Why we must elect Oprah in 2020 to advance the radical left feminist agenda

[jmowreader]

http://scibabe.com/oprah2020/

[Angry Dragon]

1. she would not be my first choice

[Lisa0825]

2. Be sure to click the link; don't just read the headline. nt

[Wwcd]

3. She would be an incredible voice for the campaign

But not President. She stated she wouldn't know where to begin.
She won't run for President but whomever she endorses & lends her voice to, will be our President.
There are so many perfect roles for her within an administration.

Earlier it was said that people are now begging her to buy FOX News.
She has all the experience she needs.
Imagine what she could do with that!

[dubyadiprecession]

5. How the Hell could she possibly do any worse, than the chief resident in adult day care ?!

For starters, she wouldn't surround herself with the scum trump is accustomed to.

[John Fante]

6. A semi-bright middle school student would better than Gump.

Doesn't mean Oprah should be the face of our party. We can do better, much better.

[Wwcd]

7. She's not as stupid as trump, thinking being President is a job like a CEO where you just delegate.

She knows it takes more than that to sit in the Oval Office. She doesn't have the outrageous ego telling her she could do the job.

But what a voice for humanity & the good of the world she would bring to any position offered.

I don't know. Create a global ambassador position just for her, perhaps.
That is what her entire life has been about.
That is her strength. Not the dirty political games of DC.

But Damn if Oprah Winfrey didn't stand there & in only a few minutes, steal Trump's big media spotlight. He was replaced by a brilliant & admired Black Woman.

☺ Oprah is one smart powerful woman, whatever she chooses to do in the future.
She is loved & respected.

She's not running for President but she will lend her star power, her passion for humanity & smarts if we are fortunate enough .

[Timewas]

15. FFS

A ham sandwich would do better but I certainly hope that the bar for our candidate is a little higher than that...

[ollie10]

41. Don't you think she is better than a ham sandwich?

I don't care whether you support her as a presidential nominee or not. But please don't be insulting

[Timewas]

47. well now

I did not in any way shape or for call her a ham sandwich if that is how you read that I don't know what to tell you... I have no idea at this time whether or not I would support her or not but I definitely didn't insult her... I will stand by the statement, as I said it" a ham sandwich could do better than trump"but putting the bar so low as to say a candidate is okay just because they are "better than trump" is putting the bar pretty low.... As much as I hate to admit it even shrub was better than trump

[Demsrule86]

26. How about and experienced leader who can do better ...

why settle for someone who can't do worse. We can do better. This is imitating the GOP going for a celebrity rather than a statesmen. She is not qualified to be president. I would be a disaster maybe not as bad as Trump's disaster but a disaster none the less.

[ollie10]

48. Wow...the sky is falling....run!!! A DISASTER!!!

Imitating the GOP?

Because Oprah is rich? Hillary was rich. So have been every president except 9. Not all of them have been Republicans.

I cannot think of anyone more the opposite from Trump as Oprah.

She is black. He hates blacks.

She is female. He is a misogynist.

She is a self-made billionaire. Trump needed seed money from his rich father, and blew that, until he got more.

She has been the victim of rape. Trump has sexually assaulted women and bragged about it.

She is a great listener with tremendous empathy. Trump cannot even spell empathy.

She starred in her show for 25 years and was highest ratings in its class....Trump not so much

She has been rated the greatest black philanthropist in history......., he steals money from charities.

She is not just a star of a show....she has launched her own syndication company

She has a heart....he does not

She broke 20th century taboos about having LGBT guests.....Trump nominated Pence as VP

She was presented the Medal of Freedom by Barack Obama.....Trump hates even the thought of Obama

She endorsed Obama....Trump hates even the thought of Obama


I could go on.

Just because she is rich doesn't mean she is like Trump. Does Soros like Trump? Didn't think so. And since when are all TV personalities like Trump?

Oprah is not Trump...She is the Anti-Trump. She is a way to defeat Trump.

[Wwcd]

62. She's not running for US President, but since FOX News is publicly traded,

THAT would be a most valuable way for her to advance a free society & sever one big head of the multi headed propaganda beast.

Her public voice is far more valuable thru Media & she knows that business like the back of her hand.
That's her shining jewel.

[shanny]

84. she's a tv personality and a business woman.

she seems like a nice person, and she has some off the wall beliefs.

what, out of that, qualifies her for pres?

[ollie10]

87. way to diminish her!

She is the number one star for 25 years in her category of show. she started and managed a syndication. shows a lot of executive type skills (I know legislative skills are important, too, but so are executive level skills.) She is a leading philanthropist. She is a good listener and excellent empathy. She has a good heart and what appears to be a liberal bent from what I can tell. These are all skills that a lot of candidates don't have, even coming from legislatures.

You are really coming down harshly on her. Off the wall beliefs? You mean her or are you attacking the diversity of guests that have shown on her show?

You appear to judge her by stereotypes. Pity.

What qualifies her to be president is people voting for her. This is how it works.

[shanny]

102. people voted for cheeto to be president--did that qualify him?

[ollie10]

106. That's a stretch

If you think Oprah has a lot in common with Trump.....geez

I am not even endorsing Oprah. I simply think she has a right to be heard and present her case if she wants to run for president.

What I am seeing is people rejecting her out of hand.

If we have debates and the campaign is going along, I am going to listen to all the candidates and make my decision. Which may or may not be Oprah.

The biggest thing I am going to use to determine my support is electibility. Trump MUST go. And if we don't nominate someone who has the best chance to defeat him, we deserve what we get. To me 4 more years is unthinkable. So I don't give a rip whether a candidate is pure or not....I am going to focus on which Democrat has the best chance to WIN.

There will be polling between now and then. Matchups between each candidate and Trump. If candidate A is soundly beating Trump and the others are close or lagging behind.....you know who is going to get my vote in the primaries. I would hope it is that pure as the drivven snow perfect 100% progressive sent from heaven candidate......but if that candidate is not running, I will go with whoever can defeat Trump

[shanny]

112. "That's a stretch."

No, this is a stretch:

"People voting for her is what qualifies her to be President."

That's not how this works. QED

[ollie10]

114. I just love it when people mistake their own opinions for incontrovertable facts

qed? omg

[shanny]

116. you haven't been keeping up:

"people voted for cheeto for president--did that qualify him?"

No. QED

buh-bye

[ollie10]

118. Is Oprah Trump?

Didn't think so.

[Demsrule86]

94. Hillary was a lawyer, a senator and a first lady...I don't think Oprah is qualified and won't

support her in a primary. I doubt she will win. I will vote for who ever wins the Democratic primary.

[ollie10]

96. Yes, Hillary was experienced. But experienced wasn't enough to prevent Trump

We need to look at electibility and quit nominating people we complain about how unfair it is when they lose.

[Demsrule86]

97. I don't think Oprah is electable. I also don't want to elect someone who can't govern.

I don't think she would have a chance.

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. So, we're reduced to someone, anyone who couldn't possibly

do any worse than tRump? No thanks.

[LeftInTX]

51. She would be better. She could win.

But our country can do better....

It is setting a creepy precedent.

The new trend would be that our president would be a celeb...

[ollie10]

58. Famous people have always had an advantage running for president

they didn't have TV in the 1800s.....

But it isn't anything new that fame would help someone win an election.

I think people are getting a bit too wound up about Oprah.

If she runs, the people will decide. If she doesn't connect with the people, she will lose.

[LeftInTX]

67. We tend to emphasize personality too much

But every president that I know from the 20th century on has had some type of government experience.

Even Hoover was an appointee...I think he was head of the Bureau of Mines or something like that.

Reagan was a governor....

[ollie10]

72. George Washington did not have experience in Congress.

Neither did Jefferson, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt.

Is experience a good thing? sure.

But you have to remember. it is the people who decide. They will vote for who they think is the best one. If they choose one who is the most experienced, then he/she will win. If they like the other candidate, then they will win.

[fescuerescue]

85. Founders skip the experience part

Washington, Gates, Zuckerberg, Ford.

go figure.

[ollie10]

88. Yeah...who would support someone like that?

This "experience thing" is a fallacy.

The only one running for president in 2020 with experience doing it will be Donald J Shithole.

I don't think experience is the only factor for us to make our decisions, but if it is they should vote for DT

[Ghost Owl]

100. I mean, yeah, she's not Trump

but neither are Carrot Top, Li'l Wayne, Flo from Progressive, or Tom Arnold, but I don't want any of them to be President.

"Better Than Trump" is like...99% of the population.

I think there some places in an administration where Oprah would be an appropriate appointment. Ambassador, Head of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Businesses, or the like.

[pressbox69]

4. Better Oprah

than Doperah.

[nini]

8. :-)

good one.. I actually clicked the link as you can tell

[orleans]

20. same here and i completely agree with it! n/t

[Hekate]

9. In what way is Oprah a "radical left feminist"? That is sophomoric and inane beyond belief.nt

[uponit7771]

10. In now way, I'm starting to think some are sKeered she might run. Wingers were going nuts

... today.

[pressbox69]

18. Exactly

It's a sight to behold. She has the cracker barrel bonehead klanners in a panic. Go Oprah! Same with Hillary. I don't want her to run but I want Hillary around. Just the sight of Hillary torments republiklans to no end.

[Wwcd]

66. They hold that much power!! And they use it for good.

We definateely need them out front. They can scatter the weak kneed vermin by the mention of their name. Neither will ever remain silent.
Damn!

[Orrex]

34. Criticism of Sanders was also dismissed as "fear"

According to the script:
The media was afraid of him; the GOP was afraid of him; the DNC was afraid of him; the Clinton campaign was afraid of him; his critics on DU were afraid of him; etc.

Amazingly, criticism of a candidate is sometimes due not to fear but to legitimate questions about that candidate's viability. Dismissing such questions as "fear" is simply an attempt to neutralize and delegitimize them without actually addressing them.


Republican assholes certainly are a bunch of racist fuckheads, so their concerns are chiefly grounded in racism and misogyny, but in recent days those same labels have also been applied to DUers who voiced any concerns about hypothetical candidate Winfrey.

[JHB]

32. The video at the site alleges "radical left feminist" because apparently she...

Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

[Wwcd]

68. LOL..the rick roll song?

[IluvPitties]

11. There's a lot she can do from her current position.

I still feel we need an experienced insider to fix Trump's mess.

[L. Coyote]

12. Imagine a government of all celebrities, narcissists, fame and wealth seekers,

No thanks .....

[ollie10]

28. Imagine a world where democrats reject every electable candidate

[L. Coyote]

39. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

[NCTraveler]

76. No joke.

She hasn’t been vetted and polls similar to Warren and Sanders. The “I’m all in on Oprah” group seem passionate about losing. They just don’t have the ability to think their way past their latest savior of the minute. That will change tomorrow when someone else speaks well in front of a camera.

[ollie10]

77. OK what RECENT polls are you referring to? Source please

[ollie10]

79. OK I'll take your bait....Poll released Today....

Oprah 48%
Asshole 38%

http://deadline.com/2018/01/oprah-beats-donald-trump-2020-presidential-race-poll-rasmussen-reports-1202240012/

OK it's a Rasmussen poll, but they usually favor Trump so I would assume she actually does better than that.

[NCTraveler]

80. Not sure what in the world you are talking about when it comes to a reply to my post.

Very strange to say the least. The replies are helping me to understand the mindset. Reading seems to be secondary.

[ollie10]

81. OK call me strange. Isn't that against the anti-flaming rules here?

But, just in case you forgot, I was referring to your statement: "She hasn’t been vetted and polls similar to Warren and Sanders."

I was hoping you had a sincere interest in what the polling is saying this week. I guess I had high hopes.

[NCTraveler]

82. Im very well aware of the polling.

It’s why my original comment is correct as it stands.

Strange is pretty minor. Might I suggest you brush it off.

[ollie10]

83. OK. Will do that! Have a good one

[Demsrule86]

127. Or they think if she ran he could win.

[Stanley Roper]

44. We're already there

[loyalsister]

13. No

The telling of a bootstrap story, no matter how genuine, only serves to advance the ideology that values competition among individuals as opposed to promoting the safety and well being of us all.
Oprah's popularity has everything to do with wealth worshipping culture. "Self-made billioaire" is something I have read as being one of her greatest attributes. We have had enough candidates who personify the rare good fortune that people have been convinced is possible - if they work hard enough. Enough of the American dream lie.

[flotsam]

16. Yep. +1 N/T

[ollie10]

45. So when you see Oprah, you only see a rich person?

You don't give her credit for anything else as a person?

You are posing a false choice....we either have support Oprah or safety and well being of us all. Bull pucky. We can have both.

Since when would a black female president pose threat to the safety and well being of us all? Care to explain to us how that works?

Oh....is it that she is RICH.....? There have been several white and male presidents who were very rich and were good presidents. Like Kennedy, Both Roosevelts, James Madison, Thomas jefferson, George Washington.....Bill Clinton.

And candidates have been rich too....anyone oppose Hillary because she was rich?

Hell only 9 presidents were NOT millionaires!

So what is the big deal about a black woman who is rich running?

[loyalsister]

69. I was talking about the inevitable campaign narrative

Where acquisition of wealth is considered an achievement that qualifies a person to be prresident. I am not interested in another campaign where the lie of the American dream is displayed by a candidate who calls themselves self made without recognizing how much good luck came their way. The neoliberal fantasy that promotes that lie only serves to crush much of the population in a competitive system where not everyone will succeed or even reach a point of basic financial security.

I am not aware of any Kennedy or Roosevelt calling the good fortune of being born into a wealthy family an acheivement. Clinton did push the "if you work hard and play by the rules" lie. Most of us are all too aware of how damaging that belief can be. Currently people who bought it are devoting much of their income to pay off student loans. Most others were left behind while economic equality or even a life with a home and enough food is not within their sights.

I don't care how much money a candidate has. The problem is calling it an acheivement that qualifies someone to lead the US and repair our relationships with other countries post-Trump. I also would prefer a candidate who does not try to sell positive thinking and working hard as paths to economic well being, while they hold themselves up as a prime example.

We are not going to see widespread economic security until policy makers are willing to admit that skill and hard work are not necessarily enough, and promote policies with intention to keep people safe and secure even when they are left behind. Whether it is because of the accident of their birth, the disappearance of professions like factory work and coal mining, not stumbling upon opportunities that fit with their qualifications, or not being able to compete for any other reason.

Has Oprah done anything to disabuse the public of the lie that keeps people down and in the very large pool of poverty and barely making it economic insecurity. My problem isn't in having wealth. It is with using it as self promotion.

[longship]

86. I see a person who supports many utterly kooky ideas.

And a person certainly utterly ignorant of science, and -- horrors -- medicine.

Read it from Orac's Respectful Insolence Blog.
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/01/09/oprah-winfrey-president-anyone-remember-pseudoscience-quackery-shes-promoted/

snip

Not surprisingly, I was underwhelmed. Those of you who’ve been following the blog already know why. Those of you who haven’t probably don’t because I haven’t written about Oprah in quite a while. The reason is quite simple. Once her talk show went off the air in 2011, there was a lot less reason for me to blog about her because her enormously popular and influential platform for spreading pseudoscience and quackery was gone.

Pseudoscience and quackery? Oh, yes. In the early years of this blog, Oprah was a frequent topic of Orac’s Insolence, and for good reason. She was one of the foremost promoters of pseudoscience, quackery, and general New Age BS in the world. If you think I’m exaggerating, just think of it this way. Oprah not only gave the world America’s quack, Dr. Mehmet Oz, and the foremost promoter of pseudoscience in mental health, Dr. Phil McGraw, who also stands accused of providing alcohol and drugs to addicts featured on his show in order to ramp up the drama factor. It would be bad enough if that were all she had done, but it’s not.

I first remember becoming aware of Oprah’s promotion of pseudoscience and mystical New Age nonsense more than ten years ago, when I learned of her promotion of The Secret. The Secret, if you’ll recall, is a spectacular bit of New Age woo that basically claims that, in essence, wishing makes it so. No, that’s not quite right, although it is close. Basically, the idea behind The Secret is the Law of Attraction, which states that you will attract from the universe the things you want. Basically, if you want something badly enough, the universe will manifest it for you. Of course, on one level, there is a grain of truth to this idea. Obviously, people who want things badly work hard to obtain those things and are thus more likely to get them. The Secret, of course, takes that simple concept beyond the reasonable and into the realm of wishing making it so. I find The Secret to be a particularly pernicious bit of wishful thinking because it is at the heart of so much quackery. Indeed, I have argued that the central dogma of alternative medicine is in fact The Secret, or the idea that wishing makes it so.

snip

Much more Oprah quackery exposed at link.

BTW, Orac is Dr. David Gorski, a surgeon and oncologist specializing in breast cancer. He is also prominent in science-based medicine and has taken a fierce stand against medical quackery of the likes that Oprah Winfrey has promoted for decades.

No to Oprah for President. She is just too damned kooky.

[ollie10]

89. Well not everyone thinks Gorski is dependable...

http://www.truthwiki.org/orac-david-h-gorski/

I am not a doctor. But before we go around rushing to judgement calling Oprah a kook, maybe we should cool our jets a bit?

[longship]

99. You cite an anti-vaccination site?

Well, that's just like Oprah. She supports anti-vaccination position.

I dont have to say anything more here.

[longship]

103. Mike Adams, of Natural News, hosts truthwiki.

It is one of the most odious sites on the Web, other than Natural News itself. All the sources there are cited from Adam's Natural News. It is not even a true Wiki as entry edits are not allowed. TruthWiki is all Mike Adams, in other words complete rubbish, lies, and distortions, just like Natural News.

Here's the Wikipedia entry for Mike Adams' Natural News:
Natural News

Here's where Dr. David Gorski posts:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/
https://respectfulinsolence.com/

Both are based on science.

I posted this lest anybody take your post seriously, which they should not.

[ollie10]

105. I really don't care if you take my post seriously....

At least you admit it! That reflects more on you than me.

I am not endorsing Gorski or his opponents. I am merely pointing out that people disagree with him, and it only took about 30 seconds on a Google search to find one. There is something about his website that sounds a bit arrogant, like he has the holy grail of science and others are not scientific. Making science sound like orthodox religion! Whatever.

I am hoping you will in the future consider other posters seriously. But, again, your loss if you don't not anyone eles's

[longship]

113. I certainly do not take it seriously.

The people who disagree with Dave Gorski are utter quacks. That is really the only justification for taking a position against science-based medicine, the support for abject quackery.

Oprah Winfrey supports quackery, I suspect because of simple ignorance of the facts. I have no idea if Oprah's ignorance is willful or not. To me, it makes little difference as the result of her support for quackery is the same. People are harmed by it.

[ollie10]

115. You are entitled to your opinion

and so are those who don't worship at the feet of Gorski

[longship]

117. I don't worship.

I just happen to agree with the principles that medicine is based on science. Oprah does not and I take that as a rather serious flaw in her character.

I see that this discussion is going no where, so I will bid adieu to you at this point.

Regardless, my best to you.

[ollie10]

119. My best to you too

[longship]

120. ...

[MiniMe]

14. I can't support the person who gave us Dr Oz, Dr Phil, and Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccination BS

[ollie10]

46. Oh you don't support someone with thousands and thousands of guests over decades.....

....because you found a few you don't like.

Wow. Just wow.

[jmowreader]

124. Drs Oz and Phil are a little more than Oprah Guests

She turned both of them into media empires of their own.

[ollie10]

125. Are they running for president?

Didn't think so.

[Greybnk48]

17. Oprah would make a great Preacher or motivational

speaker. She is not even remotely qualified to be the President of the United States. Neither is Mark Cuban or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, much as I love them all for different reasons.

We need a smart, (actually) educated, sharp mind in there again like Obama. And someone young, vibrant and connected. Again like Obama.

[orleans]

19. i am in complete agreement with this short piece you linked to. n/t

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

21. Remind exactly why she is qualified to be President?

Tell me once again about her history in elective politics, the offices she's held, her knowledge of law and the Constitution. Somehow, oddly enough, I can't recall any of those.

[ollie10]

29. She is qualified according to the constitution

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

30. So am I. So are about 300 million others.

But she has zero experience in electoral politics. No history of working with legislators. Among the reasons Trump is so truly awful is that he's a "businessman" but know nothing whatsoever of how the government works. And while Oprah Winfrey is a lot smarter than Trump, she's never run for office, never ushered a bill to a vote, never had to decide who might be a good candidate for ambassador or head of an agency or as a federal judge.

Honest to god, merely being a citizen who was born in this country, while the rock bottom minimum, is NOT a sufficient or minimal requirement to the job.

Plus, think just a bit about HER ability to do critical thinking. Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil come to mind. This is NOT a woman who understands science very well.

[ollie10]

35. Trump is bad because he is a bad person

Oprah is not a bad person.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

56. Simply not being a bad person is not a very strong recommendation

for someone to be President.

I'm not a bad person either. Guess I should run for President.

[ollie10]

57. Apparently you are not aware of the many great things Oprah has done

And how she is different from Trump.

If you just see her as a TV star, you are really missing the boat

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

59. She's also an incredibly gullible person

who doesn't pay a lot of attention to factual stuff.

She's given us Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil, and those two alone makes me wonder exactly what kind of people she'd have in her cabinet.

Yes, she's made enormous sums of money and has done some very good things will all that money, but if you think that such things make her qualified to run the country, then you are missing the boat.

I remember how back in 2004, after Barack Obama had made that speech at the DNC and won election to the U.S. Senate, there was talk that maybe someday he might run for President, but of course he simply didn't have the experience or background to do so in 2008. The common wisdom that he needed to spend a term or to in the Senate and then he could run.

So now people are gushing all over a woman who has zero legislative experience, never has run for President, not even been a community organizer. If people are serious about nominating and attempting to elect her, then this country is in giant trouble.

[ollie10]

61. Let the people decide....

Are you saying that if she gets enough support from the people to win, then this country is in giant trouble?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

63. Yep, I am saying exactly that.

If we go from one totally unqualified TV personality as President to a second unqualified TV personality as President it will be obvious that the Presidency has been reduced to a popularity contest on par with a typical high school class election. But in high school the class officers don't have any meaningful power. The country's President does.

[ollie10]

65. She is a qualified candidate for president

And she is more than a TV star.

It is demeaning to just see her as her role as a TV star. Reflects on you, more than her.

To compare her to Trump is insulting. She is the total opposite of Trump.

Not only that, if you really don't like Trump she could be the best way to defeat him

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

70. Qualified? Remind me again of her experience in

elected office, in a legislature passing bills.

She has the basic qualification that a lot of us have, that of being a natural born citizen. Beyond that, her accomplishments in the entertainment world don't really make her qualified to be President. I am comparing her to Trump in terms of the same lack of experience. Okay, so she's not a semi-literate vindictive dolt like the Donald, and she might possibly appoint better people to head up agencies, but she, like Trump, or anyone else who's never been in office before, would be starting from ground zero if she were to win.

The Oval Office is not a good place for on the job training.

[ollie10]

75. I think a lot of people would rather vote for someone like Oprah

than a lot of Congress Critters! Look at the approval ratings of Congress!!!! Even lower than President Asshole.

What was that thing Obama talked about....change?

You don't get change by always voting for the way things have alway been

[Lee-Lee]

22. So what her her...

Tax policies?
Basic theories and philosophy on government and what government should and should not be?
Positions on crime? Public safety? Gun contrail?
What is her philosophy for picking judicial nominees?
What does she see America’s role in the world as?
What is her view on immigration?

Do we know any of these things? Or is everyone just scrambling because it’s a name they recognize and rushing in with no clue what she’s actually about?

[oberliner]

23. Is Rick Astley even an American citizen?

I don't think he is.

[OnDoutside]

27. Maybe he isn't.... but he's never gonna give her up !

I had to. I just had to.

[tymorial]

31. He won't let her down either.

[NCTraveler]

24. Short yet well thought out piece. Thanks.

[Demsrule86]

25. She won't get elected and it will be a disaster...and we won't advance any agenda but will lose the

courts and all of the achievements since Roosevelt...stop looking for a savior and roll up you sleeves. We need a Lyndon Johnson...not an Oprah.

[marlakay]

49. I like what Johnson passed

But you do realize he threatened and blackmailed to get the votes?

If that is what it takes to get something done I would rather have Oprah!

[Demsrule86]

91. The key things you said was get it done...I have problem with twisting a few arms to get things done

We need to get it done. And have leaders who are not afraid to take the Right Wing on.

[ollie10]

50. And Lyndon Johnson did so well in 68.....

Methinks you picked a dubious example

[Demsrule86]

90. You are obviously not aware of Johnson's accomplishments. He got Civil rights,medicare and medicaid

passed. It doesn't matter how long you are there with that sort of accomplishment...and if they had run a better candidate than Humphrey, we might have won.

[ollie10]

95. You don't know me. Yes, I am aware of his civil rights accomplishments

PS....LBJ decided not to run long before Humphrey got the nomination. It was Robert Kennedy's assassination that paved the way for Humphrey. In any case, you could have chosen a better example to illustrate your attempted point.

[Demsrule86]

98. It was the Vietnam war and who gives a damn...he got Medicare, Medicaid and civil rights....

Roosevelt was in office for how long? And he was unable to do any of that...I think Johnson is a great example and very underrated. He got stuff done. I admire that. He was tough and I admire that too.

[ollie10]

104. you are missing my point

[Demsrule86]

107. No you are missing my point. We need someone who can accomplish important things...

First, overturn every shitty thing the orange blob did. We don't need more talk and to sing kumbaya. And for actual policy and forcing it though because it will be a battle...we need an experienced person...not Oprah. Who has a different sort of experience. Electing celebrities who know little about governing is foolish. We need a Johnson who can get stuff done and is tough as nails.

[ollie10]

109. I am focusing on who can win

If you don't win in November it makes ZERO difference how good a candidate you were, how experienced you are, what grand plans you had to do all those great things.

No matter who we nominate, they are going to be better than Shithead. Half a loaf is better than none. A lesson, by the way, LBJ knew all too well. As you aptly pointed out he got things done.

If one candidate is polling way ahead of Trump in head to head matchups and the other candidates are close or even lagging behind, to me it is a clear choice. We simply cannot afford to take any chance that Trump will come out ahead in november.

I don't know at this point who that candidate may be. And I would hope that it would turn out that each and every Democratic candidate would poll 20 points ahead of Trump. But then again, I am realistic enough to know that is not likely to happen.

I do know that Oprah has the POTENTIAL to be a game changer. A lot will, of course, depend on how she runs her campaign.....but the potential is there. It could turn out that she has the best chance to beat :Trump. Just this week a poll has her ahead of Trump 48 to 38....and that is a Rasmussen poll that usually is biased in favor of Republicans.

I am not endorsing Oprah. I am merely pointing out the obvious, that she could have a real chance. And that I would hope we all keep an open mind about her.

I appreciate that...behind all the talk....many of us already have a horse in the race and Oprah is seen as a threat to our horse. I get that.

[Demsrule86]

128. I am sure Democratic politicians can be Trump and they can govern. I don't want a celebrity who

has no idea what to do. Stakes are too high...the GOP should be ashamed of electing an unqualified candidate...we should not make the same mistake.

[ollie10]

130. Moving the goal posts

I don't think she would be unqualified. Why do you think so?

[ollie10]

52. I suspect that there will be a lot of polling between now and the end of the primaries

I predict that Oprah would do much better in matchups with Trump than the other Democrats running.

I will go with the candidate who is best able to beat Trump. I don't much care which one it is, as long as they hold Democratic values.

[Demsrule86]

92. I won't vote for Oprah. I will not vote for an unqualified celebrity. Yes, if she was in the

general I would vote for her...but she will lose a general. The idea that we select a celebrity and try to beat Trump at his own game is stupid...America doesn't want Trump or another celebrity I suspect...how do you suppose Oprah will play in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and even Pennsylvania...we will lose.

[BeyondGeography]

33. Recd for some good old fashioned Rick Rolling

[FSogol]

36. The thread in which the OP discovers that most DU'ers never read beyond the subject line, but

can get outrageously outraged anyway!

[VOX]

37. Yep. With all the aerodynamics of a grand piano.

Figuratively speaking, of course.

[left-of-center2012]

40. Some think being black, female, rich, and a TV personality qualifies her as POTUS

Some thought being white, male, rich, and a TV personality qualified Trump to be POTUS.

[ollie10]

43. some think nominating an experienced and qualified candidate like Clinton should run against Trump

Stupidity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result

[ollie10]

42. A question for those who are dissing the idea of an Oprah candidacy.....

There has certainly been quite a stir since her speech.

I am assuming that people aren't opposing her candidacy because she is black, or because she is a woman. At least not consciously.

I do wonder if a white male self-made billionaire with lots of media appeal but little legislative experience,,whether he would be relegated to cheer leader status and not allowed on the team. You know, you can't play with the big guys, this sort of thing hasn't been done before....

This is all speculative, and premature I suppose. For one, we don't know for sure whether she will run or not. We also don't know what her platform would be. We also don't know who else would be running.

It would appear to me to be obvious that Oprah is in the "super star" status as a potential candidate, someone who could single handed alter the playing field. It would appear that she COULD have a decided advantage in beating Asshole Trump.

SO THE QUESTION:.assuming her positions on issues turn out to be in the mainstream of Democratic liberal thought, and let's present the scenario of consistent polling showing she has a significant lead over Trump, whereas her other Democratic rivals are behind Trump or about even......

Do you vote for the candidate who is way ahead of Trump or do you go with a candidate with more experience who is behind Trump in the polls?

[Tikki]

60. I vote for the candidate who doesnt bring along anti-democratic, anti-progressive

people with them...Let’s see how many conservative friends and public figures she’s
ready to befriend for the best interest of the nation, not her media presence after the fact.

Tikki

[ollie10]

64. are you saying that she would be anti-democratic and anti-progressive?

Back in the days when one of the taboos was to have LGBT on the air, she was right there giving them a voice.....

Wow. totally anti=progressive.....

She endorsed Obama. Wow. Totally anti-progressive.

Greatest black philanthropist in history. Wow. Totally anti-progressive.

OK....your turn....lets hear you give some evidence that Oprah the person is indeed anti-democratic or anti-progressive?

It's easy to throw stones at people you don't like. What is your evidence?

[Tikki]

71. She endorsed Schwarzenegger, tried to validate Furman, knew what Weinstein was.....etc.

I am concerned that she will be ever aware that this is a 4 year job and won’t want to
alienate certain people from her past and future.

Tikki

[ollie10]

73. And Reagan once was a Democrat.....

....and your point is?

[Tikki]

78. I wrote what might be the problem in my reply to a question.

We need someone not concerned about what will be there after a presidency.
She is tied to the business. She will absolutely need to let certain people go in no uncertain terms.

I am not sure she will or can do that. She will not just be hosting, opinions and
popular causes.

Tikki

[Demsrule86]

108. No. I don't want a celebrity who thinks his first foray in politics should be to run for

president. Start with local politics or a house seat. Gain some relevant experience. Running this country is a difficult and important job...having earned big money and succeeding in any industry does not qualify you for this job.

[ollie10]

110. Even if it means nominating someone who is not likely to win?

Need I remind that we nominated a wonderful person, and experienced and eminently qualified person to run in 2016. That she would have difficulty in the election was predictable. Instead of facing the obvious, we got over confident.

[Demsrule86]

126. I don't think she is likely to win. And if she did win she would not be able to govern.

[ollie10]

129. You moved the goal line

[stonecutter357]

53. Oprah 2020

[NBachers]

54. I'd love to have her in the primaries, & witness the heart, the issues, & the awareness she'd bring.

[Tikki]

55. True, she is probably better than her money, but follow the people she has endorsed

befriended and validated...Some are definitely not progressive, women rights advocates.
Just the opposite.


Tikki

[lillypaddle]

74. She's a non-religious Joel Osteen

NO FUCKING WAY!!!!!! Can't stand that woman.

[aka-chmeee]

93. Absolutely.

I find myself at a loss for words to describe this. Only thing I can say is from The Right Stuff courtesy of Fred Ward.

[nini]

122. That is a perfect description of her

[lillypaddle]

123. Why thank you very much

[RainCaster]

101. I want to see her support Elizabeth Warren

Oprah has no experience, no education, and no connections. Obama had all of those, and that is why he was so successful.

[McCamy Taylor]

111. She is not "radical left".

[NYC Liberal]

121. Why not a mayorship first? Or state legislature? Maybe Congress?