I'd vote for Oprah. How about you?

ok

ml1 said:

I wasn't addressing you 

drummerboy said:

no , that is absolutely not what I'm saying, in any way. (however, to deny that certain management skills that can be honed as a CEO are extremely valuable in being Prez is a willful denial)


I'm kind of thinking that a lot of people are here arguing against Oprah without having any idea of what this woman exactly accomplished. Her rise is unlike just about anyone else on the planet. And I'm not even kidding about that. To turn a small local TV talk show into "Oprah Enterprises", while maintaining a remarkable record of approval is a tremendous achievement.  She's not Kelly effing Ripa or Gerry Philbin ferchrissakes.

ml1 said:

it's the old canard that we need someone to "run government like a business."  Even the most efficient governments anywhere don't run like businesses.  

nan, you have a very limited view of the word personality.

Personality encompassess ALL of a person's behavior. Consequently, it's as important as anything about her or any candidate.

No, it's the MOST important thing

That's so obvious that nothing more need be said about it.

However, thank you for writing a post which I could confidently stop reading after one sentence. OK. 2 sentences.

nan said:

Are you nuts?  Personality is the shallowest reason to vote for someone. That's what you need to look past. Especially when the person is a celebrity because you really don't even know their personality.  It's manufactured.  Oprah is basically a product and, of course, a brand.  No thanks.  Unless she supports single-paper, public schools (not charter schools and apologizes for endorsing Waiting for Superman), a living wage, and less war, she's not getting my vote no matter how inspiring her speeches may be. We deserve better.

drummerboy said:

Of course that's the main concern, but with Oprah, there is no choice but to come at it differently, because she has not advanced policy positions.

Any candidate is made up of two things - their personality, and their policies. Both are equally important.

If she were to decide to run, she would have to put forth substantial policy solutions. If she ends up being a Republican, well then, I'll delete the thread. But if her positions all fit within a reasonable definition of liberalism, then we've got a winner.


And there is plenty of time for her to establish those positions. To decry her possible candidacy because those positions are missing at this point is short-sighted.

nohero said:

nan said:

Once again, why are we picking a candidate based on how much we like her and debating if she can do the job?   The first consideration should be what does she want to do and does that benefit the country.  

Couldn't agree more.  That is the main concern, especially in our country where our system has been one where only one of two candidates can (realistically) be elected President.  Sure, that could change some time in the future, but this is our reality right now.

We don't see all of Oprah's personality.  We see a media creation.  And some of that shows her to be not so nice at all.  I saw a clip of her pushing the Iraq war on TV (can't find the clip to post) and she shows outward disdain to a member of the audience who tries to question the narrative. Just shuts them off. She supported charter schools and that "Waiting for Superman" movie which was total BS.  I think her boyfriend was an investor in school privatization.  The fact that she even thinks she could be president with no experience shows there is something wrong with her personality.  Cause that is nuts.  

I was about to tick thru this and comment on some points and then I realized that I was actually debating whether Barack Obama's professional experiences left him better prepared for the presidency than a wildly popular talk show host. On TV I watched a news reader extol the findings of a recent 'poll' that pitted Trump against Oprah and then Rosanne Barr against Oprah. I laughed and decided that maybe we get exactly what we deserve.

drummerboy said:

I am not trying to diminish his experience. I'm trying to place it in an objective perspective.


Yes, I know he was in the Senate. I stated that up front. What I had forgotten about what his State senate experience, which again, I maintain doesn't really prepare you much for being President. I mean, c'mon.


Yes, I knew it was U of Chi, but he was an adjunct, right? (will have to double check that) Anyway, I'm mostly questioning the use of 'scholar'. Being a lecturer doesn't make you a scholar, not at the University level. You have to publish for that and you have to contribute to the academic literature. (In my book anyway. YMMV) Minor point , but I think it's just a bit of puffery, probably put out more by his supporters than himself.

And where did he get his foreign policy experience? And don't say the Senate, because the amount of FP experience you get from there is pretty minimal. The answer is that he essentially had none - just like every other Prez we've elected since way back when. Except for maybe Bush I, an exceptionally well qualified, yet crappy Prez.


BTW - I have no problem with Obama's level of experience. I have never claimed that he did not have the experience to be Prez.


But this is my whole point.


Anyway, there was really very little of his experience that applied directly to being President of the U.S. The best experience for that is either being a very engaged VP, like Biden, or a particularly heavily engaged First Lady, like Hillary was. Nothing like seeing how the sausage is made than being inside the factory.


But it's impractical to demand that level of experience for every candidate.

flimbro said:

There's not much anyone can do to prepare themselves for the part of the job I referenced, but some actual experience in Washington, in the belly of the beast is always a plus. 

Re Obama and your insistence on diminishing his path to the White House- the college you're referring to is the Univ of Chicago Law School, usually ranked in the top 5 in the country. He taught constitutional law there for a decade+. Additionally, you keep mentioning Obama's tenure in the Illinois state senate- you do realize that he left that position to take a seat in the US Senate for 3.5 years- right? 

drummerboy said:

yeah, ok,  and what did Obama ever do to prepare him for a "brutal, dirty, frightening job." ?  Was that when he was in the State senate or teaching college?

These arguments are so weak....

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Something doesn't make sense here. 

I doubt you’ll find it made it any clearer:

flimbro said:

POTUS is a brutal, dirty, frightening job.

flimbro said:

I was about to tick thru this and comment on some points and then I realized that I was actually debating whether Barack Obama's professional experiences left him better prepared for the presidency than a wildly popular talk show host. On TV I watched a news reader extol the findings of a recent 'poll' that pitted Trump against Oprah and then Rosanne Barr against Oprah. I laughed and decided that maybe we get exactly what we deserve.

I'm finding I can barely discuss politics with anyone around me at this point. Some of my loved ones seem to have Trump-based PTSD, which has impacted their sense of reality.

This. 

hoops said:

Any government experience dealing with social issues, dealing with multiple problems is advantageous.  Understanding how our gilovernment works is imperative as a prerequisite.  




Jumping into one of the most stressful and strenuous jobs in America and doing the people’s work isn’t what a ceo is cut out for.  A ceo cares not for the people but for the wealth of the company.  It’s a different mindset. 




Oprah is an actress, talk show host Tv entrepreneur, icon.  Love her but let’s not place her as qualified to negotiate with the house, negotiate with the senate, nominate qualified leadership to the cabinet, to the agencies without any prior knowledge of how things work. 

Let's be honest with ourselves: after the election of President Obama, THERE WILL BE NO MORE PEOPLE OF COLOR elected into the White House. THERE WILL BE NO WOMAN elected into the WH, and if you are of color AND a woman, sit down. No Kamala Harris and no Oprah. They barely could stomach HRC. People of color can run and probably be elected to local and state gov't bodies, but the presidency is no longer an option (IMO). 

OK, unless primary dates are changed, a topic that I am obsessed with, we in NJ, NY and California, the more liberal states, have no say anyway. Why not start lobbying now to move up our primary date. Both Trump and Hillary were picked for us. If we let the less liberal states keep picking our candidates, the head of cabbage may just become our reality.

drummerboy said:

nan, you have a very limited view of the word personality.

Personality encompassess ALL of a person's behavior. Consequently, it's as important as anything about her or any candidate.

No, it's the MOST important thing

That's so obvious that nothing more need be said about it.

However, thank you for writing a post which I could confidently stop reading after one sentence. OK. 2 sentences.

“Woo” used to be one of your favorite pejoratives, and you’ve already mentioned Dr. Phil. Have you tried googling Oprah and woo?

(Sentence count: 2.)

would fat jokes be banned?

mtierney said:

would fat jokes be banned?

No, but your GOP friends would probably go back to the watermelon, gorilla, and witch doctor jokes they guffawed over during the Obama Administration.

kibbegirl said:

Let's be honest with ourselves: after the election of President Obama, THERE WILL BE NO MORE PEOPLE OF COLOR elected into the White House. THERE WILL BE NO WOMAN elected into the WH, and if you are of color AND a woman, sit down. No Kamala Harris and no Oprah. They barely could stomach HRC. People of color can run and probably be elected to local and state gov't bodies, but the presidency is no longer an option (IMO). 

Yep. Can't argue much with this. As long as white folks keep working overtime to convince themselves that they're under siege, the WH will house a white man.

And because this still exists, even when Trump claims he no longer believes it's true...he really does, because his insane friend believes it's the truth. I'm all in with competency testing for future presidents (and all elected officials). There are too many unstable fools holding office, ruining lives and communities. 

The GOP would rather have its member self purge from running again than to address the issue of what truly ails them. Stable genius?

I would like to see Chris Cuomo run for prez. Not cause he has his own show. I just think he’s smart and sexy.

I mentioned Dr. Phil in a negative context, so I'm not sure what your point is.

But yes, Oprah's woo factor has to be factored in.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

nan, you have a very limited view of the word personality.

Personality encompassess ALL of a person's behavior. Consequently, it's as important as anything about her or any candidate.

No, it's the MOST important thing

That's so obvious that nothing more need be said about it.

However, thank you for writing a post which I could confidently stop reading after one sentence. OK. 2 sentences.

“Woo” used to be one of your favorite pejoratives, and you’ve already mentioned Dr. Phil. Have you tried googling Oprah and woo?

(Sentence count: 2.)

drummerboy said:

I mentioned Dr. Phil in a negative context, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Your context was clear. Knowing your opinions on the subject, and at the risk of inflicting another weak argument upon you, I was calling attention to other reports in a similar vein, in case you found them informative.

if this is the direction voters really want to go in, I suggest that the 2020 Democratic primary field should be comprised of:

• Oprah
• Derek Jeter
• Bruce Springsteen
• Tom Hanks
• Michael Jordan
• Bill Nye the Science Guy
• Tim Gunn
• Taylor Swift
• Rose McGowan
• Tina Fey
• Teller

I wonder how millions of Americans who struggle with mental illnesses react to the jabs against POTUS that he is mentally compromised! The term should not be fodder for late night joksters.

nohero said:

mtierney said:

would fat jokes be banned?

No, but your GOP friends would probably go back to the watermelon, gorilla, and witch doctor jokes they guffawed over during the Obama Administration.

There are also millions of Americans who are detrimentally affected by this administration’s cockamamie policies, cooked up to appeal to the racist, sexist, and homophobic people who voted for the most ridiculous administration in memory.

mtierney said:

I wonder how millions of Americans who struggle with mental illnesses react to the jabs against POTUS that he is mentally compromised! The term should not be fodder for late night joksters.

you're right.  it's not a joke that the president is very possibly impaired.

I'm not big on media celebrities as political leaders but if that the list we're working with, my money's on Hanks.

ml1 said:

if this is the direction voters really want to go in, I suggest that the 2020 Democratic primary field should be comprised of:

• Oprah
• Derek Jeter
• Bruce Springsteen
• Tom Hanks
• Michael Jordan
• Bill Nye the Science Guy
• Tim Gunn
• Taylor Swift
• Rose McGowan
• Tina Fey
• Teller

I think Bill Nye the Science Guy would be someone to reckon with

That's funny!

Well, it’s not really a joke. It is an actual concern that he exhibits characteristics of a person with mental illness.

mtierney said:

I wonder how millions of Americans who struggle with mental illnesses react to the jabs against POTUS that he is mentally compromised! The term should not be fodder for late night joksters.

nohero said:

mtierney said:

would fat jokes be banned?

No, but your GOP friends would probably go back to the watermelon, gorilla, and witch doctor jokes they guffawed over during the Obama Administration.

As for leadership competencies- it would be awesome if they were created for this job. Few companies hire senior level positions without defining them. 

Personality is a whole different story. It’s tough to measure. The best tests aren’t very good measures of personality constructs. And personality tests aren’t great predictors of behavior. But perhaps a basic test of psychometric stability might be a good start. There are a few that measure for major personality derailers. I’ll bet Trump has many. Then, a defined set of leadership competencies and some minimum experience requirements.

Ha! Tim Gunn! I love him! What, no Jimmy Kimmel? 

sure. everyone laugh now....

slight thread drift: ml1, if Teller or one of the Myth Busters crew were to consider running for  Australian federal parliament (actual party wouldn’t matter, but hopefully Reason, or the ALP), I reckon they’d get loads of votes

kibbegirl said:

Ha! Tim Gunn! I love him! What, no Jimmy Kimmel? 

I should have included him.  I know a lot of people who work with Jimmy and they have nothing but good things to say about him.  What you see on air is what he is behind the scenes.  A real mensch.

Another thumbs up for Tim Gunn. “Make it work!!”