Oprah 2020- Page 2

[John Adams]

Posted: 1/9/18 at 2:11am

Tag said: "She doesn't cutely dodge the topic. She answered it head-on to Barbara Walters, and was pretty explicit about it. (video here)"

To be fair, no one said she did.

Also, as I know absolutely nothing about Corey Booker, I hit up Wikipedia to get a general sense of who he is. Apropos of nothing - and I do mean that I am insinuating NOTHING - I had a "holy sh!t" moment when this picture appeared on his Wikipedia page, with the caption, "Booker with longtime friend Gayle King":



... I did not expect that connection to pop up.

I'm very much in alignment with all of javero's posts in this thread.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 1/9/18 at 7:59am

Andy Borowitz succinctly sums it up. We have ALWAYS elected celebrities to the office of President in this country.  The rise of Trump and possibly Oprah is nothing new.  I can't link the post directly, so here it is, copied from his official facebook page:

Andy Borowitz

13 hrs ·

UM, IF I CAN BE SERIOUS FOR A SECOND: I’ve seen a lot of opinion-writers online suggesting that an Oprah candidacy would be the final proof that America has been overrun by an insane culture of celebrity.

Well — not really. Historically, whenever given the chance, Americans have always elected celebrities as President.

When the most famous people in the country were generals, we elected George Washington, Andrew Jackson and Ulysses Grant.

When the most famous people in the country were movie stars, we elected Ronald Reagan.

When the most famous people were TV stars, we elected Donald Trump.

I know, that last one was gross.

Now, you might argue that electing generals makes more sense than electing TV stars. But Andrew Jackson was one of the worst Presidents in history, and Grant was pretty terrible, too. They didn’t win because they had relevant government experience. They won because they were famous.

Which brings us to Oprah.

Whatever the merits of her candidacy, let’s not act like electing celebrities is some weird new perversion of our social media age. It’s what we’ve always done.

I don't know if Oprah is qualified (I don't know enough about her yet). But being a celebrity certainly does not disqualify her.

[artscallion]

Posted: 1/9/18 at 9:08am

to be fair, he doesn't say that " We have ALWAYS elected celebrities to the office of President..." He says that, "WHENEVER GIVEN THE CHANCE, Americans have always elected celebrities as President." Meaning that, when they were a choice on the menu, we chose the celebrity. But celebrities are not always on the menu. Carter, Bush, Clinton, Nixon, etc. come to mind without even thinking hard.

"Now, you might argue that electing generals makes more sense than electing TV stars. But Andrew Jackson was one of the worst Presidents in history, and Grant was pretty terrible, too. They didn’t win because they had relevant government experience. They won because they were famous." This paragraph only goes to reinforce the notion that celebrities (as he defines them) are a bad idea. He's discrediting his own argument here.

I think the argument that we've done it before is meaningless, especially when he points out how it hasn't worked out all that well.

[John Adams]

Posted: 1/9/18 at 9:51am

adamgreer said: "Andy Borowitz succinctly sums it up. We have ALWAYS elected celebrities to the office of President in this country. "

Although some points in his inductive argument are true and valid, there are a couple of flaws that cause me to discount his conclusion:

1) The common (social?) definition of "celebrity" is significantly different in 2018 than it was when "we elected George Washington, Andrew Jackson and Ulysses Grant". Additionally, Americans of those eras do not hold the same value for "celebrity" as Americans in 2018. I don't believe that any of those three men would be considered "celebrities" in 2018 (or even that they were considered to be celebrities during the times of their presidencies). Neither do I believe that "famous" is synonymous with "celebrity". 

2) I have a small issue with his statement, "They won because they were famous." I can't be 100 percent certain (because I wasn't alive in those times), but I believe they were "famous" because of their accomplishments as generals, and that those accomplishments seemed to demonstrate the kind of leadership needed for our country at that time in history. Those men were not elected because they were "famous", but rather because they had demonstrated leadership qualities needed for America at that time. IF he had written THAT, I would be closer to being on board with his argument - but there would still be that niggling aspect RE: "celebrity" listed above.

I think the biggest flaw in trying to say, "Americans have always elected celebrities" is that the term "celebrity" cannot be applied with the same resonance, definition, or relevance in every historical era. IMO, that negates the validity of the argument.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 1/9/18 at 9:59am

hahahah, the Cory Booker thing is funny because it's basically true. Really depends who you talk to in Jersey.

[James885]

Posted: 1/9/18 at 1:55pm

Oprah's speech on Sunday was inspirational and stirring - but she should not run for president. Among the myriad reasons why she shouldn't, it would be the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to put forth an inexperienced entertainment mogul as their candidate in 2020 after they assailed Trump's candidacy in 2016 for the exact same reasons.

Sure, she's not a pathological lying racist who's been accused of sexual assault and sure, she would be better than Trump but almost anyone would be a better president than the narcissistic man-child currently occupying the White House. That bar is so low, it's on the floor.

 

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/9/18 at 2:17pm

I like Oprah well enough as a TV producer and admire her philanthropy, but don't want her as President. She's still an out-of-touch ego-maniac billionaire, even if she does try to use her powers for good rather than evil...of course she would be a massive improvement on the current incumbent, of course anybody who can beat him should at least consider it, but I'm not convinced that he is as unbeatable as people seem to think.

In 2016, people thought he couldn't win, now it seems they think he can't lose - in any case, do we really think he's going to run again? He never wanted the job in the first place, will want to retire undefeated back to his old life, and I suspect there will be some excuse for him to drop out.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/9/18 at 2:59pm

Favorite take so far: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-fever-dream-of-oprah2020

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/9/18 at 4:08pm

This article sums up my feelings on the topic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/01/08/get-a-grip-people-oprah-should-not-run-for-president/?__twitter_impression=true&tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.67074686b9db

[javero]

Posted: 1/9/18 at 9:06pm

It's all about the comments MisterMatt

ETA: Dear Lord...Alex Jones is going in hard on Oprah already.  He's trying to establish a hard link between Harry Weinstein and her intimating that she's complicit in some of his alleged sexual assaults.  Check out the content at The Truth About Oprah.  I loathe the man but don't dismiss him out of hand because the moron's site receives 10 million unique visitations each month.

Updated On: 1/9/18 at 09:06 PM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 1/10/18 at 7:47am

If Oprah has the best shot at defeating Trump in 2020, she should get the nomination. You can slip any other name in there and it'll always be true. 

My problems with Trump have nothing to do with his lack of government experience. His values are abominable and he is dangerously thin-skinned and impulsive. I doubt this is the case with Oprah Winfrey and many other celebrities.

Abstracting (perhaps uncomfortably) away from their politics, some celebrities have done just fine after an abrupt jump into politics. Ronald Reagan certainly achieved many things (again, whether you approve of those things or not). Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura were at least as successful in their positions as the average political hack. I don't think there's any reason to dismiss someone with a record of achievement just because those achievements lie outside of politics.

[javero]

Posted: 1/10/18 at 8:35am

"If Oprah has the best shot at defeating Trump in 2020, she should get the nomination. You can slip any other name in there and it'll always be true."

That seems pragmatic but what are the metrics?  I'm anxious to see how Oprah polls among men in the Democratic party and among independents  I suspect that support for Oprah is somewhere between what Obama garnered going into his re-election and support for Hillary at the start of her 2016 campaign.  Wish I had some hard numbers to support my hunch. 

[adamgreer]

Posted: 1/10/18 at 9:40am

Yes, I’ll vote for whoever can defeat the Dotard in 2020. If that’s Oprah then so be it.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 1/10/18 at 9:41am

javero said: ""If Oprah has the best shot at defeating Trump in 2020, she should get the nomination. You can slip any other name in there and it'll always be true."

That seems pragmaticbut what are the metrics? I'm anxious to see how Oprah polls among men in the Democratic party and among independents I suspect that support for Oprahis somewhere between what Obama garnered going into his re-election and support for Hillary at the start of her 2016 campaign. Wish I had some hard numbers to support my hunch."

Considering she has never said she wanted to run for office those numbers probably do not exsist. But we do have her Q score which is very high. 

Oprah Winfrey 2020? Her Q Score Suggests She Would Win (Exclusive)

Especially against our incumbent president

https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Oprah-Winfrey-2020-Her-Q-Score-Suggests-She-12482226.php

[Tag]

Posted: 1/10/18 at 11:26am

If Oprah can't beat Donald Trump, then there's no hope for your country.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 1/10/18 at 1:00pm

I want an experienced Policy Maker and Politician in office not a celebrity! We do not need our government filled with Dr Phils and Dr. Ozs! Oprah gave a firebrand Speech however we are seeing what happens when you put someone with no experience in Politics in the highest office in the land now.

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 1/10/18 at 2:41pm

SNAFU said: "I want an experienced Policy Maker and Politician in office not a celebrity! We do not need our government filled with Dr Phils and Dr. Ozs! Oprah gave a firebrand Speech however we are seeing what happens when you put someone with no experience in Politics in the highest office in the land now.

"

 

Bingo. 

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/10/18 at 4:40pm

The problem with Trump isn’t his lack of experience. It’s his lack of intellectual capacity and curiosity. It’s his lack of any sense of decency, dignity, empathy, or compassion. It’s his insistence on surrounding himself with sycophants. Oprah shares none of these flaws.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 1/10/18 at 7:39pm

I agree for the most part. But there also an understanding of Constitutional Law, Diplomacy on a world stage and policy making that is required as well. Neither Oprah nor Trump has experience in these matters. If it came to a nuclear confrontation, I don't think neither would be able to handle it, both coming from extreme polar opposites. Running a successful business is nothing like running a country. With one you are out to make profitd for yourself and you share holders the other you are working to manage to watch out for the American people and their well being and trying to break even.

 

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/10/18 at 8:33pm

Oprah is more than a celebrity. She's an intelligent, worldly, politically informed, well read, eloquently spoken, globally astute, philanthropic humanitarian. What she doesn't know, she'll learn fast. She soaks up knowledge like a sponge. It's going to be women - more specifically black women - who are going to win Democrats the next election. That's how Doug Jones won over accused pedophile, Roy Moore, in Alabama. In addition to the minority vote and women's vote, I believe she'll have the support of young people and the LGBTQ community. The only negative thing I can think to say about her is that she has no experience in governing. But if Agent Orange is running against her (not convinced he will be), it would be difficult for the GOP to make that case considering Cheeto's backstory. That said, I'm voting for whoever I think will win against whoever is running on the GOP side. If Oprah decides to run and makes it through the Democratic primaries, she has my vote! And not because she's a celebrity.

Updated On: 1/10/18 at 08:33 PM

[binau]

Posted: 1/11/18 at 3:34am

adamgreer said: "The reason this is even being talked about is because the Democratic party has no one waiting in the wings that could beat the Dotard in 2020. The lack of an heir apparent is concerning. As much as I love Uncle Joe and would vote for him, he's not the guy. Bernie is most definitely not the guy and has already caused enough damage to the party. Warren would get eviscerated. Michelle Obama has no interest, and I actually believe her. There's no Barack Obama waiting in the wings like there was prior to 2008."

If ‘damaging’ the party means indirectly (given he didn’t leak these emails) exposing the DNC for their corruption during the primaries and/or exposing the hypocritical conservatism of the party and especially Hillary Clinton then so be it. Bernie inspired a movement of people that acknowledged enough is enough and didn’t want the USA to further decline in world standings. I hope the next candidate presents a genuinely progressive vision for the USA to work towards in areas such as income, healthcare and education. 

[FrankieSay]

Posted: 1/11/18 at 1:54pm

Such fun when a Bernie Zombie Cult member calls out people for being religious. So be it.

[binau]

Posted: 1/11/18 at 3:43pm

Some of our doctrine:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
M

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

[James885]

Posted: 1/12/18 at 10:04am

Seth MacFarlane has a good take on this on twitter which I agree with.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/12/18 at 12:19pm

The only negative thing I can think to say about her is that she has no experience in governing. But if Agent Orange is running against her (not convinced he will be), it would be difficult for the GOP to make that case considering Cheeto's backstory.

Why would it be difficult?  The GOP complained that Obama was too inexperienced in his first run.  They could care less about appearing hypocritical.  Having no experience in governing for the office of President is actually something of a big deal.  She may be super awesome in so many ways, but when you're unfamiliar with the complicated machinations of the US government and foreign diplomacy, you can easily make the US and the office of the Presidency appear foolish, at best.  Unfortunately, we appear to be in the irreversible position of a permanent disrespect and lack of concern for the requirements of the office.   

That said, I'm voting for whoever I think will win against whoever is running on the GOP side. If Oprah decides to run and makes it through the Democratic primaries, she has my vote! 

And unfortunately, celebrity gets a person past the primaries and anti-voting is how we end up with Cheeto as President.  The President Oprah conversations are nauseating and depressing.