhibiting anything like personal growth.

    I long ago tired of the equivocation, triangulation, and vague, feel-good bullshit offered up by the other Democratic candidates. Our nation is broken, and its soul has been sold. Instead of waffling around the things we might want to hear, John Edwards is saying the things that need to be said.

    If he becomes the nominee, I will vote for him with ease.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/02/2008 @ 3:19pm

29. When was the last time a poor person was elected president?

    never?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 3:21pm

30. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/02/2008 @ 3:21pm |

    How would that even be possible? By its very definition a "poor person" would atleast be on the Government dole or working so hard that they would become even MORE poor if they stopped working to run.

    Plus, would we abandon the idea of "experience" entirely (given any previously elected person would have atleast a middle-class income from their previous political office)....or education, since a "poor person" would (again by its very nature) have NO education beyond public school.

    Now, if we say "middle class person elected President"...depends on how you define it and if you count the income from their previous political office. Truman had little personal wealth...Eisenhower was a major general and university President, but not incredibly wealthy....Carter owned some peanut land....and Bill Clinton had little personal wealth as well.

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 3:54pm

31. The Nation -- posted August 7, 2007 -- Learning to Love the Farm Bill -- Matthew Blake

    '...But among progressive activists, outrage is the most common response. A broad coalition of fair-trade groups, environmentalists, religious organizations and fiscal conservatives are furious with a "broken system" of age-old subsidies to grain and cotton farmers. Reform groups like Oxfam America repeatedly cite the statistic that 75 percent of all subsidies go to the top 10 percent of producers of staple goods like corn. They underline the bureaucratic mess of a system that allows celebrity farmers like David Letterman and Scottie Pippen to receive farm subsidies. Organizations from Taxpayers for Common Sense to the Progressive National Baptist Convention argue that subsidies encourage mass production by agribusiness, dump unwanted crops on developing countries and destroy the livelihood of farmers in the Third World. ...'

    'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/02/2008 @ 4:14pm

32. Posted by MASK 01/02/2008 @ 3:54pm

    I used the term "poor person" loosely in making the point that automatically using wealth as a disqualifier for a candidate's ability to serve the middle class is a mistake.

    Your splitting of hairs over the definitions of the terms "poor" or "middle class" was pointless, despite your well-established reputation for dog-in-the-manger distractions.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/02/2008 @ 4:23pm

33. Upon re-reading my prior post, I realized it sounded a little combative. That was not my intent.

    (Sorry.)

    Posted by drhammer at 01/02/2008 @ 4:55pm

34. all of these champions of the poor freeze terrified whenever one asks them to propose reforms to redirect health care money to actual care and away from the pockets of hmo executives, hc investors, and venal doctors [except for kucinich]. it's the usual fraudulent exercise that keeps half of the nation home at election day. people are not as stupid as the pundits advertising this charade.

    Posted by marcdunord at 01/02/2008 @ 11:05pm

35. When was the last time a poor person was elected president?

    But we are shifting more and more to wealthy individuals seeking office - and having more chance of getting it because there is no real campaign financing reform.

    Take Mitt Romney. I heard he has incredible personal wealth, why would he want to be President?

    We Americans regard the office as we do with say being a corporate manager. The Presidency is another thing, it needs to fulfill a social role. An aristocrat, for example, should not be President because he has not even known the poor. A President will have dozens, even hundreds of consultants, advisors, and lawyers that will do the numbers and the rules for him. It is truly his/her philosophy that will define him/her. It is about being wise and understanding, having a broad scope and length of vision, about caring for people and sustaining law, but more than that, justice which is or should be the spirit of law. (Ooops, I must have defined GWB!)

    So, a political system is biased if a 'middle class' person- like for example a university professor, a nurse, a small business owner or by that mean anyone that is NOT a lawyer- has very little chance of getting nominated, else elected.

    Posted by Frank42 at 01/03/2008 @ 01:01am

36. and venal doctors

    who are those?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 09:15am