Her being responsible for Dr full-of-himself and Oz’s snake oil are enough for me to not like her. The fact she totally softball Tom Cruise during his re-visit of her show post couch jumping right when the chanology protests were a thing is icing on the cake.
She shows a very clear bias towards ‘friends and sycophants’ in how she approaches guests.
Also this is obligatory.
“I’d love to have Oprah (as a running mate),” Trump told ABC News as he began his 2016 campaign for president. “I think we’d win easily, actually.” -CNN
“We’re sick of goddamn Hollywood celebrities injecting themselves into politics!”, Trump supporters proclaim with zero sense of irony.
But if she BACKS someone… like, say Tulsi Gabbard… then that person gets a HUGE leg-up in the campaign. I am hoping that’s what she ultimately decides, and hypes that woman right into the Oval office. I’d love nothing more than to see the Orangeutan have to give Tulsi a handshake and hand the country over to her. I’d shout in the street.
I can find plenty of stuff to dislike about any mainstream political candidate.
Have we already forgotten the disastrous results ideological purity had on the Clinton campaign?
Sweeping Doctor ‘It is my job to be a savior and shower these people with free things’ and oz ACTIVLY DAMAGING PEOPLE by going ‘oh you don’t need to go to that expensive doctor and get proven working treatment. Here my guests show how this magic water will purge toxins from your body’ under the rug is not something I can do, because this is a representation of how her endorsement process works. It shows i do not agree with how she goes about picking people that she finds trustworthy and endorseable within the public sphere.
So to put rather blunt? your argument is complete manure. I respect Miss Winfrey for being able to break not just the gender barrier in daytime television but the color barrier as well alongside her being able to drop a lot of weight… but I will never endorse her as someone fit to run the nation.
You mean like how Hillary didn’t move some of her policies a bit to the left and alienated the Sanders supporters instead of trying to get them on her side?
What disastrous results? She won the popular vote. Sure, a handful of BernieBros ragequit and voted for the orange steak man to teach us all a lesson, but any disastrous results regarding ideological purity that involved the Clinton campaign (AKA the DNC) emerged out of their own incompetence and tone-deafness.
Getting back to Oprah and away from yet another rehash of 2016: I like her and her political views and hope she endorses the Dem candidate in 2020. However, at this point I think we need fewer reality TV stars who hawk garbage getting their hands on the levers of power.
Let’s hope it never comes to that then, or we are looking at a second Trump administration.
She should however, as people have noted up-thread, back someone.
I thought so too. I figured she was an old black woman who one day just decided she had had enough. Thank god for the NAACP and the ACLU!
I agree. Although I feel she is a wonderful person, she carries too much baggage that the opposition can drum up. However, she has a hell of a lot of money she can use to endorse and back a true Progressive.
How about new electric cars!
Haha… yep!
I’m having a hard time understanding how this is different from the way politicians approach staffing…
On presidency: I think she was on Colbert and he asked her about running for president and she basically said that she’d never considered it because she knows she is totally unqualified, but now, who knows?
To be honest, it came across as a bit more of a joke to me, and I wonder how serious she actually is about the idea. It sounded like she actually understood that there are qualifications beyond being a household name. I don’t think anyone is saying she’d be a worse president than Trump, but that’s not a reason to run.
But that was a great speech. I have to wonder if she wrote it with the intention that Recy Taylor hear it and had to edit it for her death.
If there’s any upside to the current occupant of the West Wing, it’s that it’s been a reminder that the office of President was always conceived of as the opposite of the monarchy – an office that any American could potentially hold, one that doesn’t require a stint in the Senate or as Vice President as a prerequisite.
The current occupant of the west wing is a pretty good argument for putting that principle truly into action and picking the president at random, like jury duty.
Except that the ink is still wet on all the stories about how being “qualified” is read as corrupt in Trump’s America. She may just be speaking/signalling in code. Hillary being “qualified” is (supposedly) what tanked her in an election that seemed bound to be anti-establishment, and according to the darker analyses of the Wolff book, embracing Trump’s “unqualified-ness” is the GOP strategy for helping him slip the Mueller-manacles. Qualified is different from “definitely the smartest, best, most maverick-y, untainted candidate you’ve ever seen…” plus America loves false modesty (and, funnily enough, false bravado…)
Truly, any idiot could do it… 
