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.
January 8, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
280 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 280 of 280I'm surprised so many think Hillaey will run in 2020. In your dreams.
“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.”
If she had been more succinct you cons would have had no problem:
'Racist lives matter, because they vote R." RLM,BTVR
"Why not Oprah for President?
It should at least make sense to those of you who've supported Donald Trump from the beginning.
"
Trump gave some really good reasons to vote for him.
He listened to the actual needs of the electorate, while other politicians did not.
He proved he could stand up to the bullies who manipulate and distort the media process.
He had positions on issues that people care about.
He promised to fight for the demographic that was losing their jobs & committing suicide at record rates, because he said he valued them, unlike the other nominees or candidates who did not show any persuasive sign of valuing them.
He showed that his vision of America resonates with a lot of people - a vision of America that progressives today do not share, and want to replace with their own new vision.
And so on.
So really the question is, in what way is Oprah like Trump?
But some background as a leader who has had to work with people who haven't always agreed with them is, I think, imperative.
I know I've never disagreed with either my landlord or my boss.
Why not Oprah for President?
Because her politics are completely wrong-headed. Don't need any other reasons.
No 'sitter,
But it must hpain Obama to hear his Own marination can only be cured by death.
So really the question is, in what way is Oprah like Trump?
To the Left they are both rich and famous. The only thing that matters though, is the Democrats think she could win because she is a popular Black lady. They may be right.
I'm surprised so many think Hillaey will run in 2020. In your dreams.
More importantly, in hers.
But I don't think she'll be healthy enough to run in 2020. Rivals, including Kamala Harris, won't be willing to politely give Hillary a chance to lose again. If somehow Hillary did end up as the Democratic nominee in 2020, the base would revolt.
Winfrey would experience a tremendous decline in her standard of living and lifestyle if she was POTUS, as Trump has. Trump has something he wants to accomplish, and probably believes his sacrifice is worth it. What does Oprah want to accomplish as POTUS? And would it be worth it?
Trump's sacrifice? What would that be? Having to live in the almost-condemned White House? His business interests will suffer from him being president? How so?
Oprah will promise a lot of free stuff. It will be interesting to see how many people fall for it.
"Explain to me why Oprah makes less sense than Trump did."
I think Oprah is more successful that Trump was. I think on paper she looks like a better candidate than Trump ever did. But then Trump actually did it, he ran. the Trump campaign broke every rule and defied all of the conventional wisdom. The on paper Trump candidacy was nowhere near defining the actual Trump candidacy.
Why why does she make less sense?
Because Trump was not loved, and she is. She has legions of fans that idolize her. She has nowhere to go but down. Trump might have had some die hard fans, but the media blitzkrieged him after he gave his opening speech about how Mexico does not give us their best people. The only people that were trump supporters after those first three days were people that went "wow, that the first person ever to speak truth about illegal immigration", and people that hated all other 14 GOP candidates. All of the other people that became Trump voters in the primary were safely ensconced under some other candidate. And Trump had to beat all 16 of them. After "low energy Jeb" all of the remaining candidates *KNEW* his methods and they were helpless to stop the Trump juggernaut.
Trump actually built a movement, an electoral coalition that he held together to get elected. Evangelicals supported a twice divorced philanderer that would not admit his sin, gun enthusiasts supported a man they whole heartedly believed would makes deals with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, Libertarians supported a man all too happy to be known as a rent seeker, and Constitutionalists supported a man whose sister is a liberal appellate Federal Judge, and anti-taxers supported a man that didn't particularly dislike taxes.
And Trump did all of that by putting the campaigns into high contrast mode. He ran against both Obama and Hillary, and in no small part against the Bush family. Tim above said it best Trump spoke about big things and every group I listed above found that they could let go of their "little" issues if he was at least say that he would fight for the "big" issues.
Oprah has none of that.
Trump started at the bottom with nowhere to go but up. Oprah is starting way way up high with nowhere to go but down.
Trump actually had to get better during the campaign and would change tactics to best the next "obvious" front runner. A skill he developed with his real estate businesses. Oprah will never not be the front runner. When Democrat nominee Oprah has to actually fight against a coordinated attack machine she will have no practice at it.
Trump fights. Oprah talks.
Of all the candidates out there I think she has the best chance against Trump (and the second best chance is Biden).
If Oprah runs, the chance that she gets the nomination, 88%, the chance that she beats President Trump, 10%.
All this, IMHO.
"So really the question is, in what way is Oprah like Trump?"
They're quite different. She seems to actually believe her flim flam. But, DJT knowingly sells bromides to dummies -- i.e. normal folks -- while simultaneously giving away the store to the job creators, i.e. not you folks.
The US presidential elections have devolved into a high school popularity contest. Winfrey would be an excellent choice for the Dems. I think she would be able to beat Trump even if he gets a successful first term under his belt due to the turnout she could generate.
I dislike her less than the elderly and identity apparatchiks jockeying for Dem nom. She's a sucker for trendy frauds like antivaxxers. And has she been overseas other than vacation?
Blogger john said...Meade and Ann voted for Clinton.
That would mean Meade talks to himself.
Eh. I'm skeptical of any analysis of how to beat Trump that doesn't start from the premise that Trump was an unexpectedly strong candidate.
The truth is, both the Republican and the Democratic parties were significantly out of tune with their voters on issues like trade and immigration last year. Trump was in tune with those voters, which gave him a hard core of support that wouldn't even consider any other candidate.
Oprah is good on TV, but is there anyone out there who is only an Oprah voter and wouldn't vote for any other Democrat? Would she have any special appeal to the white working class voters who abandoned the party in 2016? Or is the new plan just to give up on those voters and turn out the Emerging Democratic Majority?
Once upon a time, when you thought "White Working Class," the next word you thought of was "Democrat." Celebrities are nice, but is a Democratic party that can't keep the working class really a party at all?
Pacwest asserts: I think she would be able to beat Trump even if he gets a successful first term under his belt due to the turnout she could generate.
Why would she get any more votes--or states--than Hillary did? Who would vote for Oprah that did not vote for Hillary?
I think Meade voted for Trump. I think Althouse voted third party. I think if Trump's term is successful -- and he's off to a great start -- Oprah will find it harder to run as an outsider against Trump than Trump against Hillary Clinton.
Why would she get any more votes--or states--than Hillary did? Who would vote for Oprah that did not vote for Hillary?
Millions of Black people.
Having predicted back in 2016, right after the election, that Oprah would be the next Dem candidate and president (ahem), I would never argue that her running would make less sense than Trump.
As a famous black woman, she can act out the necessary identity politics and prevent anyone running to her left; as a celebrity, she has the edge over other Dem candidates; as a positive therapeutic figure attractive to women and more favorably disposed to the USA than any professional Dem, she can reach out to the middle.
The only one who can stop Oprah is Oprah.
"And Trump did all of that by putting the campaigns into high contrast mode . . . Oprah has none of that."
Oprah has DJT, and that is all the contrast she needs. The left is rabidly hungry for a win, and a chunk of the middle will fall for her promise of national therapy.
Oprah was buddies with rapist pig Harvey Weinstein.
She was a big supporter of rapist Bill Clinton.
Oprah introduced British actress Kadian Noble to rapist pig Harvey Weinstein and she has been scarred ever since.
Furthermore, Oprah rejected Juanita Brodderick for interviews.
Oprah is one of the #SheKnew frauds. Her virtue signalling falls flat with me. She's a phony feminist and likely phony on a lot of other fronts.
And as a left-leaning Obama lover, you can bet that she would give us more of the Obama-style horseshit (e.g. crony capitalism, secret and illegal cash payments to terror-sponsoring states, repeated lies about signature legislation).
Trump is no knight in shining armor but I am in seventh heaven over the common sense approaches he brought to Washington that seemed no longer possible fourteen months ago.
Seen on Twitter:
TRUMP VS WINFREY 2020:
Oprah made her TV fame by giving away gifts.
Trump made his TV fame by challenging people to compete for a job.
That pretty much sums up the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Let that sink in.........
Why not Oprah for President?
Because I've had eight years of a president you can't criticize because of skin color, and that was at least 7 1/2 years too many. At least.
"Because I've had eight years of a president you can't criticize because of skin color, and that was at least 7 1/2 years too many. At least."
So over the last almost-year, how many times have you called DJT a cracker, honky or white devil? Now that your free to do so.
Trump was ultimately the beneficiary to Clinton Inc being the alternative.
Webtube-diggers should determine Oprah's level of admiration/loyalty to Clinton Inc.
'Sitter is really shitting it in this thread.
Toothless may be having a cog/diss meltdown..
Sebastian: "and a chunk of the middle will fall for her promise of national therapy."
Sorry, Obama already played that race card. Everyone now feels worse about race than before Obama came along. No way that works again.
LakeLevel,
Obama had (as evidenced by airline hard-on) a dick.
This is the (proposed) era of anti-dick..PUSSY! (hats)
Chop.It.Off.
I don't think she has it in her. She won't run seriously. She wouldn't win unless her opponent were Donald Trump, Jr.
The parallels with Trump are there. However, Oprah represents the opposite end of the age of narcissism to the one Trump is at. The self-obsessed con man as master builder versus the self-obsessed con woman as master empathizer. Each one is full of false promises of ageless greatness. One via winning, the other via self-actualizing. Seems to me Trump's version works better in the political/economic sphere, and it allows him to adapt to mundane realities, as he has, more effortlessly. I am not sure I see how Oprah can import her self-help nostrums (some of which will cause nervous breakdowns at the CDC) into that sphere. Does she really want to give up as much as she will have to in order to enter it? I can't yet see it.
So over the last almost-year, how many times have you called DJT a cracker, honky or white devil? Now that your free to do so.
Words like that are not part of my vocabulary, nor are the n-word or any other degrading synonyms for the n-word. But I have been called a racist for criticizing the thoroughly unprofessional roll-out of Obamacare, for criticizing Obamacare when it required me to pay more for worse coverage, for criticizing Obama when he blew off his responsibilities for coordinating with Congress under the War Powers Act in the case of Libya, for involving himself in the Trayvon Martin case, and the list goes on. I can and have criticized Trump’s actions, e.g., delegating Obamacare repeal to Ryan and McConnell without nearly enough of his own involvement. Since I am a rational adult, in marked contrast to every Democrat I know, I will continue to praise Trump when he’s right and criticize him when I think he’s making a mistake.
"Why would she get any more votes--or states--than Hillary did? Who would vote for Oprah that did not vote for Hillary?"
New voters, and turnout. The squishy middle is tired of drama. Trump is a drama queen. Free stuff. SHE is BLACK. She is popular across the board. She is not a known crook. Heavy MSM backing. And as an added plus, we will all get a new Camero!!
It's not about who is best qualified for the position of running the country anymore. The 2012 election confirmed that.
Don't consider my comments as an endorsement of the Big O. I think she would be a terrible choice for POTUS. Mine isn't the deciding vote though.
"Sorry, Obama already played that race card. Everyone now feels worse about race than before Obama came"
And everyone wishes race relations (which Obama set back 2 decades) were better. Who better to fix that than Oprah in the minds of the ever hopefully guilty white folk?
Blogger Big Mike said
I have been called a racist for criticizing the thoroughly unprofessional roll-out of Obamacare, for criticizing Obamacare when it required me to pay more for worse coverage, for criticizing Obama when he blew off his responsibilities for coordinating with Congress under the War Powers Act in the case of Libya, for involving himself in the Trayvon Martin case, and the list goes on. I can and have criticized Trump’s actions, e.g., delegating Obamacare repeal to Ryan and McConnell without nearly enough of his own involvement.
--
Yeah, yeah..but fucking racist, right? Runnin' round in blackface as ya type that, right?
I mean..fer 's(h)itter's sake, right?
Woot, frickin' woot!
G'night 's(h)itter.
(wear black.all good)
Or Oprah might be put up for VP, pushing a chosen candidate over the top the way she pushed Obama over the top, only more so.
I'm going to predict that Oprah won't get through the Democrat primaries.
They weren't ready for Obama.
They'll be ready to defeat Oprah.
Blogger mockturtle said...
Pacwest asserts: I think she would be able to beat Trump even if he gets a successful first term under his belt due to the turnout she could generate.
Why would she get any more votes--or states--than Hillary did? Who would vote for Oprah that did not vote for Hillary?
All those people who voted for Obama because it made them feel good to do so.
It won't be about voting for Oprah. It will be about voting for a symbol.
She might take 50 states.
She pushed her boobs over the top...
"Hey-ohhhhh,"
Inga's criteria:
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
Let's check these out in the case of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
1) Made bogus corruption charges against the White House Travel Office in order to clear the decks for her own cronies.
2) No evidence of intelligence other than a sort of criminal cunning
3) She has a law degree, so that one checks out. Whether she ever put it to good use is questionable.
4) Zip, nada. Unless one counts Bill's used underwear donated for tax purposes.
5) Illegal homebrew mail server
6) Muammar Gaddafi raped and murder by "Arab Spring" thugs. Benghazi killings.
7) None in evidence
8) Let's ask Vince Foster or Seth Rich about that.
9) Has an apoplectic fit and tries to blame it on a persistent cough. $149,000,000 funneled by the Kremlin into the Clinton Foundation via a Canadian cut-out in return for giving Russia a controlling interest in Uranium One.
Inga famously supported Clinton, a person who utterly fails Inga's own criteria in every point but one (the "advanced degree" requirement). So, what do we surmise? Is Inga a bloody hypocrite or just another garden-variety sycophant (Inga's Increase Your Word Power vocable de jour) ?
The left just can not deviate from the focus on gender, race or other factors.
Oprah hits two(or more)of the bonus points. But, following Obama how valuable, really, is a black skin without accomplishments to back it up? Sure the turn out by black women may be high. But it may not be so high for black men, at least not the guys I talk with. And a woman? How did Hillary do? I think Oprah will do worse.
Assuming Trump is doing at all well, how many are going to vote for change - back towards the Obama years - JUST to get a black woman elected?
Inga wrote: From the frying pan into the fire.
Obvious Inga "hates":
1) Lower taxes
2) Full employment in Wisconsin
3) Jews
4) Blacks
The highest reason why Opray Winfrey should not run for President, even if her personal politics were to the right of the Gipper Himself is the plain fact that she combines in herself, though through no fault of her own, the two most pernicious trends in Western civilization: racialism and sexism.
We saw this clearly in the Obama regime — any criticism of Obama's policies was instantly labeled racist by the Democrats and their myrmidons in the MSM. By shouting "Racist!" at every turn they sought and largely gained a presidency isolated from the normal checks and balances which have kept our republic relatively free and open for nearly two hundred and thirty years. For eight years and more (ask Hillary), the concept of a loyal opposition was trashed by racialist politicking. An Oprah regime would be even worse because only black women would be accepted by the likes of NYT, WaPo, CNN and MSNBC as honorable critics of a Winfrey administration.
Everyone gets a car vs your fired
Oprahs image is soft and not sure
She is up to handling Russia, Isis or N Korea
She would have to recast herself as another
Margaret Thatcher
Caregiver vs Badass
If the current world was different I'd say she would have a shot
Because Obama/Clinton/DNC denied the vote to Sanders the Jew. Why would anyone who is not a racist, sexist, congruent, abortionist, anti-nativist, vote for progressive diversity?
Also, #SheKnew
Agree with Quester. And that is why I don’t see another black or female progressive President for a bit. Maybe be 2024 or so. I don’t think that the country is ready for another four years of Obama yet. There was something draining about downgrading our country to second or third best in order to not hurt the feelings of the rest of the world. And that, along with us not being able to complain about it because doing so would be racist and/or sexist, is part of why her time isn’t yet.
And don’t discount that a certain segment of the population was pushed to voting their (white) race as a result of eight years of being called a racist. They expunged their racial guilt by voting for Obama’s, twice.
The other thing that the Dems are going to face is that Trump so far has been successful, despite the best efforts of the Dems and their MSM operatives to hinder or destroy him and his Administration, The US is resurgent, and proud again, in the world. We are finally shaking off the malaise of the eight year Obama’s Recession, with the economy finally not only recovering, but starting to roar. Unemployment is way down, while wages are starting to increase. And, maybe more important, thanks to Tas Reform, the working class and the middle class, outside a handful of deep blue high tax states, will be seeing more money in their paychecks, if they aren’t already. How would Oprah make them better off? She wouldn’t. Maybe the poor, but they don’t usually vote that much. And the very rich, but they vote Democratic already. By 2024 the country may be tired of Trump’s “winning”. But probably not by 2020, when the memory of the dreary Obama years is still so vivid in everyone’s minds.
Why not Oprah for President?
Why not Jeb? Why not Cruz? Why not Hillary?
Once she announces her candidacy and Trump gives her a nickname, we'll all know the answer to the question.
Another thing - can Oprah be mean enough to win? The Dem women likely to run are vicious, as are most of the men. Maybe not senile Sli Joe Biden, but most of the rest of them. Because, of course, winning is everything to them - politics at the top being the route to unlimited money and power. For the nomination, she would have to get by Crooked Hillary, Kamala Harris, Pocahontas Warren, etc, who aren’t going to be nice about losing to her gracefully. No one was surprised that Trump could give back what he was getting. It was well within his brash personality. But Ms Nice? Totally outside her public persona.
I have my own personal gauge on evaluating candidates, which is: where do they fit on the Statist Scale (aka the Coercion Meter). That is, on a scale from 0 to 10, 0 being absolutely pure libertarian anarchism represented by Robert LeFevre and 10 being total tyranny represented by Mao, Hitler, Stalin, et al, and 7 being the State-f**er Zone represented by Hillary, Obama and most if not all of the statists who regularly post here--where does Oprah land on the scale?
I haven't heard Oprah's views on Second Amendment issues, which would be a big factor in where I'd place her on the Statist Scale. I imagine she has the typical Rich "Liberal" approach to guns: i. e., owning a firearm herself and/or surrounding herself with armed bodyguards, while not wanting the serfs to have access to firearms. But let's see.
She has nowhere to go but down.
This is the reason, I believe. I said before Trump was elected that not only would he win, but he would create President Oprah or President Beyonce in his wake. I meant in 2024.
I still believe he'll crush any normal Dem politician in 2020. If the Dems don't run Oprah, they'll be at a severe disadvantage.
For Oprah to run, she has to throw everything she's built on her front lawn and set it on fire. Win or lose, she'll never be this popular again. Win or lose, she'll never have this much influence, moral authority, or ability to influence the national debate.
Trump had none of that, so he was free to do what needed to be done. If Oprah consistently takes the high ground when the dirt comes at her - and there will be dirt - she'll look weak and unable to handle dictators and thugs. If she gets down in the dirt, she starts losing everything that makes her likable and electable.
If you think about a candidate with money, name recognition, good demographics, and a complete inability to wrestle in the mud for fear of getting dirt on them, you don't come up with Trump, you get the second coming of Jeb Bush.
I think Oprah would get fiery at times, but I don't think she's willing to risk everything she's spent her life building to lose. Trump's assets had an intrinsic value due to them being real estate. You might hate The Donald, but land is worth what land is worth.
Oprah's assets are intangible. They're also in media properties. How is that going to play with campaign finance laws? Can there be an Oprah channel if she's a candidate? Is she going to have to sell many of her assets just to file the paperwork to run without fear of immediately committing a felony?
Trump, first and foremost, knows this. He would immediately make it clear that in the game of personal destruction, he has the bigger button.
I think she has limits on where she would go and what she would say. And therefore even though she's the kind of candidate the Dems need, I think it would be a grave mistake for her to run. And I think she's smart enough to know that.
Look for her to tamp down expectations after about a week or so - after she's had time to think about whether she wants to trade her view of the ocean for meetings with the Congressional Black Caucus.
Oprah vs. Donald in 2020. Two Billionaires. Two massive egos. Two media savvy pros. Two major political parties that can not produce more promising candidates from their usual pools of hacks.
Oprah was buddies with rapist pig Harvey Weinstein.
She was a big supporter of rapist Bill Clinton.
Oprah introduced British actress Kadian Noble to rapist pig Harvey Weinstein and she has been scarred ever since.
Furthermore, Oprah rejected Juanita Brodderick for interviews.
And unlike those she talked about the other night bucking up and taking the job for the money. Oprah didn't need the money.
Trump will remind everyone of that over and over again.
I do enjoy how the topic of media attention turned so quickly from:
Our President is mentally unfit for office and must be immediately removed for the good of the country!
to...
Hey, Oprah might run three years from now!
Insincerity, they name is media.
There's NOTHING wrong with being racist or sexist. It's supposed to be a free country, remember?
You forgot about her attack on "pink slime", that wonderfully affordable lean ground beef that Oprah completely annihilated. The best industry took her on and lost. The real victims were the non-elites who could no longer buy lean meat for $2 a pound,but soon saw a $5 minimum price for the same product, just with more expensive processing. Oprah is NOT a friend of the non-elite American.
I hope she runs!! The hidden stories will be revealed and we will hear all about the Oprah stories she has hidden for years!!! Let's open her life story up and tear it apart....I really don't think she wants to go there!!
"Given her enthusiastic support of the Red Diaper Baby's run for the White House....
Are you referring to Hillary Clinton? Hahahahaha! If so, you don't even know who you're castigating. Hillary was a staunch Goldwater Girl, and largely remains so, despite the cosmetic patina of "progressivism" she adopted during the 60s. Pure opportunism, as is true of so many politicians.
President does not back away from what he says, right or wrong, he stays with it".
Is that how you'd want your children to behave?
Oprah is the black female Trump: an empty vessel into which we pour our hopes, fears, and dreams.
It would be nice if Democrats stop talking impeachment and start talking 2020 election.
They are really embarrassing themselves with this impeachment stuff.
"You're fired! We want to fire him! You're fired!"
These are the same Democrats who jumped all over Mitt Romney for saying it was kind of fun to fire people.
It's equally insane to be talking about the 2020 election now. It's so early! Oh my God. Just take a break from the politics, you idiots. Take a year off.
But at least this 2020 insanity is way nicer than the impeach Trump insanity.
I mean, you're obviously impatient as hell, and a little childish. But it's way more positive. Instead of lynching the Grinch you're now waiting for Santa. So props for that. Also Oprah kills off the Hillary soap opera. Actually I'd kind of love to see the Hillary-Oprah debate. And Trump can be tweeting from the sidelines. "Hillary, you're so mean! Sad."
Shit, now you got me looking forward to it. Damn it, Black Santa, look what you did. I don't think you should use that nickname, Mr. President. But it's up to you.
As her speech shows, Oprah is obsessed with race and being black, and even stooped to bringing up what was probably a fake crime (a la Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum) in 1944, while ignoring the fact that "Criminologists estimate that at least 200,000 murders have gone unsolved since the 1960s, leaving family and friends to wait and wonder" is an on-going problem.
If she were President, one could expect far bigger versions of "Oprah had accused one of her staff of 'racism' for refusing to show her a $38,000 handbag at the Zurich store."
I see no reason she couldn't run and being an outsider has advantages. She's never been seriously challenged though. I don't think her road to the White House would be so smooth. It's one thing to be a likeable talk show host and completely something else to be president. A campaign would be revealing.
Ann,
You 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).
Well, then, there's no discussion. Who the president is should be ideological first, everything else second. If we can't talk ideology, then what is there to talk about? The rest of the stuff is really just window dressing. Ideology matters.
I didn't vote for Trump nor Clinton (but I did vote). Trump was incoherent and, well, Trump. Clinton is a leftist and corrupt.
I start with ideology, then go from there, so there's no "game" for me to pay here. I reject the premise that there's something to discuss outside of basic ideology.
It should at least make sense to those of you who've supported Donald Trump from the beginning.
Yes, so who are these Trump supporters who are (or will be ) arguing that Winfrey isn't qualified on the same grounds that anti-Trumpers claimed Trump was unqualified? I don't think they (will) exist in any but vanishingly small numbers. Your hypothetical is highly improbable, which is probably why so many commenters are managing to miss its conditions.
As for Dems, anti-Trumpers, etc., why on earth would you expect any logical or moral consistency from them about what makes a qualified candidate? Sure, the machine pols who think it's their guys turn will react the way the "I'm With Her" crowd reacted last time 'round, but if Winfrey were to get popular traction and look like she'd be the best bet to beat Trump, I have no doubt the "unqualified" arguments that apply as well to Winfrey as to Trump will be dropped by Dems and NeverTrumpers, blithely forgotten by the MSM, and ignored if the opposition has the bad taste to bring them up.
C'mon. You know how this game is played.
My BFF has been closely following Oprah's weight loss attempts with the same rate of success so while I don't pay much attention to Oprah, I hear a lot about her. I don't care what Oprah weighs, and I don't judge her based on her dress size. But her willingness to try out every fad that shows up on the talk show circuit, convince other women this time will be the time that works, lose the weight, and then be even heavier a year later concerns me. She's obviously gullible and lacks personal discipline. Trump decided he wasn't going to be a drinker or a smoker, and to the best of my knowledge, he's kept his promise to himself. He's never pledged to stay away from Twitter or to give up two scoops of ice cream. Oprah, on the other hand, has made dieting and weight loss part of her brand. She sells diet plans and food products related to weight loss as a big part of her business. She's pretty pathetic in that part of her empire. Trump would have to tread lightly on criticizing Oprah for her weight, but I think a lot of women have had enough of her hectoring them about doing something she can't seem to do herself. The "she understands how hard this is" is turning into "will you just shut up, please?"
Yes, Cookie, I know Queen Cacklepants was a Goldwater girl. I was referring to Obama.
.
Earnest Prole said...
"Oprah is the black female Trump: an empty vessel into which we pour our hopes, fears, and dreams."
More like Obama.
With Trump we know his past and he's doing what he told us he would do.
"Back in 1999, Trump thought Oprah would make a great vice president"
As his running mate, no less. Yet for the last two years, the MSM has been selling the line that Trump is a racist.
-AP
"Yes, Cookie, I know Queen Cacklepants was a Goldwater girl. I was referring to Obama."
Since when are middle-of-the-road establishment bureaucrats "red diaper babies?"
You do know what a "Red Diaper Baby" is, Cookie, don't you?
You do know what a "Red Diaper Baby" is, Cookie, don't you?
You have to remember, Comrade Marvin considers Pol Pot to be a Rightwinger.
"Comrade Marvin"? I like it but don't get the reference. Actually, I have often thought Cookie himself is probably a Red Diaper Baby, just from reading between the lines. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that. I've known Red Diaper Babies to grow out of their upbringing and go on to join some of us in the pro-freedom camp. Many, of course, never do and grow up with their heads firmly and immoveably up the State's rectum.
I am a conservative, but if I had to choose, I'd choose Oprah over Hilary, Warren or Biden.
@Chadwick: "Comrade" Cook has explained on more than one occasion that he was raised in a fairly conservative family and used to identify so at a younger age. This gives him a special cred --sort of like Inga's experience with religion growing up.
I think Oprah's launch has fizzled.
Part of Trump's genius was to appeal to crossover voters. Who besides the anti-Trump William Kristol and Meade could Oprah count on for a crossover vote?
Post a Comment