I'd vote for Oprah. How about you?

drummerboy

This is a person who, once she sets her mind to something, usually succeeds.

She's liberal, as far as I know.

I assume she has weaknesses, but off the top of my head I can't think of any, other than her support for Dr. Phil. And, after probably thousands(?) of shows, I'm sure there are a lot of clips that might prove embarrassing.

Still, having the Dem candidate be one of the most admired persons in America is a good thing. I'm sure she'd surround herself with competent people.


Like  1 Like
angelak

After her speech at the Golden Globes last night, I'd definitely vote for her.  



Like  1 Like
John

Oprah began 2002 with support for Iraq II.  Later, she changed her position and was anti-war. I have difficulty supporting anyone who thought Iraq II was a good idea, even if they changed their position.


Like  3 Likes
RobB

Ridiculous. 


That said, I’d vote for a Judge Judy/Steve Harvey ticket over Trump/Pence.


Like  1 Like
drummerboy

I was unaware of her position on the Iraq war, but this article says that she turned anti-war well before the war started.

https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/12/15/big-brained-oprah-tried-to-stop-the-war-with-iraq/

But by November 2002, Oprah had suddenly jumped off the media’s pro-war bandwagon.  In his book Dude where’s my country? anti-war advocate Michael Moore praised her for being the only mainstream media at the time to show footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein’s hand in the 1980s.

However the most significant anti-war show Oprah would do was a two-day special that aired the day after Colin Powell’s pivotal February 2003 U.N. speech making the case for war, which was credited with shifting public opinion in favor of regime change.  Winfrey recruited reporters from CNN to gather clips from people from countries as diverse as Britain, France, South Africa, Iraq, and Pakistan all trying to persuade America not to go to war, along with anti-war luminaries like Nelson Mandela and Pope John Paul II.  Here’s a brief clip from that show.

p.s. Jamie, if you're out there, can you add a block quote widget to the reply dialog?


Formerlyjerseyjack said:

She certainly was great with her support of Gulf War II.



Like  
kthnry

^^


Like  1 Like
Mike


drummerboy said:

This is a person who, once she sets her mind to something, usually succeeds.

I thought this about Arnold, so we need to be wary about this.


You think Obama faced unjustified obstruction and hatred?  What would Hillary have faced?  Well with Oprah you can kick those numbers up several notches.  


I personally don’t like that she has to put her name and face on everything.  Hmm, does anyone else come to mind with that trait?  


Having said all of that I would probably vote for her. 


Like  
drummerboy

seems to me that Arnold's record of accomplishment, while substantial, falls far short of Oprah's.


Red_Barchetta said:



drummerboy said:

This is a person who, once she sets her mind to something, usually succeeds.

I thought this about Arnold, so we need to be wary about this.




You think Obama faced unjustified obstruction and hatred?  What would Hillary have faced?  Well with Oprah you can kick those numbers up several notches.  




I personally don’t like that she has to put her name and face on everything.  Hmm, does anyone else come to mind with that trait?  




Having said all of that I would probably vote for her. 



Like  
Gary

Oprah is a desirable person, but I am only going to vote for someone with actual government experience. No novice. 


Like  2 Likes
Nancy

Oprah would be a horrible choice for president.  This is a real job, remember?  Not a vanity position. She's manufactured, styled personality.  We don't even know what she is really like or what her platform would be.  Why would anyone want someone for president without knowing that?  I suspect she would just be more of the same neoliberal crap that we have had for the past 30 years and ended up in the new Gilded Age. How would she handle foreign policy?  I know she reads a lot of books, but most of them seem to be fiction. We deserve better.


Like  3 Likes
Steven

Who I would vote for is like an equation. I need to see both sides to solve for x. 


Like  2 Likes
Morganna

OK, just to explore my options DB, who do you see her running against in the Primaries. Naturally if she was the Dem candidate, most of us would vote for her over Trump or Pence. But as long as we are entertaining the thought, who could be up for consideration in 2020. I stare at C Span watching the current flock of Senators, although my pal thinks the best options come from  the Governors. So let's put out the names of our favorite could be candidates.


Like  
South

What is "neoliberal crap" anyway, besides thirty years old?

nan said:

Oprah would be a horrible choice for president.  This is a real job, remember?  Not a vanity position. She's manufactured, styled personality.  We don't even know what she is really like or what her platform would be.  Why would anyone want someone for president without knowing that?  I suspect she would just be more of the same neoliberal crap that we have had for the past 30 years and ended up in the new Gilded Age. How would she handle foreign policy?  I know she reads a lot of books, but most of them seem to be fiction. We deserve better.



Like  
angelak

If she can beat the current horror of a president, I'm all for her.


Like  1 Like
flimbro

wow. I thought this was a gag. It's not?


Like  2 Likes
drummerboy

mark my words...

flimbro said:

wow. I thought this was a gag. It's not?



Like  
angelak

Watch the tribute to her from the Golden Globes last night, then watch her speech accepting the Cecil B. de Mille Award.  I hadn't previously heard any buzz about her as a candidate, but the tribute and her speech seemed like a test run to me.


Like  1 Like
angelak

And believe me when I say I've not heard any buzz.  I've been so traumatized since last November, I barely consume any news beyond major headlines anymore.


Like  2 Likes
Miriam

Not a great idea, although of course she's a hell of a lot more acceptable than the current occupant. She's literate and principled, hugely successful, and seems sane. But surely we've learned our lesson about electing a politically inexperienced celebrity to be LOTFW.


Like  1 Like
angelak

Unless it's movie or tennis news, that is.  I'm really up on those.  cheese

angelak said:

And believe me when I say I've not heard any buzz.  I've been so traumatized since last November, I barely consume any news beyond major headlines anymore.



Like  1 Like
drummerboy

at this point I definitely see Gillebrand running. Maybe Biden, but I think that would be a total mistake. Cuomo. Ugh. Go away please. Booker will probably give it a shot. Maybe Bernie, though he's getting a bit long in the tooth. I'm sure there will be others.

Given those, my choice would be between Oprah and Gillebrand, and it would be tough choice.

People criticizing Oprah for lack of experience are being extremely short-sighted. She has a tremendous amount of management experience, and is obviously quite intelligent and accomplished. She knows enough that she would have to build a very substantial team.  And her whole professional life has been about appealing to people across whatever lines you'd like to draw, whether they be racial, ethnic, economic, whatever. She has obviously done a phenomenal job at that. No small feat.

In the end, being President involves understanding the issues and making decisions. Hire a great chief of staff and I have a lot of confidence that she could do that well.

What mostly appeals to me though is that she could really be a unifying figure, bringing together people who would otherwise remain apart. She has the charisma to do that - something I don't see in any other Dem prospect. And at this point in our history, I see this as a quite important quality. We can only drift apart for so much longer before the country just falls apart. And we're near that point, I fear.

(all of this comes under the assumption that policy-wise, she would be a good deal left of center. I guess that remains to be seen.)

Morganna said:

OK, just to explore my options DB, who do you see her running against in the Primaries. Naturally if she was the Dem candidate, most of us would vote for her over Trump or Pence. But as long as we are entertaining the thought, who could be up for consideration in 2020. I stare at C Span watching the current flock of Senators, although my pal thinks the best options come from  the Governors. So let's put out the names of our favorite could be candidates.



Like  2 Likes
Nancy


South_Mountaineer said:

What is "neoliberal crap" anyway, besides thirty years old?
nan said:

Oprah would be a horrible choice for president.  This is a real job, remember?  Not a vanity position. She's manufactured, styled personality.  We don't even know what she is really like or what her platform would be.  Why would anyone want someone for president without knowing that?  I suspect she would just be more of the same neoliberal crap that we have had for the past 30 years and ended up in the new Gilded Age. How would she handle foreign policy?  I know she reads a lot of books, but most of them seem to be fiction. We deserve better.

Here is a less than three minute definition of neoliberalism:




Like  
angelak

I'm 100% with db on this one.


Like  1 Like
drummerboy

oy.  What a load of horse poop. And you think these qualities define the Dem party for the last xx years? How does Dodd-Frank fit into that, or the allowed expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans? And how are Dems being undemocratic? (try to answer without telling us that Hillary bought her nomination.)

But I was impressed that the company I work for was featured in a 2 second shot.



nan said:



South_Mountaineer said:

What is "neoliberal crap" anyway, besides thirty years old?
nan said:

Oprah would be a horrible choice for president.  This is a real job, remember?  Not a vanity position. She's manufactured, styled personality.  We don't even know what she is really like or what her platform would be.  Why would anyone want someone for president without knowing that?  I suspect she would just be more of the same neoliberal crap that we have had for the past 30 years and ended up in the new Gilded Age. How would she handle foreign policy?  I know she reads a lot of books, but most of them seem to be fiction. We deserve better.

Here is a less than three minute definition of neoliberalism:




Like  1 Like
nohero


paulsurovell said:


A 20 year old clip of Trump talking to Larry King.  I can't think of a less serious thing to consider in thinking about Oprah as a candidate.


Like  
cubby

This.

nan said:

Oprah would be a horrible choice for president.  This is a real job, remember?  Not a vanity position. She's manufactured, styled personality.  We don't even know what she is really like or what her platform would be.  Why would anyone want someone for president without knowing that?  I suspect she would just be more of the same neoliberal crap that we have had for the past 30 years and ended up in the new Gilded Age. How would she handle foreign policy?  I know she reads a lot of books, but most of them seem to be fiction. We deserve better.

Another tv personality with no government experience? Please.


Like  4 Likes
Nancy

Neoliberalism  defines the policies of establishment Democrats going back to Bill Clinton who killed Glass Stegall, an FDR era regulation meant to protect the economy.  Dodd-Frank was much weaker and the banks are now bigger than before the crash.  Clinton also  decimated welfare, and put in draconian laws that led to mass incarceration in privatised prisons. Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent. Obama's education polices supported charter schools, failed to stand up for unions and featured a market-based competition, "Race to the Top."  Obama bailed out the banks, but not the homeowners.  He let Citigroup pick out his cabinet.  Wealth inequality has grown to the level of the Gilded Age.  Obamacare was a rehash of Romneycare--a conservative, Heritage Foundation plan (he could have pushed for single-payer). Half the country is poor, and yet the the minimum age has not been raised in ages. These problems were not caused by Trump, however, the case can be made that they caused Trump to be elected.

drummerboy said:

oy.  What a load of horse poop. And you think these qualities define the Dem party for the last xx years? How does Dodd-Frank fit into that, or the allowed expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans? And how are Dems being undemocratic? (try to answer without telling us that Hillary bought her nomination.)


But I was impressed that the company I work for was featured in a 2 second shot.




Like  2 Likes
drummerboy

As I said earlier - a very shortsighted view. Obama barely had any government experience - and being a Senator is probably one the least qualifying positions you can have for being President.

While Trump is hardly a good example - it is not without merit to want a non-Washington person to be President.



cubby said:

This.
nan said:

Oprah would be a horrible choice for president.  This is a real job, remember?  Not a vanity position. She's manufactured, styled personality.  We don't even know what she is really like or what her platform would be.  Why would anyone want someone for president without knowing that?  I suspect she would just be more of the same neoliberal crap that we have had for the past 30 years and ended up in the new Gilded Age. How would she handle foreign policy?  I know she reads a lot of books, but most of them seem to be fiction. We deserve better.

Another tv personality with no government experience? Please.



Like  
ml1

if Trump runs for reelection I'd vote for a head of cabbage instead 


Like  3 Likes

In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.