Lawrence O'Donnell: "I am now a changed political analyst . . .

[pnwmom]

on Oprah.

I am for Oprah."

He was stunned by the political skills she demonstrated today.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. She gave a terrific speech in support of Stacey Abrams, and voting.

But I still don't want her to run for president. She's a great spokesperson, though.

[pnwmom]

4. Could you see her as VP?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. No. Nobody should be VP unless they are completely qualified to be president,

because that's what they're there for. A VP has only two constitutional functions: to break a tie in the Senate (which rarely happens), and to take over as president if the president dies or is otherwise unable to serve. I don't want a VP who has no experience in government, no matter how awesome their campaigning skills might be.

[pnwmom]

9. Although if a VP were elevated to the Presidency, that person

could then appoint someone extremely experienced to be the new VP.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. THE PRESIDENT has the ultimate authority over life and death matters like war.

The vice president could not overrule the president's decisions in those matters. Right now we have a president with no government experience who ignores the advice of the more qualified people who advise him. Even Pence, as bad as he is, is more qualified than Trump. While Trump is exponentially more awful than anybody else, he should nevertheless be a lesson for the political universe forever, which is: DO NOT EVER ALLOW SOMEONE WITH NO EXPERIENCE IN GOVERNMENT GET EVEN CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENCY. EVER! That means no Oprah, no Avenatti.

[brush]

25. Are you seriously putting Oprah in trump's category? Ridiculous.

[better]

36. Deeper observation is warranted here.

While it would in no way be appropriate to equate Oprah and Trump in the category of decency, when it comes to the category of experience in government, yes she absolutely should be in the same category.

This is a mistake we all need to be mindful not to make, improperly conflating two things on the basis of both being in one category. Things can belong to multiple categories.

For example, water and sulfuric acid both belong the category of "clear liquid".
The additional fact that drinking one or not drinking the other will kill you in no way changes or reflects upon the fact that both are clear liquids.

[brush]

38. Nice try, but you need to go even deeper.

To build a TV network from scratch, publish a successful magazine from scratch, build a production facility from scatch to house the above you have to make good decisions on not just the logistics of such operations but who to hire to accomplish your end goals.

That's a big part of governing as well, putting the right people in place to get the job done.

She has done that over and over throughout her career.

Why are people here not recognizing that good decision making and the right people put in place to make them is as much a part of government as it is business?

And btw, Oprah is an actual self-made billionaire (without multi-million dollar seed money from daddy), unlike the claimed-to-be-billionaire trump.

[better]

41. You are objecting to what you inferred from what I said, not what I actually said.

Look closely, and you will see that I drew absolutely zero inferences from the fact that Oprah has no government experience. I merely stated that because this is true, she rightly belongs to the category "having no government experience", and that having that she and trump having that in common imparts no other attributes of either one onto the other.

By all means, advocate passionately for your beliefs about whether or not having government experience should be a prerequisite for becoming President, but please don't conflate people correctly identifying her as belonging to that category with equating her with Trump. It's a grossly over-simplified analysis, and is likely to give you an unwarranted negative impression of people who are probably your allies.

[brush]

43. H-m-m-m? You said all that to say what?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. No, that wasn't the point. The point is that if you elect someone with no experience

in government based only on their persuasive campaigning, you are buying a pig in a poke. You don't know what you are really getting, and then when they are actually in office and have to govern the country you discover too late they aren't up to it, one way or another. Oprah and Trump have only two things in common: They are both very persuasive public speakers (to some, anyway), and neither has ever had a minute's experience in government. Oprah wouldn't be a mean-spirited, bigoted wannabe despot, but she would certainly have shortcomings in other areas. There's a steep learning curve even for experienced senators and governors; why make a total rookie the most powerful leader in the world, even if they seem really, really nice? I don't want a doctor operating on me who just got out of medical school and I don't want to ride in a 200-passenger jet airplane being flown by someone who got their pilot's license last week. Likewise, I don't want my president to be someone whose knowledge of government consists entirely of what they picked up in their 9th-grade civics course.

[brush]

39. See post number 38, and please, putting Oprah in trump's category is just silly.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. Running a government isn't like running a business because governments

aren't businesses. That's one big mistake Trump voters made: they assumed that because Trump was a businessman he'd be a good president, because they think governments are like businesses, which they are not. The other big mistake, of course, that Trump was not actually a good businessman; he ran a tiny organization with about 12 employees that he started with inherited money, and he drove several of his companies into bankruptcy. He was a lousy businessman, but that's not why he's a lousy president; if he'd been a good businessman he'd still be a lousy president. But Oprah, who is apparently good at business but nevertheless has no experience with the very different field of government, has stated quite firmly that she's not running anyhow.

[brush]

42. Decision making is a big part of both. She makes good ones. Trump and W, previous business...

people—less than successful ones I should add—made horrible decisions, especially in their staffing choices.

We can agreed to disagree. Oprah is actually brilliant. Neither W or trump have ever risen from the level of dumb ass.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

44. Lots of brilliant people who are stars in their fields wouldn't be good presidents.

Even if you are capable of making good decisions, you won't make them if you are unfamiliar with or don't understand the underlying factual basis for the decision you need to make.

[brush]

45. Neither you or I know how good she would be. But from past experience I wouldn't bet against her.

You have to know just as I do that there are many instances where skills from one area have transferred well to others.

There are just as many successes as there are failures.

[jberryhill]

52. Yes, she can make Doc Oz the Surgeon General and Jenny McCarthy head of the CDC

Great decisions!

[brush]

54. Ever heard of Dwight Eisenhower? He came from another field where decision making is important.

He was a good pres.

It's easy to cherry pick what you think were bad decisions while ignoring the fact that she's made enough good decisions to build a TV network, a successful magazine and a production facility to house them and on and on—all from scratch.

As per Ike's example, it all depends on the individual as to whether their skills translate from one field to another. From her history of success, I wouldn't bet against her.

And btw, she's an actual, self-made billionaire and not a self-claimed one who got multi-million dollar seed money from daddy like the multi-bankrupted clown in the WH now.

[Hortensis]

46. Brush, you rarely disappoint expectations.

[brush]

47. Ok. But pls explain.

[samnsara]

27. AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..experience counts in these positions...we dont need someone who has to go thru a learning curve.

[violetpastille]

30. Completely agree.

It's like asking someone with nice hair to have a go at yours.

Even though they never cut hair in their life.

Times infinity.

[LanternWaste]

51. What then constitutes "completely qualified?"

Above and beyond those already written and enumerated...

[cilla4progress]

18. 100

agree.

Need those strong, clear outside voices.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

2. "For Oprah" as what?

[pnwmom]

5. He didn't clarify. That's all he said, in a pre-show chat with Rachel. n/t

[underpants]

3. She's very smart

[YOHABLO]

6. Why does it take Oprah to get people out to vote? That's the question.

[DeminPennswoods]

8. She's a great motivational speaker

that's why.

[MontanaMama]

10. Doesn't matter to me

as they do. Oprah is inspiring to many people. If she can inspire them to vote, so be it.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

53. +1

[nolabear]

13. She is a wonderful communicator. I wouldn't want her as President

but she has that wonderful ability to move people with her words. She preaches. She cajoles. She exhorts. It’s one of the styles that drives facts (and in the pathological, lies) past the cerebral cortex and into the limbic brain. She, Obama, Biden, Beto, a few other Democrats have that talent. The others have the political expertise too. I’m glad she’s carrying the message but she shouldn’t seek major office.

[Cha]

16. She doesn't want her as president.

Thank Goodness we have her as an inspiring GOTV Activist!

[YOHABLO]

21. Reading your comments above: I think you're all missing the point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled Oprah is out there helping motivate people to vote for Abrams. I see voting as my duty to my country and the people I love. Here in GA early voting has been ongoing for a month in advance.There is no excuse for any citizen U.S. or resident of GA that's of voting age not to vote.

[shanny]

22. Other than, you know, active voter suppression.

But I'm sure that doesn't happen and it especially doesn't happen in Georgia.

[qazplm135]

28. plenty more people who don't vote

because of apathy or ignorance or inability than voter suppression.

The inability part we have to work on, the first two are on the voter.

[Merlot]

11. I honestly don't think I could vote for her.

Or any other "star" with no political experience for president. That's the repubs playbook.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. I think she is an extremely effective spokesperson for the Dem party and its candidates.

She absolutely should not run herself (and very explicitly said today that she would not run). When such a shiny object appears it's easy to forget that after they win they still have to govern.

[Glorfindel]

29. "...after they win they still have to govern." Yes! That's the mess we're in right now.

tRump has no interest in governing. Winning (and making money) is the only thing that matters to that Tangerine Maggot.

[RichardRay]

15. vs Trump in 2020?

Don’t start that again.

[obamanut2012]

20. Link to where she said she would run?

Guess what? There is none -- she has said no way would she ever run. People just like to snark on Oprah instead of just giving her props.

[spooky3]

31. One huge difference is that she has built a large SUCCESSFUL

business. Although that is not a substitute for governing experience, it is a lot more than simply being a celebrity.

Obama did not have a lot of experience when he was nominated.

I think it depends on the person.

[brush]

35. Yes. To build a TV network from scratch, publish a successful magazine from scratch...

a production facility you have to make good decisions on not just the logistics of such operations but who to hire to accomplish your end goals.

That's a big part of governing as well, putting the right people in place to get the job done.

She has done that over and over throughout her career.

Why are people here not recognizing that good decision making and the right people put in place to make them is as much a part of government as it is business?

And btw, Oprah is an actual self-made billionaire (without multi-million dollar seed money from daddy), unlike the claimed-t0-be-billionaire trump.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Starting From Essentially Nothing, Too

Unlike a vulgarian who inherited enough wealth to have done nothing but play golf every day and still ended up with more money than currently claimed.

She started off with almost nothing and became worth 10 figures!

[spooky3]

50. totally agree with both of you. nt

[colsohlibgal]

17. Great Speech By Oprah

But enough with celebrities in the White House IMHO, the Democrats have more than a few potential candidates such as Kamala Harris with experience.

[WhiteTara]

19. She would be an incredible ambassador to the U.N.

[lpbk2713]

23. Oprah couldn't be beat.

I don't know what kind of a president she would be but she
would score a landslide victory on her popularity alone. If
she could surround herself with capable people after being
elected she just might be able to put us back on track.

[brush]

24. If she decided to throw her hat in the ring, I wouldn't bet against her. She figured out...

Last edited Fri Nov 2, 2018, 09:25 AM - Edit history (1)

how to build a TV network from scratch, after building a production studio, a long-running, top-rated TV show, an ad-filled magazine and on and on, so IMO she'd appoint the right, experienced people to help her run a successful administration.

Plus she's a great communicator able to inspire people with her brilliant mind.

She'd figure it out.

[spooky3]

32. Agree nt

[samnsara]

26. nooo mooooore talks show hosts/reality stars/ pop up heros/ starry eyed newbies..

...she can be Ambassador somewhere......

[brush]

34. Talk show host? How about a TV network builder, a production studio builder...

a magazine publisher—all from scratch and successful. Do not put her in trump's category. And btw, she's actually a billionaire who didn't get millions in seed money from a father. trump did and it's not likely that he is a billionaire even though he claims to be. But he's also a known liar who won't show his taxes so....

[Mike Nelson]

33. Have to disagree slightly...

… with Lawrence. I am for Stacey. However, I do think Oprah's appearance was great - not a follower of her, but her supportive speech was excellent.

[SidDithers]

48. I'm glad Oprah's stumping in GA, and promoting GOTV efforts..

but no way should she be anywhere near the decision making process.

She's one of the biggest anti-science, woo-peddlars in the US.

Perhaps more than any other single American, she is responsible for giving national platforms and legitimacy to all sorts of magical thinking, from pseudoscientific to purely mystical, fantasies about extraterrestrials, paranormal experience, satanic cults, and more

https://slate.com/health-and-science/2018/01/oprah-winfrey-helped-create-our-irrational-pseudoscientific-american-fantasyland.html

Sid