January 8, 2018

Why not Oprah for President?

It should at least make sense to those of you who've supported Donald Trump from the beginning.

When Trump got started as a candidate, I thought he was playing a publicity game and undermining the efforts of other candidates to get their candidacy rolling. It didn't seem fair: He had so much name recognition to start. He had his own money and needed to cater to no one. He was tremendously entertaining in rallies and interviews, and generated publicity around himself easily. He disarmed his rivals by just running on instinct. When he had gaps in his knowledge or comically simplistic proposals, he powered through. What looked ridiculous to me ended up working.

So how is Oprah any different? She's incredibly well-known and rich. She's been a successful businessperson and TV star. Her TV work is more impressive than Trump's was, because she she was communicating on a wide array of real-world issues, not just appearing within the structure of a reality-show competition with made-up challenges. People love to listen to her, even more than to Trump. She's been upstanding and hardworking for decades. She's no more left-wing than Trump is right-wing. The only lawsuit against her that I remember is that imbroglio with cowboys from which she emerged victorious and singing the praises of the First Amendment. The idea of her suddenly running for the top political office seems ridiculous, but that's just another point of comparison with Trump.

The main knock against her is that to say her background is sufficient is to admit Trump's background was sufficient. Maybe Trump's antagonists shouldn't want to say that. Wouldn't it give up the best argument against him? And yet if that argument against Trump was going to work, it would have worked in 2016. Once we get to 2020, Trump will have had years of experience as President, and he'll have more relevant experience than anyone. So why not give up that argument and say if Trump could do it, Oprah can do it? In fact, if Trump could do it, how dare you say Oprah cannot do it? You'll be racist and sexist if you demand more experience from Oprah than Trump had.

280 comments:

1 – 200 of 280   Newer›   Newest»
Rob McLean said...

Replace TV-star billionaire with no government experience with...another TV-star billionaire with no government experience!

anti-de Sitter space said...

Like those gays Althouse reads noted, she looks ok (for a golden years gal, and considering some of her earlier phases).

Plus DJT is gross regardless of Doperah's look.

So, what have you got to lose?

Meade said...

I love Oprah. I would like to see us make America great again by 2020 so that Trump can retire, bask in the glory of his leadership, and turn the POTUS over to President Winfrey who will carefully guide our ship of state for 4 more years.

Roughcoat said...

She's a progressive. That's my objection. Purely ideological.

Ann Althouse said...

Explain to me why Oprah makes less sense than Trump did.

Compare her to Trump when he was getting started, and don't argue about whether conservatism is better than liberalism. The Democrats will have a liberal candidate. The question is who should it be. I'm hypothesizing that Oprah is a perfectly good choice for them.

Meade said...

Please don't call Oprah "Doperah," PB Sitter Guy. It makes you look racist and sexist.

Ann Althouse said...

"She's a progressive. That's my objection. Purely ideological."

That's precisely the argument I want to exclude (see my 5:52 comment).

Liza Moon said...

given all the knives that will be thrown at her if she does, Oprah might get carved down to her ideal weight.

Ann Althouse said...

"Please don't call Oprah "Doperah"..."

It's like calling Trump "Drumpf." You look bad.

I know Trump himself calls people names....

William Chadwick said...

You know the old saying, "Is it good for the Jews?" I have a similar tunnel vision: "Is it good for liberty?" Or at least, "Would an Oprah presidency be worse for liberty than a second Trump term?" Given her enthusiastic support of the Red Diaper Baby's run for the White House vs. Trump's first year in office, I'll say: Yes, it would be worse.

Hari said...

Being a rich tv personality is neither necessary nor sufficient for winning a nomination.

Ann Althouse said...

By the way, she's a genius.

Look at what she did.

And like Ronald Reagan, she's an actress. Didn't she win an Oscar the first time she tried her hand at it?

Also, her name is Winfrey: WIN!! FREE!! So American.

google is evil said...

Trump has real experience building and running real operations. Oprah is simply a front for TV show and some Magazines. Big, Big difference.

Meade said...

Of course, we might be getting tired of so much winning by 2020 we might not want a president named WIN FREE.

dbp said...

Oprah is easily more accomplished than any of the Democratic politicians who might run, I think she would make a better president too.

I would rather have a Republican in the White House, but if a Democrat is to become President, we could probably not get a better Democrat than her.

Comanche Voter said...

Too bad she's not a lesbian or transgender. That would make her a three fer! She's female, she's the real deal as a black person--that's two that the Democrats would love.

On the plus side (for me at least) is that she appears to be a very competent businesswoman.

steve uhr said...

Do we get a free car if we vote for her?

chickelit said...

Althouse wrote: "It should at least make sense to those of you who've supported Donald Trump from the beginning."

What you wrote is confusing because those of us who supported Trump from the beginning wouldn't support Oprah at this juncture. Oprah represents Chicago-style corruption, just like early early Obama did. You should try to convince die-hard Hillary supporters instead. They are the one's hung up on prior experience.

james conrad said...

You are forgetting one thing here, American politics is a blood sport, i just don't see Oprah engaging in that kind of combat.

Meade said...

I've talked with 2 Hillary voters today and both of them said they would support Oprah for president.

Ann Althouse said...

She didn't win an Oscar, but she was nominated for an Oscar in her first movie, "The Color Purple."

The winner (in the supporting actress category) was Anjelica Huston, for "Prizzi's Honor."

There were 2 actresses from "The Color Purple" nominated in the same category.

rehajm said...

She could lose on substance but Dems like empty vessels- not necessarily a strike against her. She’s a formidable candidate on her charisma and TV IQ alone. Imagine the debate with whatever oppoenent the Dems put up against her.

Roughcoat said...

Okay. She's a perfectly good candidate for the Democrats, at least from an ideological standpoint. The question then becomes: can she win?

Bay Area Guy said...

As a celebrity, I tend to like Oprah. She seems intelligent, well-spoken, etc, etc.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Oprah running, and I do see the same similarities with Trump.

"Explain to me why Oprah makes less sense than Trump did."

In one important substantive respect -- "Build the Wall." Trump identified the illegal immigration issue as a big one, whereas many right-leaning folks (like me), didn't fully recognize how unfettered immigration was playing out in the white, non-college, blue collar community, and how Trump's opposition to it, would pave the way to his unlikely victory.

So, to reach the heights of the Trump phenomenon, Oprah would need to seize on at least one big issue. Is it Sexual Harassment? It could be. Most sane folks of either political party are against such nonsense, but the entertainment industry appears to be the biggest offenders, and they're mostly leftwing Dems.

Bottom line: it's a fair comparison.



john said...

steve uhr

+1

Pontiac went out of business, partly from giving away cars.

Inga said...

Neither Trump or Oprah have the requisite experience to be President, however Oprah would be willing and able to learn. She’s a true self made woman, didn’t inherit millions from her daddy. Her hardscabble formative years obviously gives her more insight on what iI is to be poor and how important it is to get a hand up to get out of poverty. She is a kind, thoughtful, sensitive, empathetic person, decent to the core. She is well liked around the world. She isn’t a self absorbed narcissist.

Having said all that, I’d prefer to have a Democratic female candidate with governmental experience.

Sally327 said...

I'll be interested in seeing Oprah's tax returns. Plus I understand all her people have to sign non-disclosure agreements. It will be interesting to delve into that as well. Can someone who's running for President hide behind old non-disclosure agreements to keep their secrets hidden?

Trump also benefited from the fact that the other people running didn't take his candidacy seriously either and focused on knocking each other out. It's hard to know how an Oprah run would play without knowing who else might be in the field.

john said...

Meade and Ann voted for Clinton.

Roughcoat said...

Too bad she's not a lesbian

Well . . .

Greg Hlatky said...


If Oprah wants to run, go through the grind of the primaries, debate all comers, press flesh, etc. she's perfectly free to.

"He who goes into Conclave as Pope comes out as a Cardinal."

rcocean said...

I'm willing to be open minded about Oprah, because I don't know much about her. BUT...

From what I understand, she is merely a TV-Showbiz personality. She extremely rich, but why? Because she built a media empire or because she had a good lawyer/business manager? She seems to be good at interviewing people. But how often does she talk without a script or a producer talking into her ear piece?

OTOH, Trump was a billionaire business man who WENT INTO show biz. And while he was "doing show biz" he was interacting "Behind the scenes" with Politicians as a major donor.

Oprah is TV personality who made some $$$, Trump is a businessman who made $$$ and then become a TV personality. Lets see Oprah go on Fox News and answer some tough policy questions. I'm willing to be convinced but I'm very skeptical.

Original Mike said...

"It should at least make sense to those of you who've supported Donald Trump from the beginning."

All two of them?

David53 said...

I would love to see them debate, I hope she goes for it.

Meade said...

Oprah grew up in Wisconsin so she's part Badger!

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that she would be formidable, but don’t see her getting the Democratic nomination. Probably could if things were reversed, and Republicans were the progressive party, and not the Democrats. The problem is that the Dems are very hierarchical. You have to, essentially, stand in line, waiting your turn. Obama was an elected exception, so maybe Oprah could do the same. That said, the Dems who win are the exceptions - Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

john dean said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Explain to me why Oprah makes less sense than Trump did."

I am not sure it makes any less sense but it may be less likely that she runs. I just read this somewhere but now I can't find the link to attribute it properly, so to paraphrase.

'Oprah's brand is built on being likable and she wants to be liked by everyone. The question is whether is she willing to take policy positions that will affect her likability with perhaps 50% of the country, and therefore affect her brand.'



TwilightofLiberty.com said...

I think her penchant for giving the audience one of everything for free could get expensive when the audience is the whole country. And I don't think she'd be using her own money.

Fritz said...

Comanche Voter said...
Too bad she's not a lesbian or transgender. That would make her a three fer! She's female, she's the real deal as a black person--that's two that the Democrats would love.


Still plenty of time. It could be the October surprise.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"I've talked with 2 Hillary voters today and both of them said they would support Oprah for president."

Your wife counts toward this tally.

But, talking to yourself doesn't.

So, that's just one.

Spaceman said...

Seems OK to me. But she was big friends with Harvey Weinstein. Internet photo of her planting a big ol' kiss on Harvey. And they all knew.

Roughcoat said...

In what sense is she a genius? In the sense that she has a genius for marketing herself and making money? Or that she's a genius in the sense that she has a superior intellect? If the latter, what evidence is there for that?

I do, however, believe she would make for an acceptable Democratic candidate.

Christopher said...

I was not an early supporter of Trump and I still don't like him so I suppose it's rather easy for me to state that she's as qualified now as Trump was at this same time in the election cycle.


As for non-ideological issues that I have with her, well she was a major purveyor of all sorts of bullshit psychobabble and pseudoscience over the years. She was one of the major originators of the anti-vaccination movement when she allowed Jenny McCarthy to go on her show and spout her garbage.

Incidentally, should she run it will be hilarious seeing her portray'd as a supporter of science.

Meade said...

"Having said all that, I’d prefer to have a Democratic female candidate with governmental experience."

I don't think Hillary will try a 3rd time, do you?

hombre said...

I'm partial to the notion of "citizen" politicians rather than professional politicians. If Oprah is of a mind to, she should go for it. Her gender, race and political persuasion make it certain that the media will cover up for any incompetence.

It is incorrect to assume that Oprah, sustained in her business dealings by her exhorbitant celebrity salary, has the same kind of experience and savvy that Trump has, particularly in the areas of government regulations, real estate and market economy. She does, however, top him in "show biz".

eddie willers said...

I would rather have a Republican in the White House, but if a Democrat is to become President, we could probably not get a better Democrat than her.

I can buy that.

Meade said...

The 2 Hillary voters I talked to today are neighbors.

dreams said...

We've already had our affirmative action president. I submit that being black was a big part of her success. Also, I don't think it would be good for country to have another president who you couldn't criticize without being called a racist.

Remember this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2389798/Oprah-Winfrey-branded-liar-Swiss-sales-assistant-racist-handbag-row.html

Inga said...

“I'll be interested in seeing Oprah's tax returns. Plus I understand all her people have to sign non-disclosure agreements. It will be interesting to delve into that as well. Can someone who's running for President hide behind old non-disclosure agreements to keep their secrets hidden?”

Sally, if that’s true about her requiring non disclosure agreements from her employees, then she out as far as I’m concerned. We’ve had enough of the nondisclosure stuff from Trump. Too much secrecy, what are they hiding?

No thanks on Oprah, while she appears to be a very decent person, the non disclosure stuff is a big red flag.

Ann Althouse said...

From her Wikipedia page:

"Born in rural poverty, and raised by a mother dependent on government welfare payments in a poor urban neighborhood, Winfrey became a millionaire at the age of 32 when her talk show received national syndication. Winfrey negotiated ownership rights to the television program and started her own production company. At the age of 41, Winfrey had a net worth of $340 million and replaced Bill Cosby as the only African American on the Forbes 400. With a 2000 net worth of $800 million, Winfrey is believed to be the richest African American of the 20th century. There has been a course taught at the University of Illinois focusing on Winfrey's business acumen, namely: "History 298: Oprah Winfrey, the Tycoon".Winfrey was the highest paid television entertainer in the United States in 2006, earning an estimated $260 million during the year, five times the sum earned by second-place music executive Simon Cowell. By 2008, her yearly income had increased to $275 million. Forbes' list of The World's Billionaires has listed Winfrey as the world's only black billionaire from 2004 to 2006 and as the first black woman billionaire in the world that was achieved in 2003. As of 2014, Winfrey has a net worth in excess of 2.9 billion dollars[ and has overtaken former eBay CEO Meg Whitman as the richest self-made woman in America."

Inga said...

“I don't think Hillary will try a 3rd time, do you?”

No, thank goodness.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Did her business dealings in the show business world get her as much practical experience, including dealing with issues with other countries, as Trump's did? If I was comparing the two's qualifications, that would be the main question I would have. I think that the experience business people get is more valuable to a president than most political experience. I think Oprah would be a better president than Obama was, but that isn't setting the bar very high.

Roughcoat said...

So she's a plutocrat.

gspencer said...

Why not Oprah?

Because she's another liberal Democrat.

Luke Lea said...

If Trump doesn't deliver on trade and immigration reform and she says she will, I would seriously consider voting for her.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"She was one of the major originators of the anti-vaccination movement when she allowed Jenny McCarthy to go on her show and spout her garbage."

FTR, it does seem like there are some legit science reasons to consider spacing out vaccinations rather than doing many at once.

Presumably, you're cool w/ that. Hence, you know that this is a baby tossing re bathwater sorta thingy. I dunno where Genius-prah (Better, Meade?) comes down re this nuance.

Tank said...

Trump was not just rich and famous, he had galvanizing issues.

What are Oprah's galvanizing issues?

#metoo?

Well, #sheknewtoo.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"I don't think Hillary will try a 3rd time, do you?"

Wouldn't she still be the most qualified candidate ever?

john said...

Inga is probably right. Men try to get what they want through bluster, threats and crotch grabbing. Women seek consensus, and Oprah would benefit from having knowledge of the halls Washington power, and how to reign in that power for society's benefit. It would make sense for her to bring both Obama and Clinton into her cabinet. Perhaps Lynch, Rice and Jarrett will join.

Bay Area Guy said...

With Oprah, the Dem primaries will be fun. Bernie does not like billionaires. Joseph Biden (old straight white guy) also wants to satisfy a lifelong dream to be Prez. Liz Warren wants the golden ring too.

That Oprah is even a plausible Dem candidate says that the current Dem bench is pretty pathetic.

Rusty said...

See, Althouse. This is what got us in trouble in the first place. "Yeah. Damnit! It's about time we had a black man for president!" Ignoring the fact that he was part of one of the most corrupt state governments in history and he had no real governing expertise.
So. Why not Oprah?
Tell ya why.
She's even less qualified than Trump.

Meade said...

I don't think Hillary will try a 3rd time, do you?

"No, thank goodness."

I know. We dodged a major bullet in 2016 when she came as close as she did to winning. Whew!

Tank said...

Incidentally, I think, if she runs, she would easily be nominated.

1. Black.

2. Vagina.

3. Gay?

Lucien said...

Trump won because he was able to speak to a large group of voters, particularly in the swing states, who felt alienated from both parties. Remember, he smashed the GOP elite before he smashed the Democrats, by offering something other than the standard line. Many establishment Republicans still hate him. In other words, Trump isn't just the same as any other Republican, only with personal wealth and built-in PR - he's something completely different.

Oprah doesn't appear to offer anything different at this stage than any other Democrat. That being the case, the party doesn't need her, and they'll reserve the nomination for a party apparatchik who has paid their dues. I don't see Oprah prying the nomination from the cold dead hands of the party elite the way Trump did, so the 2020 Democratic spot will go to an established time-server.

Pettifogger said...

Inga described Oprah as "a kind, thoughtful, sensitive, empathetic person, decent to the core."

I don't watch Oprah on TV and don't know that much about her, but from what I know, I am inclined to agree with Inga on that. Oprah would no doubt be a good person to have a pleasant conversation with.

The qualities Inga lists are good qualities in any human being, but are the most important qualities we should look for in a president. Trump is a pompous jerk, and I have no desire to have a conversation with him. But I am pleased by his aggressiveness and willingness to stand up for American interests in ways that ruffle bien pensant feathers. I'm also immensely pleased by his efforts to cut back on the admninistrative state. I don't see Oprah doing these things.

Meade said...

"She's even less qualified than Trump."

Which, in a weird way, makes her even MORE qualified.

Lucien said...

President Trump was and is an iconoclastic outsider who set himself up in opposition to Establishment Republicans and business as usual. Had he run as just another conservative he might not have done any better than Herman Cain or Rudy Giuliani.

How would Oprah be any different from the usual liberal democrat -- except that she my be less beholden to donors? What would make her a better politician than Kamala Harris, or Eric Garcetti or Cory Booker, etc.?

Brent said...

Oh how the scandals will be fully examined if ahe runs!! If you think Trump's pre-election scandals should have disqualified him, wait till the digging starts on Her Highness. You may think none of hers will be as bad as Trump's, but nothing new is different about him than when he ran, everyone knew who he was. Queen Oprah is starting from a "higher Moral plane" (LOL), and the digging will disappoint more than those in the 7% lead (that's all, seriously) that she has today over Trump.

Start here: the sex abuse scandal at the Oprah South African School for Girls in 2009. I must have missed her comments on that last night. Also, did she mention Juanita Broaddrick as someone to be believed?

She might win the Democrat Primary in 2020.
But against 4-year-experienced-as-President Trump and his political skills? 

anti-de Sitter space said...

"The 2 Hillary voters I talked to today are neighbors."

I know. I was joshin' ya.

Althouse already told us inter tubes that you were outside being the Madsion charmer that yur know to be.

Inga said...

“I know. We dodged a major bullet in 2016 when she came as close as she did to winning. Whew!”

From the frying pan into the fire.

Meade said...

"I don't see Oprah prying the nomination from the cold dead hands of the party elite the way Trump did, so the 2020 Democratic spot will go to an established time-server."

Biden.

Beth B said...

Foisting a quack like Dr. Oz on the public, ethically-challenged Dr. Phil, the annoying Rachael Ray & Suze Ormand, vigorously promoting "The Secret" charlatan Eckhart Tolle, dribblers like Marianne Williamson & Iyanla Vanzant, giving Jenny McCarthy a platform to spread her dangerous anti-vaxx nonsense & Suzanne Somers a place to spew her alternative cancer treatment woo, promoting then turning on fabulist/author James Frey, giving a stage to James Arthur Ray (who managed to kill 3 people with his sweat lodge "experience"), causing harm to the beef industry, hiring people who physically & sexually abused young African girls at her Leadership Academy, not to mention her sitting in Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church for decades and her part in pushing Obama into the Oval Office.

I'd say Oprah has done enough damage already. The last thing we need is another celebrity president. Pass. Big pass.

Meade said...

Not sure Biden can get past The Reckoning though.

chickelit said...

John mused: "It would make sense for her to bring both Obama and Clinton into her cabinet. Perhaps Lynch, Rice and Jarrett will join."

Why not Eric Holder as well? Oprah's tent is big enough for all!

bagoh20 said...

1) Our enemies fear our power under Trump for a number of reasons they would never fear and thus respect our power under Oprah.

2) The press would never do its' job of policing the power under Oprah. You sure can't say that about Trump.

3) Oprah is a pussy.

4) Trump is a dick.

I prefer to have a dick.

Beth B said...

Oh, and how did I miss her promoting that tit, Deepak Choprah?

William said...

Even now the objection to Trump is that his trigger finger is far too twitchy to be left near the nuclear button. Wth her it would be just the reverse. Her social worker instincts would be to hide the nuclear button under a mountain of stuffed animals. If Erdogan decides to reclaim the lost Ottoman provinces of Syria and Greece, she will rise to the occasion by delivering a heartfelt, moving speech how nothing was ever truly settled by shedding blood.........If she does run, she'd make a formidable candidate. She knows how to connect, and her nagging is ever so much gentler than that of Hillary or even Obama. And nobody in the press would ever be churlish enough to ask her for a statement on Kaepernick. Or maybe she could start kneeling during the national anthem. Think what a powerful message it would send to all freedom and peace loving people in this country and around the world if she knelt during the anthem. Rachel Maddow would be moved to tears.

Tom_Ohio said...

Oprah Oprah Oprah , she can't buy everyone in American a car, and she can't stop the videos from coming out where she says that all old white people have to die
that is why she can not run

Tim at large said...

She's not part of the "swamp" Trump would have to be a gentleman because she doesn't have the long history of using sharp elbows to get to the trough Hillary did. Hillary had betrayed most of her supporters more than twice. It would be an interesting test.

hombre said...

Inga: "We’ve had enough of the nondisclosure stuff from Trump. Too much secrecy, what are they hiding?"

Says Inga, committed supporter of Obama, the least transparent candidate and President in modern history.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"and she can't stop the videos from coming out where she says that all old white people have to die"

What?

White people die?

Say it ain't so.

Big Mike said...

She's no more left-wing than Trump is right-wing.

I don't believe that's true.

It should at least make sense to those of you who've supported Donald Trump from the beginning.

Well, I didn't support Trump from the beginning. I started off as a fan of Carly Fiorinia and switched to Cruz. In the end I voted less for him than against Hillary Clinton, the woman (I almost typed "lady," and what a mistake that would have been!) who thought a war in Libya was something she should start just because she could start it: who took no responsibility for the safety of her ambassadors, even after one of them came home in an aluminum box; and who thought herself above the law. Oprah would not be running against Hillary Clinton, she will be running against a person who in my book has demonstrated respect for the law of the land, whose foreign policy appears to be working, and whose grasp of economics is vastly improved over any of his four predecessors in office. Lotsa luck.

You'll be racist and sexist ...

Well, of course. Any criticism of Oprah Winfrey will only be because racism and sexism. Everyone knows that. Just as the main reason for voting against Hillary Clinton was our misogyny, not the palpable fact that she was a terrible candidate with poor political instincts who managed to screw up every opportunity she was given to demonstrate her capabilities on a national stage. When the Democrats can come up with a candidate who won't hide behind their sex and and skin color, maybe it will be time to take a black female Democrat candidate seriously.

Drago said...

“I don't think Hillary will try a 3rd time, do you?”

Inga: "No, thank goodness"

LOL

Hillary doesn't listen to little people like you. She will do what she pleases and if she has to rig the primary again she will...and the dems will do what they always do: Which is what they are told to do.

Tim at large said...

Sounds like the Democratic troll guard already have the talking points against her. The campaign is underway! Place your bets!

Lydia said...

Oprah's also a contributing correspondent on 60 Minutes now. Her first piece last September was on the political divide in the form of a roundtable discussion with a diverse group of Americans. She does a very good job. You can watch it here .

dreams said...

“I know. We dodged a major bullet in 2016 when she came as close as she did to winning. Whew!”

"From the frying pan into the fire."

Yeah, 3% GDP growth for almost the whole year. Yeah, the economy is on Fire. Smokin Hot!



chickelit said...

The updated Shepard Fairey poster draws itself:

'OPE

Meade said...

The key thing is: we need to make America great again by 2020. If we accomplish that, then we can have Oprah. If not, she will need to wait until 2024.

Tim at large said...

Delete 30k emails from the same time you are taking millions of dollars from Putin cronies? No problem!

Jack Wayne said...

No way Win-Free can win the Democrat nomination. My bet is that she is too free market to speak convincingly for the welfare, regulatory State. If she looks like she is in favor of Trump policies, she’s done. Sanders is my bet to get the Nomination or one of the telegenic young men who don’t have a decent idea in their heads.

NC-Dad said...

While I would almost certainly vote for Trump over Winfrey, she is by far the least objectionable potential Democratic candidate so far. And also, the one most likely to beat Trump. To me, her greatest asset is that, like Trump, she has not made a career of sucking at the public teat. This differentiates her from almost all Democrats and Republicans (other than Trump). She has created her own wealth and that encourages me to believe that she will be less likely to want to smother businesses and entrepreneurs by increasing regulations and taxes.

If Trump caves on immigration and the wall, she can realistically run to his right ("It's time to give low income white and black Americans a chance." or "Trump made a promise, but I'll keep it."). She can also peal off a large fraction of Trump's female supporters by running as the female Santa Claus ("A hand up, not a hand out." "Trump is a blow hard, but I've got a big heart.").

I definitely recommend against underestimating her and I'm glad of the competition to Trump since it should force him to up his game.

traditionalguy said...

Being popular and being a leader are different skill sets. Ophra is an escape artist using her popularity to hide from leadership.

buwaya said...

There is no reason Oprah shouldn't run, and on the face of it she would make a powerful candidate.

Her world-view, to the degree we can perceive it, is almost ridiculously female, personal and sentimental, from my POV, but that is me, and I am not a US voter.
There is no doubt she would find plenty of supporters with a similar-enough approach to life.

Joshua Barker said...

Oprah is a SJW writ large and, being close friends with the Obama's doesn't help...

Tim at large said...

I love hearing Democrats prattle about "transparency"!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Anyone know where she stands on any policy issue?

She's on the left - but how far left? Will she be a puppet for the radial progressive communist-socialist cabal?

Oprah made her name helping everyone BE THEIR BEST SELF. OK. Now she's vastly wealthy - and that scorecard seems to be necessary in the big fight. Tho - How much did Hillary spend in comparison to Trump?
What will she do with Kim Jung Un? I don't think playing nice-nice is going to work. Thrilling speeches might play well in Hillarywoodland, but the rest of the world no longer responds to nice-nice or worthless negotiations on paper tiger.
Will she put a gift basket of free goodies under Kim Jung Un's chair?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Our media is in serious decline because they are so radially biased in one direction. Oprah sees the opposite.

That's a little scary.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"I prefer to have a dick."

Wrong thread.

The legality of you taking a cock in your asshole is being addressed in the thread re Judges and Justices.


Rich Vail said...

Well,after reading that endorsement, we know who Anne is going to vote for in 2020.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Delete 30k emails from the same time you are taking millions of dollars from Putin cronies? No problem!

And then have a bogus investigation into Russian collusion with the guy who beat 30k email deletion-Clinton.

EDH said...

It'd be Democrats that would come after Oprah with the long knives first.

Tim at large said...

It would be interesting to see Trump run against someone who doesn't dodge obvious truths the way vampires hide from the dawn. It's his secret weapon, obvious truths.

Unknown said...

> I'm hypothesizing that Oprah is a perfectly good choice for them.

She does meet their checkmark identity politics.

I'd surmise her talent stack is different than Trump's.

Her best talent is TV, as Obama's talent was reading the prompter. And emoting. Lord knows we need more of that. Obama has "The One" to her.

Oprah met Dr. Phil because she needed mental help during the cattlemen lawsuit.

Like her lightbringer Obama, she is accustomed to decades of fawning love returned to her. Obama brought us something after his lengthy experience as a junior senator, I would not call it "light".

Trump can do a little TV, but he has the ability to go against "everyone" and win.

The Republican primary voters are geniuses for recognizing he filled that need.

Much later we will see how uniquely special Trump was, a man perfect for the time.

R.J. Chatt said...

Why not Oprah? Because she's a fantasy candidate. She'd play a better President on a TV show than Trump, true. Not that she doesn't have the ability, but in real life she'd want to be a globalist and solve the world's problems. Also in some ways she's too nice to be a politician and I don't think she'd be able to play the race card as Obama did. How would she hold up under withering attacks and criticism? I think she's dealt mostly with new age progressive type people in her career who have helped her along and I can't imagine her dealing with the double dealing duplicity of Senators and Congressmen, the entrenched politial class, the (deep state) intelligence community; or the corrupt tyrants and dictators of other countries who are jockeying for power. I certainly can't see her putting the interests of the US first. But who knows. Those are my doubts.

As a young man Trump went on a lot of talk shows and talked about his political philosophy and how he would do things differently. He thought about those topics for a long time, decades actually. I've never heard Oprah discuss politics. So they are not really equal.

Maybe if she aimed for 2024 she'd be a serious candidate, @ 70 years old.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"Winfrey campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008 and endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016. During Clinton's campaign, she discussed the prospect of a female president and said "America, it's about time that we made that decision." "


Supported Hillary? Corruption can be over-looked because D & female parts.

MayBee said...

As people mentioned above, her brand is being nice. Making people happy.

Would she even dare run, looking at what people did to Trump? I mean-- two years ago who in the world would have said Donald Trump was going to be accused of being an agent of Russia? Donald Trump an agent of Russia!!!
The niceness also makes it hard to imagine her being Commander in Chief. Would she order an attack on Syria? Would she warn Kim Jung Il?

MountainMan said...

I'm with "Beth B" at 6:25PM. Based on just that list alone the Republican campaign could come up with a selection of video clips from her TV career that could undermine her campaign. And there is probably much more than that.

Francisco D said...

It's simple.

I like and admire Oprah, but I will not support a candidate that Inga would vote for.

Inga is an idiot (one of many in the Democratic Party) who focuses more on feelings and talking points than rational thought.

That is why Hillary is not POTUS. It was all about the feeling that it would be great to have a female POTUS.

Mary Beth said...

It's been over 160 years since we had a president who was never married.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"The 2 Hillary voters I talked to today are neighbors."

Two neighbors, one of whom could be Ann Althouse. Meade's artfully constructed non-denial denial invites you to think the 2 Hillary voters are neighbors of Meade and Althouse, but the way he has posed it, the two voters could merely be neighbors of each other.

"Oprah's hugs could end wars, solve world peace," proclaimed Reese Witherspoon. "When she hugs you, it's the greatest thing ever." That's an enveloping image, a nonphallic power projection. MAGA looks tiny by comparison.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

NBC - an entire network - calls Oprah "Our next president."

yeah - our media isn't biased/

Bay Area Guy said...

The entire Oprah trial balloon is largely predicated on the assumption that she holds garden variety liberal views, right?

1. Pro-choice
2. Pro gay marriage
3. Pro Affirmative Action policies
4. Pro lenient border control
5. Against tax cuts
6. Ad hoc views on foreign policy

But isn't it the soft bigotry of low expectations to assume she holds these views, rather than to directly grill her on her views?

Seeing Red said...

I find it interesting the progs are pushing Oprah.


Is it partially because since They can’t fathom that Donald Trump won so they’re grasping at any reason and they came up with he’s a TV personality?

Is it rattling around in the back of their brains that Ronnie one because he was a movie star So they connect those weird dots?

Seeing Red said...

Oprah went to the same God Damn America church as Obama, didn’t she? She just left it sooner.

Bay Area Guy said...

Also, Oprah would easily win the New Hampshire primary with this slogan:

"Winfrey or Die"

Inga said...

“Inga is an idiot (one of many in the Democratic Party) who focuses more on feelings and talking points than rational thought.”

Francisco is a weirdo that uses any occasion to mention my name. I said Oprah was out, because of the non disclosure agreements she made her employees sign, despite being a decent person. That is based on a rational thought, you idiot. If I was going by emotion alone, I’d overlook that. You wouldn’t know what being a decent person is, you fraud.

rhhardin said...

Trump is anti-PC. That's what's needed and that's what Operah certainly doesn't have.

EMyrt said...

Beth B nailed it so I don't have to.
And did a better job than I would have.
Oprah's a serial promoter of fraudulent woo.
Either she can't tell, in which case she's too stupid for my vote, or she knows and does it anyway, in which case she's too evil.

chuck said...

Fun game to play. How would Trump deal with it? I figure he would need something more clever than his genius for insulting names. Of course, there are plenty of third parties who would be playing up Oprah as a Weinstein collaborator in Vichy Hollywood, and I wonder how two scoops of ice cream will play against a $38,000 handbag?

Seeing Red said...

Neither Trump or Oprah have the requisite experience to be President,


What, pray tell, is the resiquite experience required to be president, Inga?

Paddy O said...

I didn't support Trump from the beginning or at any time in the election. Though I supported Clinton even less.

That said, there's no reason Oprah isn't qualified. She was born in the US and is over 35. She's shown an ability to become extremely successful in a very competitive field.

She's shown an ability to having engaging conversations with all sorts of people and further her ambitions along the way.

Would she be a good president? Who knows? But a fair amount of extremely experienced candidates have gone on to be poor presidents.

That said, my question is whether she really wants to go through all that. It seems like she likes the acclaim but I've not seen her willing to wade into the controversies or messiness. It's the ol' "fire in the belly" question. She'll be propelled quite a bit by media, but at a certain point she'd have to take actual positions on divisive topics. And go on the campaign trail, etc. and so on.

I'm sure she's flattered, but I'm not sure she's that flattered to go through all the work. If she wants to do the work, though, her work ethic would likely carry her pretty far.

D said...

2022, shortly before the robots become self-aware:

"President Winfrey, Senator Rock on line one"
"Which one: The from California, or Kid from Michigan?"
"The. He & UN Ambassador Jolie need to talk about the transit program with El Presidenta Hayek next week"
"Take a message. Prime Minister Twain & I are talking softwood tariffs for the millionith time"
"They dont impress me much"
"Yeah, good one Shania. Maybe we can lighten this eternal wood tax of ours if we can see some Weinstein Work Camps ...er Re-education Centres being set up in Newfoundland?"
"Madam President - sorry - this one is really important - Kim Jong, line two. He says you need to help him with counting daily points right for the WW site or so help him, he's sending rockets"

wwww said...


Biden is too old.

Oprah is not going to run.

85% chance Nominee is gonna be a non-dramatic white man. He'll be someone unexpected with no name recognition.

0-5% chance it'll be Amy Klobuchar

readering said...

She could definitely run. Reagan, Perot and Trump showed the way. But I don't think she would want to. She has a fabulous life as it is. One thing Trump is demonstrating is that the job is not all that much fun if you aren't a politician.

Lydia said...

Back in 1999, Trump thought Oprah would make a great vice president:

When asked whether he’d ever consider a female running mate, Trump responded: “Well, I would consider, and as Chris [Matthews] can tell you, I threw out the name of a friend of mine, who I think the world of. She’s great. And some people thought it was an incredible idea, some people didn’t, but — Oprah. I said, ‘Oprah Winfrey,’ who’s really great. And I think we would be a very formidable team.”

reader said...

I will give her as much consideration as I did Trump once she provides a list from which she will choose her first Supreme Court nominee.

Inga said...

“What, pray tell, is the resiquite experience required to be president, Inga?”

1.Political experience
2.Highly intelligence
3.An advanced degree
4.Community service
5.Governmental experience
6.Some foreign affairs experience
7. Leadership qualities and experience
8. Strong and decent character
9.Not unwilling to disclose health and financial criteria

Just a few.

Bill Peschel said...

The prospect of President Winfrey and being called a bigot AND sexist any time you disagree with her.

Where do I sign?

Gusty Winds said...

Trump took the GOP by surprise. This Oprah fantasy is desperation, and it’s now too early. She won’t run. But, this demi-god status will give her short term king making power with Dems. Too many Dems want to take on Trump in 2020 to give Oprah the coronation as they did with Hillary.

She would also have to separate herself from the Trump derangement syndrome crowd to swing any votes. Seems tough since that is the entire Democrat party.

Trump also, perhaps not by choice, became the counter punch to Hollywood who’s brand is at an all time low. Oprah would have to embrace it. All those gross celebrity endorsements. Doesn’t seem to be an advantage with fly over voters and the electoral college.

But as long as we’re engaging in this fantasy, who would be first. Spouse. Stedman or Gayle?

Michael McClain said...

The DemCong told me that a multi-billionaire with no political experience was unfit to be President.

Unknown said...

> Why not Oprah? Because she's a fantasy candidate

Oh, if only Ricardo Montalban was available...

We would all sit in Rich Corinthian Leather.

Liberals see the masses as Tattoo, grateful for the plane's arrival for Boss.

Lucien said...

Meade, it might be Biden but I think more likely Kamala, Booker, Warren, etc. All relatively interchangeable - good party hacks.

Despite their reputation for coming out of nowhere, both Reagan and Obama put in their time and paid their dues for the party(s) before becoming President. Trump is one of the first Presidents to genuinely come out of nowhere, with no background in the parties and no support from the machines, someone who seized the nomination and then the Presidency on the back of a populist wave.

I just can't see Oprah ever doing that. She'll need support from the machine, who won't want to help her because what has she ever done for them?

Two Luciens on this thread btw. Nttawwt.

wild chicken said...

The only reason Trump ever got traction with me is that he dared to talk about immigration. No one else would go there.

I have no idea where oprah is on this but I can guess.

Unknown said...

Fantasy Island does fit Bernie's approach

their leader who never joined them...

Lucien said...

An advanced degree is necessary to become President? WTF?

bagoh20 said...

Of anybody famous, Oprah has probably been more often and more publicly scammed and duped by
people then anyone I can think of. There is the NYT, and CNN, but they can't run.

narciso said...

That ignites that trump, focused on a set of issues not mere personalities, certainly her own network has her alba.

narciso said...

Ignores but whatever, she'll givevevery one a new car, that could get expensive.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Imagine the softball interviews from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC.

Mary said...

Ann, I think you make a good argument for a Winfrey presidency, I was seeing the idea float around today and I was really hesitant to embrace it. It seemed too out-there. But these days we’re already out-there and maybe we can’t get back to boring Presidents anymore. I was mostly concerned that now our presidents must be very wealthy celebrities. But listening to her speak, she just radiates so much positive can-do energy. We need that! I’m sold.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Wait, what?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Maybe Uma could be her running mate.

n.n said...

Winfrey is a good candidate for the Democrats and she can win, assuming an alignment between Obama/Clinton/DNC that does not deny her the vote.

n.n said...

Caveat: #SheKnew

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Oprah-Bezos-That dude who started Facebook. 2020.

Happy depression. with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


mockturtle said...

It should at least make sense to those of you who've supported Donald Trump from the beginning.

Not to me.

MikeR said...

Meh. There are no more moderate voters really. Either voters hate Trump with a deranged passion and will vote for absolutely anyone against him - or some of the rest of us are basically pretty content with what he has done even if we aren't crazy about his stupid twittering. We'll see if people notice that their taxes have gone down, or if he can make a deal with North Korea, etc. - some of the deranged ones will eventually follow Scott Adam's prescription and get used to him.
Summary: The Democrats don't need to search for a candidate. Anyone will do and they're all the same, anti-Trump. They might as well pick one that actually suits them.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Oprah - where is the Clinton angle? It's gotta be there. They never go away. They want some slice, baby. Some $$$ action.

Tim at large said...

If you think that Americans should come first in making economic policy, you are not automatically a bigot.

If you think that borders should be regulated by the democratically elected government, and laws duly made should be enforced, that doesn't make you a xenophobia.

These are the kinds of obvious truths that Trump uses. It's not 12 dimensional chess.

Lydia said...

Lucien said: She'll need support from the machine, who won't want to help her because what has she ever done for them?

Well, there was the help she gave Obama in 2008:

As for politics, it’s worth remembering that Oprah played a not-insubstantial role in the 2008 election. Her decision to endorse Barack Obama after his campaign failed to catch fire in its first eight months in 2007 provided the initial accelerant that took him from 25 points back to winning the nomination away from Hillary Clinton.

She introduced Obama to the Hollywood crowd in September 2007 at a $3 million fundraiser. And that December, she spent four days with him in the key early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. In the latter, Winfrey helped bring 30,000 people to a stadium to make it clear to women and African-Americans that he was her guy. His victory in South Carolina was probably the key moment for his campaign.

A 2008 study at the University of Maryland suggested that Winfrey herself was responsible for more than 1 million votes cast for Obama in the Democratic contest — which suggests he might not have prevailed had she not campaigned on his behalf.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tim at large said...

Fucking auto "correct."

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Oprah - she is sooner than you think.

LOL

Narayanan Subramanian said...

To say Oprah is right, Democrat have to admit Hillary was and will be wrong again.

dwick said...

"She's no more left-wing than Trump is right-wing."

You have no idea of the extent Oprah leans to the left or right. Above statement is just your opinion based on what you've heard or read about The Oprah or perhaps observed by watching her on her TV show or on other programs over the years - all carefully packaged/controlled outlets. Just because The Oprah "was communicating on a wide array of real-world issues" vying for ratings with her captive audience all those years is not necessarily a true indicator of her political leanings. I watched Phil Donahue in the early years in the Dayton, OH area and saw how he morphed from a stolid small-town midwest slightly right-centrist to a stark-raving liberal (finally ending up on MSNBC) as he made his play for a larger national audience. I'm certainly not going to enter into a debate over points of Althouse speculation here.

Tim at large said...

Trump tells the truth about the big things. Nobody cares about the little stuff.

mockturtle said...

Compare her to Trump when he was getting started, and don't argue about whether conservatism is better than liberalism.

Well, we're talking about the very reason we vote for candidates! Of course it makes sense for the Democrats but I don't care if the Democrats run Homer Simpson, I wouldn't vote for their candidate.

What we don't need, however, is a female version of Obama, and I'm not talking about race. I'm talking about someone telling us who we are and who we are not. Preaching at us. Trump NEVER does that. If the Democrats are smart [they're not] they will run what used to be called a 'blue dog' Democrat. Patriotic, not divisive.

Quaestor said...

Inga wrote: Having said all that, I’d prefer to have a Democratic female candidate with governmental experience.

Unapologetically sexist is our Inga.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Oprah did say that old white people need to die. When it comes to Inga, she has a point. (Calm down, dearie, it's a joke not a threat. I know how terrified you are of "right wing violence.")

Since I was not a Trump supporter from the beginning I have the same qualms about her as I did about Trump. Like dickinbimbos said, I domt know where she stands on policy. How far left is she? I was a NeverHillary voter who has been pleasantly surprised by Trump. Oprah is better than anybody else on the Dem side, but that's not saying much because they're so pathetic.


Quaestor said...

She's no more left-wing than Trump is right-wing."

Voters weren't attracted to Trump by his reality show. They were drawn to his candidacy because of his fearlessly un-PC rhetoric. Trump promised to reverse the rot that Obama's reign had apparently (and deliberately) made inexorable. Obama promised his minions that his regime would be the conduit of fundamental change, and given that much of that change was an exploding national debt and an imploding workforce, the voters who elected Donald Trump clearly saw that fundamental change for what it really was — from First World to Third World and from a constitutional republic to one more like a government imposed by the United Fruit Company.

From all indications Winfrey just left-wing enough to re-swamp the swamp, introducing a new crop of alligators and vipers, if given the power. Oprah wants to be Obama redux, that in itself is enough to render her persona non grata to the Trump voters.

walter said...

Wow..Oprah really surfacing Meade.
Fave quote of his: "Please don't call Oprah "Doperah," PB Sitter Guy. It makes you look racist and sexist."
You go Meade!

Will Prez Oprah auto-enroll us in a book club?
Fireside book chat...
That would scare Kim Jong straight!

But really..considering her auto-allegiance to Obama, you know what kind of policies she would pursue and the types she would fill her admin with.
Suddenly the Dem black female category is crowded with hopefuls.

mezzrow said...

Oprah should be careful what she wishes for.

I've heard a POTUS run is an offer she can't refuse, or something like that. How'd you like to be caught in that mousetrap?

When lines form at quality beef emporiums like they did at gunshops under Obama, I'll know the threat is real.

Francisco D said...

@Lucien,

An "advanced degree" may not be what you think. In Inga's world that is a high school diploma, maybe a community college Associates degree. That is all it took to be a nurse in her generation.

O course, she could be lying about her credentials. LOL!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Q From all indications Winfrey just left-wing enough that to re-swamp the swamp if given the power. Oprah wants to be Obama redux, that in itself is enough to render her persona non grata to the Trump voters.

The left give everyone good feelz with soaring speeches, all while they clink cocktails with fellow fabulously wealthy above-it-all crowd. If we go back to Obama years, The insider Clooney player class get rich and richer and the rest of us get poor and poorer. She will surely tax us to death. But with happy smiley gift baskets! and free government pain pillz... and those soaring tear jerking speeches.

Richard Dillman said...

Don’t know if this was mentioned, but Oprah was an infuential propagandist for the anti-vaccination movement.

Inga said...

“Oprah did say that old white people need to die. When it comes to Inga, she has a point.”

She might have meant you, as you are only a couple of years younger than me and Althouse.

Unknown said...

I don't see a problem with Oprah running, more power to her. She will have to really have an idea of what she wants out of it. Trump knew exactly what he wanted, he had been saying it for years. I would think you have to really want to do something or be power mad like Hillary to attempt it if you are not already in the ring.

I mean, how will she react to the first dossier that says she has been banging little girls. And everyone she knows having their trash searched. Of course she does have the democrat-media behind her and we've seen how effective it can be at covering up warts.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

How far left is Oprah? I didn't see her give any exposure to Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell. Giving stuff away , no cost to her .... Typically liberal.

Has not addressed Chicago violence.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I don't think Oprah does it for one simple reason: money. While she and Trump are both successful television personalities, TV was a side business for Trump long after he'd established his real estate interests. Oprah's success on the other hand came from television and her continued prosperity relies on her public image much more than was the case with Trump. Getting into politics has real potential to damage her brand, earning power, and if she loses, influence.

As to whether she's qualified, I think she is more qualified than Obama was when he ran in 2008, as she has at least run something and done well running it for many years. The biggest hesitancy is that her public persona is based principally on a stage-managed performance, much like Obama's was. How well does the Oprah on screen reflect the real Oprah? With Trump, there wasn't much doubt what we'd be getting if we voted him in. I don't get that same sense with Oprah.

Rick said...

So how is Oprah any different?

DJT won by being different not just from the Dem field but also from the Rep field. If Rubio et al had opposed immigration there's a fair chance Hillary Clinton would be President after beating Rubio in the general.

Does Oprah have any views which aren't typical left? I've never heard one.

Inga said...

“Don’t know if this was mentioned, but Oprah was an infuential propagandist for the anti-vaccination movement.”

Whoa, if that is true she is most definitely not going to get my support or vote. Trump is also an antivaxxer, sheesh what is wrong with these people?

walter said...

Inga said...
“Oprah did say that old white people need to die. When it comes to Inga, she has a point.”
She might have meant you, as you are only a couple of years younger than me and Althouse.
--
Uhh..hate to digress from the candle counting..but..when did Oprah say that?

James K said...

Foisting a quack like Dr. Oz on the public,...

Beth lists a lot of Oprah's baggage, but none of it will matter any more than Obama's did (Ayers, Wright, etc.) because the media will not report it or challenge her on it. On the other hand, there's a good chance her candidacy would crash and burn the moment she's asked a serious policy question, especially foreign policy. Her complete ignorance will be hard to cover up.

Rick said...

"Please don't call Oprah "Doperah," It makes you look racist and sexist."

It makes him look juvenile. But claiming it is racist and sexist makes you look like the campus nuts who claim all criticism is driven by an ism.

Inga said...

“Uhh..hate to digress from the candle counting..but..when did Oprah say that?”

Ask Exiledonmainstreet, she’s the one who I was quoting. Someone else upthread somewhere mentioned it.

walter said...

I still want an explanation for the difference in boob elevation that photography reveals between her carpet/backdrop photo and her subdued boobs during her SJW speech.

MaxedOutMama said...

Main diff is that Oprah's extensive and brilliant business experience is pure media, and thus she probably lacks a lot of the background that is the reason for Trump's success on the economy.

Winfrey is in the opinion business, and thus she would make the same mistakes as a journalist or professor.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Walter, it was in an interview with the BBC. (I'd provide the link if I could find the copy function on this new phone.) To be more precise,she said old racists have to die before there is racial progress in this country. Yep, the country which has made Oprah rich and famous has not progressed racially. And of course the racism is on one side only.

Not to mention the naivete of thinking the evil of racism will vanish forever and hearts will be pure once the "bad people" die.

James K said...

Uhh..hate to digress from the candle counting..but..when did Oprah say that?

Here it is on video.

Rick said...

Oprah went to the same God Damn America church as Obama, didn’t she? She just left it sooner.

As far as I remember Obama never left that church. Oprah gets credit for recognizing hate and leaving it, although you have to wonder if she was just protecting the brand. In fact her departure was strong evidence Obama was lying about never recognizing Wright's hatefest.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Agree with several commenters that given Trump's theatric style, the majority of people overlook just how much his early, definitive stand on the immigration issue contributed to his election. There were no candidates in either party who were remotely close to his position on this issue, and his positioning himself in this way immediately gave him all of the voters for whom this was an important issue, especially once they realized his campaign was at least semi-serious. Obviously Trump's personality then played a role in helping him not cave to pressure from the entire political establishment to moderate on enforcing immigration laws, but this assertiveness wasn't the original root cause of his success.

Therefore, I don't think it's safe to assume that Oprah, or any celebrity could just replicate his success, unless they are somehow able to stake out an issue where the position of a majority of a party's members is completely disparaged by all of the other candidates from that party. Is there anything that the majority of Democrats support but Clinton, Sanders, Biden, Harris, Booker, etc. are all against?

LordSomber said...

Oprah's whole theme is "You're okay the way you are," satiating bored housewives and single mums who still search for meaning and validation regardless of the field of plenty that metaphorically lies beofre them.

In a healthy society, men still strive for self-improvement. Making men like them the 'anti-Oprahs.'

Regarding the coming decade, the jury is still out on the results on all of this.

Amexpat said...

Yes, she's at least as qualified as Trump was when he announced and is probable more of a "stable genius" than him. But it's the continuation of a very bad trend where having government experience is a handicap to being elected president.

iowan2 said...

The biggest difference between President Trump and Oprah, is Oprah will get lost in apologizing for any perceived slights. President does not back away from what he says, right or wrong, he stays with it. That is why the media has ended up looking the fools that they are.

Mark Daniels said...

I wrote this on Twitter earlier today: "American worship of wealth & celebrity were factors in @realDonaldTrump's election as #POTUS. This idolatry is also behind suggestions of runs by @Oprah & @TomSteyer. But presidents need to be experienced leaders who know the issues. Riches, fame, & glibness aren't qualifiers."

I have no aversion to people who haven't spent years in politics being president. But some background as a leader who has had to work with people who haven't always agreed with them is, I think, imperative.

mockturtle said...

Mark Daniels, I think you are wrong. Trump was not elected because of 'American worship of wealth and celebrity'. He was elected because he spoke what many of us have been thinking for a very long time.

BDNYC said...

“Having said all that, I’d prefer to have a Democratic female candidate with governmental experience.”

Oh, so you’re a sexist. Refreshing honesty.

roger said...

“As long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, the problem is not solved,” she said, adding,“There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it – in that prejudice and racism – and they just have to die.”

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/oprah-old-racists-have-die-progress

glenn said...

Ann: You still need a like button.

Mark Jones said...

Why not Oprah? For the same reason I'd never vote for Obama. Or Hilary (or Bill, for that matter). Or Biden. Or Pelosi. Or any of the countless other mostly-interchangeable leftists in the Democratic party. They have little or no clue what life is like for people who aren't wrapped in the Deep State coccoon, and what little they do know of it they have only contempt for.

Donald Trump was a longshot. A Hail Mary play by voters who were (and are) sick and tired of our self-selected "betters" destroying our culture and our economy in the name of creating some socialist utopia that (even if they succeed in beavering away at the roots of what made this country great and rich) will only end in misery like Venezuala, or blood-soaked killing fields like, well, pick one. The USSR, China, North Korea, Cambodia, et al.

mockturtle said...

“As long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, the problem is not solved,” she said, adding,“There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it – in that prejudice and racism – and they just have to die.”

So she's against Affirmative Action? [Hah!]

mockturtle said...

Althouse forgets that she asked, "Why not Oprah for President?", not "Why not Oprah for Presidential candidate?"

Bay Area Guy said...

Juanita Broaderick to Oprah: Funny, I don't recall you mentioning my name

iowan2 said...

No one claims to know Oprah's politics, (yes liberal must likely) but my guess would be she is near as far left as Bernie of the fake Indian. Just on that raw data, she would fail in an honest primary.
She also has the problem of probably converting to politician mode, making her indistinguishable from other politicians, that's a bug not a feature. With President Trump the leftist keep squealing that President Trump refuses to 'act right'. But the voters never expected that. Oprah can never pull off the same thing.

walter said...

Blogger mockturtle said...
“There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it – in that prejudice and racism – and they just have to die.”
--
Damn..
Obama must hate that quote.

Anonymous said...

I just reread Oprah's acceptance speech at the GG's; a lot of feel good blather with about 20 I,me,mine's. Not bad, but very unsubstantial & uninspirational.

David Begley said...

News tonight that she won’t run. But if she does, she wins 10-15 states.

Big Mike said...

@Meade, the answer to "why not Biden" can be found on YouTube. Just enter "Creepy Joe Biden" as your search string.

Yancey Ward said...

I think there is less than a 1% chance she would run, but there is nothing that really cuts against her doing so- she is a formidable personality, and not even a little bit stupid.

The biggest reason she won't run, in my mind, is that Clinton will run again and make it clear that no women are allowed to run against her in the primaries. Now, if Clinton gets indicted, all bets are off. In my opinion, Democrats, at least those with triple digit IQs should be hoping that Clinton gets indicted- it would be a huge plus for the party medium to long term- a huge plus.

anti-de Sitter space said...

Walt,

What's the problem?

Do intractable racists who were born, bred and marinated in racism not die?

Assuming Genius-Oprah is wrong such that these appalling folks are immortal, is that a good thing, according to you?

Gahrie said...

Oprah has every right to run for president.

Oprah will almost certainly win the Democratic nomination if she runs.

Oprah will probably win the national election if she runs.

The Winfrey administration would be a disaster.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 280   Newer› Newest»