I'd vote for Oprah. How about you?

It's very shortsighted to want to vote for someone based on their personality, not their policies. The only policy I remember Oprah standing up for was charter schools.  She was a big fan of the major propaganda film, "Waiting for Superman" so she seems to favor school privatization.  Right there I've lost interest and respect. 

Edited to add--Here are some details about her anti-teacher, pro-charter school propaganda views:  

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2010/09/oprahpaganda.html

  Although, she is more qualfied than the stable genius. She reads.

I hope that this ridiculous experiment of a celebrity with no experience in politics or government or law running our country ends with Trump.

That being said if my choice is Trump vs virtually any other human being, I'm going for "other"

.

omigod what a mass/mess of misinformation.

Glass Steagall was practically toothless when it was overturned in 1999 - it had no discernible effect on the 2008 crash. Maybe you can explain otherwise.

Dodd/Frank was not weaker than Glass Steagall as it stood in 1999. The banks hate Dodd/Frank.

Mass incarceration occurs at the state and local levels, not the federal level, which is where Clinton comes into play. Clinton had nothing to do with our current level of incarceration. Somebody's lying to you.

Obama made some of the tax cuts permanent, but let the ones on upper income people expire. And also included some tax raises on upper income people for Obamacare - I think.

The ACA was not a derivative of the Heritage Foundation plan. Not even close. A liberal myth. Read this and get your facts straight.

There was no way single-payer could have gotten through the Senate. How could that be possible when even the public option didn't make it? Another liberal pipe-dream.

Yes, welfare reform was a mistake. Charter schools are a mistake. Yes, post-crash relief should have focused more on homeowners. The minimum wage should be higher - and Obama tried to raise it,and issued some EO's with limited effect to do so. Yes, too many Citigroup people in the Obama admin.

Mostly though, you've just got a bunch of alternative facts which appear to be clouding your judgement.

nan said:

Neoliberalism  defines the policies of establishment Democrats going back to Bill Clinton who killed Glass Stegall, an FDR era regulation meant to protect the economy.  Dodd-Frank was much weaker and the banks are now bigger than before the crash.  Clinton also  decimated welfare, and put in draconian laws that led to mass incarceration in privatised prisons. Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent. Obama's education polices supported charter schools, failed to stand up for unions and featured a market-based competition, "Race to the Top."  Obama bailed out the banks, but not the homeowners.  He let Citigroup pick out his cabinet.  Wealth inequality has grown to the level of the Gilded Age.  Obamacare was a rehash of Romneycare--a conservative, Heritage Foundation plan (he could have pushed for single-payer). Half the country is poor, and yet the the minimum age has not been raised in ages. These problems were not caused by Trump, however, the case can be made that they caused Trump to be elected.

drummerboy said:

oy.  What a load of horse poop. And you think these qualities define the Dem party for the last xx years? How does Dodd-Frank fit into that, or the allowed expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans? And how are Dems being undemocratic? (try to answer without telling us that Hillary bought her nomination.)


But I was impressed that the company I work for was featured in a 2 second shot.

nan said:

Neoliberalism  defines the policies of establishment Democrats going back to Bill Clinton, etc.

All the more reason to wonder what you saw in this call for compromise and centrism, posted in another thread:

https://www.hbs.edu/news/releases/Pages/why-competition-us-politics-industry-failing.aspx

ml1 said:

if Trump runs for reelection I'd vote for a head of cabbage instead 

This Slaw Is Your Slaw: Make America Grate Again!

drummerboy - The end of your posts shows that you agree with most of my examples. Read The New Jim Crow book we were discussing in another thread and then tell me Clinton had nothing to do with mass incarceration and severe austerity policies.  Why did Obama keep any of the Bush tax cuts?  Why did he not push for higher taxes on the wealthy? Why did he not push for single-payer--and yes Obmacare comes from Romneycare--it's practically the same thing.  It's a competitive system with too much power given to the drug and insurance companies. We could go on and on about Glass-Stegall and bank regulations, but Obama was owned by Wall Street.  He's collecting a big-time pay off from Wall Street now. When the recovery came after the bank bailout, it helped the rich, but things got worse for the poor and middle-class.  As we both agreed, wealth inequality grew on his watch.  Read the book, "Listen, LIberal!" and you will see how the Democrats turned their back on the working people who were their traditional base in favor of the "professional class." And when it came to Standing Rock, Obama was on the side of the paid thugs who brutalized the peaceful protesters.  He did nothing to stop it until close to the end of his presidency and then he said little and left it so Trump could easily overturn.  He also supported fracking and opened oil drilling in vulnerable areas. Democrats constantly support market-based policies that help the rich over working people. They are sometimes worse than the Republicans. 

These are the policies that made people so desperate, they were willing to take a chance on Trump. So, why would we want Oprah, a person who seems probably likely to be in that same mold to be president?  We need something very different if we want to turn things around. 

Glass Steagall had very, very little to do with 2008.  Conversely, had it not been repealed it’s also quite easy to argue that it would have had very little material impact on preventing it.  

The original question is whether oprah would be a good candidate. She is definitely a bridge builder but I think she has been hoodwinked one too many times by authors and philanthropists who she heavily praised and endorsed. I’m thinking somebody who has the same wide appeal but who, one,is not easily fooled by those GOP tricksters, and, two, is a gangster like they’ve never seen.

ctrzaska said:

Glass Steagall had very, very little to do with 2008.  Conversely, had it not been repealed it’s also quite easy to argue that it would have had very little material impact on preventing it.  

That is not an accepted fact, although a popular view held by banks and their supporters. They blame the shadow banks, but neglect to mention the how they were able to get mixed up with them in the first place.  And now the banks are even bigger which creates more risk.  Also, the way they sold the elimination of Glass-Steagall, for efficiency and lower costs was never realized.  And there is the gambling with people's money part. Not a fan. 

But, anyway, the point is the banks wanted to get rid of Glass-Steagall, and Bill Clinton gave them what they wanted.  That's who he was trying to please.  The Democrats did the Republican deregulation.

I love the way you just ignore all the places where I pointed out how wrong you were. Will you reconsider your point of view? Ha, who am I kidding.

Obamacare may come from Romneycare - but that's not what you said. Anyway, Romneycare was a Democratic plan through and through. It wasn't Romney's plan.

Obama kept the tax cuts for the middle class and below. Causing taxes to rise for the wealthy. And he did subsequently raise taxes again on the wealthy as part of Obamacare.

You can nitpick all you like, but you're ignoring all the places (not just in this post) where I'm showing that you're news sources are giving you crappy information.

We're basically on the same side politically - but geez, your underpinnings are largely based on misinformation.

nan said:

drummerboy - The end of your posts shows that you agree with most of my examples. Read The New Jim Crow book we were discussing in another thread and then tell me Clinton had nothing to do with mass incarceration and severe austerity policies.  Why did Obama keep any of the Bush tax cuts?  Why did he not push for higher taxes on the wealthy? Why did he not push for single-payer--and yes Obmacare comes from Romneycare--it's practically the same thing.  It's a competitive system with too much power given to the drug and insurance companies. We could go on and on about Glass-Stegall and bank regulations, but Obama was owned by Wall Street.  He's collecting a big-time pay off from Wall Street now. When the recovery came after the bank bailout, it helped the rich, but things got worse for the poor and middle-class.  As we both agreed, wealth inequality grew on his watch.  Read the book, "Listen, LIberal!" and you will see how the Democrats turned their back on the working people who were their traditional base in favor of the "professional class." And when it came to Standing Rock, Obama was on the side of the paid thugs who brutalized the peaceful protesters.  He did nothing to stop it until close to the end of his presidency and then he said little and left it so Trump could easily overturn.  He also supported fracking and opened oil drilling in vulnerable areas. Democrats constantly support market-based policies that help the rich over working people. They are sometimes worse than the Republicans. 

These are the policies that made people so desperate, they were willing to take a chance on Trump. So, why would we want Oprah, a person who seems probably likely to be in that same mold to be president?  We need something very different if we want to turn things around. 

No, it pretty much is an accepted fact, except for some crank outliers ensconced in your leftist bubble. There was nothing left to Glass-Stegal by the time it was finally repealed. It had been whittled away for years.

You actually missed the one thing that Clinton did which did contribute to the 2008 crisis. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (pushed by that singular motherf******, Phil Gramm). Signed one month before he left office. Which, btw, Bernie voted for. Clinton has since said that this was a huge mistake on his part. He was right about that.

Anyway, the point is that the leftist mantra about neo-liberalism is not nearly as clear cut as its proponents claim it to be. And much of it is based on mis/disinformation, as I have pointed out.

nan said:

ctrzaska said:

Glass Steagall had very, very little to do with 2008.  Conversely, had it not been repealed it’s also quite easy to argue that it would have had very little material impact on preventing it.  

That is not an accepted fact, although a popular view held by banks and their supporters. They blame the shadow banks, but neglect to mention the how they were able to get mixed up with them in the first place.  And now the banks are even bigger which creates more risk.  Also, the way they sold the elimination of Glass-Steagall, for efficiency and lower costs was never realized.  And there is the gambling with people's money part. Not a fan. 

But, anyway, the point is the banks wanted to get rid of Glass-Steagall, and Bill Clinton gave them what they wanted.  That's who he was trying to please.  The Democrats did the Republican deregulation.

As I pointed out, Obama had hardly any government experience also. And the problem with Trump (among a gazillion of them) is not that he has no experience - it's that he thinks he doesn't need it.

conandrob240 said:

I hope that this ridiculous experiment of a celebrity with no experience in politics or government or law running our country ends with Trump.

That being said if my choice is Trump vs virtually any other human being, I'm going for "other"

drummerboy said:

As I pointed out, Obama had hardly any government experience also. 

Um: 

First: Obama kinda knew some stuff about laws.

Second: He was in the Illinois state Senate, and then U.S. Senate, for more than 10 years before becoming President. 

OK, gotta run off to work so I can't respond fully until later to drummerboy, who is wrong, but forgot to mention NAFTA and TPP, one passed by Clinton and the other pushed until the day he left by Obama.  Those trade deals are a big part of a neoliberal ideology.

Anyway, here is Chris Hedges talking about neoliberalism and how we got to Trump:

comparing Oprah to Obama is stupid.  

I’m of the view that government experience is a huge plus and Obama’s as has been pointed out had plenty.  Including the law background that is important for anyone who needs to understand what’s being passed out of congress.  

Oprah is an actor and an entrepreneur and quite possibly a very empathetic individual but that doesn’t mean she is up to the task.  

Hopefully the dems will find another quality candidate this time

nan said:

OK, gotta run off to work so I can't respond fully until later to drummerboy, who is wrong, but forgot to mention NAFTA and TPP, one passed by Clinton and the other pushed until the day he left by Obama.  Those trade deals are a big part of a neoliberal ideology.

Anyway, here is Chris Hedges talking about neoliberalism and how we got to Trump:

I don't think there is any "neoliberal ideology", at least not as that term is used by a lot of people nowadays.  I did not watch this video, or the earlier one Ms. Nan posted on what that word is supposed to mean.  I did find an article written by the guy featured in the earlier video, George Monbiot, entitled "Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems".  He lists a hodgepodge of things he doesn't like (neoliberalism is apparently a cousin of libertarianism, is one take-away).  I think most people using that word are using it as an all-purpose insult or put-down - we keep being told what neoliberalism DOES, but never what it IS.  For God's sake, Cornel West calls people "neoliberal" if they don't follow his lead on some things (for example, Ta-Nehisi Coates).  I think it's mainly used as shorthand for "person who didn't oppose Hillary in the November 2016 election".

Ok. Now that I know the requirements, how about The Rock for VP? He's really popular-lifetime box office gross over 3 billion, used to be a wrestler so he's got the flyover on lock (they love wrestling and currently the wrestling demo is 50+, white and male so we get all those disaffected older white guys back in the tent!) ladies like to look at him and he's an acknowledged tough guy. Just imagine him staring down those North Koreans on the border (like Pence tried to do) with a couple bandoliers wrapped around his blue VP suit, festooned with flag pins. Sounds good, right? I mean who wouldn't dig having a VP named 'Dwayne Johnson'?

(Or maybe we pull in Clooney for VP and flip The Rock to Sec'y of Defense- just thinking out loud here- thoughts?)

Obviously we have Gayle King for Chief of Staff. She knows best what the O likes, she's also on TV and everybody likes her too! Of course we pull in Ellen Degeneres for Secretary of State, she also comes from TV- in fact she's still on TV! Perfect, right?! The audience loves her, she's funny, gay, self deprecating- who wouldn't want her representing US interests abroad with those fussy world leaders. She could show up with a bunch of grab bag giveaways from OPRAHPOTUS and launch into a dance-off if and when negotiations turned really adversarial.

Neil deGrasse Tyson for Sec'y of Cool Space Stuff (yes, that's a new position) just because he's a brilliant, black nerdy guy and why not? Most importantly he's telegenic and well known. Maybe he partners up with Bill Nye the Science Guy or Jim Parsons from the Big Bang Theory. 

Whoopi for Education Sec'y because she's smart and also on television where she routinely 'schools' people and like most of us she knows more about education than Betsy DeVos.

Now all we have to do is work in a semi annoying millennial like Lena Dunham to wrap up the ironic, artisanal, serial gentrifier vote, Sophia Vergara because she's fine and we cannot ignore Latinx! Obviously we also need to find a spot for Jimmy Kimmel, Colin Kaepernick, Neil Patrick Harris and let's be serious - Queen Bey (maybe Sec'y of State, right?- sorry Ellen!) If you guys really think you're going to get Oprah to run for President and NOT include Beyoncé in some regal capacity- you're tripping.

I think this is the only way we're going to defeat the Roseanne Barr/ Tim Allen ticket.

What a lame response.  What does that have to do with anything?  Arnold came from nothing and rose to the top of the two industries he immersed himself in.  I dont care about Arnold.  But if youre going to play that game I'll say for sure Arnold's nuclear button is bigger than Oprah's. 

drummerboy said:

seems to me that Arnold's record of accomplishment, while substantial, falls far short of Oprah's.

Red_Barchetta said:

drummerboy said:

This is a person who, once she sets her mind to something, usually succeeds.

I thought this about Arnold, so we need to be wary about this.




You think Obama faced unjustified obstruction and hatred?  What would Hillary have faced?  Well with Oprah you can kick those numbers up several notches.  




I personally don’t like that she has to put her name and face on everything.  Hmm, does anyone else come to mind with that trait?  




Having said all of that I would probably vote for her. 

nan said:

We don't even know what she is really like or what her platform would be.  Why would anyone want someone for president without knowing that?  

Agreed.

nan said:
I suspect she would just be more of the same neoliberal crap that we have had for the past 30 years and ended up in the new Gilded Age. .

Wait I thought we didn't know...

nan said:
We deserve better.

That was quick.

This country is so addicted to wealth and celebrity worship. Sick of it.

Thomas Chatterton Williams in The Times: 

“I am not immune to Oprah’s charms, but President Winfrey is a terrible idea. It also underscores the extent to which Trumpism — the kowtowing to celebrity and ratings, the repudiation of experience and expertise — has infected our civic life. The ideal post-Trump politician will, at the very least, be a deeply serious figure with a strong record of public service behind her. It would be a devastating, self-inflicted wound for the Democrats to settle for even benevolent mimicry of Mr. Trump’s hallucinatory circus act.”

If qualifications and expertise are no longer important, why don't we just amend the Constitution so that the president can be any randomly selected American citizen over the age of 35?  

DaveSchmidt said:

Thomas Chatterton Williams in The Times: 

“I am not immune to Oprah’s charms, but President Winfrey is a terrible idea. It also underscores the extent to which Trumpism — the kowtowing to celebrity and ratings, the repudiation of experience and expertise — has infected our civic life. The ideal post-Trump politician will, at the very least, be a deeply serious figure with a strong record of public service behind her. It would be a devastating, self-inflicted wound for the Democrats to settle for even benevolent mimicry of Mr. Trump’s hallucinatory circus act.”

Yes, and someone with the knowledge to rebuild the institutions that are being demolished.

ml1 said:

If qualifications and expertise are no longer important, why don't we just amend the Constitution so that the president can be any randomly selected American citizen over the age of 35?  

NSFW language. 

hoops said:

Hopefully the dems will find another quality candidate this time

They had a "quality" candidate last time. Hopefully this time they will find someone who can win.

ml1 said:

If qualifications and expertise are no longer important, why don't we just amend the Constitution so that the president can be any randomly selected American citizen over the age of 35?  

Why keep the age restriction? Perhaps it is time to revive the saying "Don't trust anyone over 30".

After all have we adults done so well?

flimbro said:

wow. I thought this was a gag. It's not?

I thought Dumb Donald was a gag, but now the joke is on us.

LOST said:

 

hoops said:

Hopefully the dems will find another quality candidate this time

They had a "quality" candidate last time. Hopefully this time they will find someone who can win.
 

Some of the responses to Oprah are along the lines of "she's not liberally pure enough", which was the same nonsense that the 2016 Democratic nominee was hit with.  So, hopefully this time something like that won't happen, no matter who the nominee is.

drummerboy said:

at this point I definitely see Gillebrand running. Maybe Biden, but I think that would be a total mistake. Cuomo. Ugh. Go away please. Booker will probably give it a shot. Maybe Bernie, though he's getting a bit long in the tooth. I'm sure there will be others.


Given those, my choice would be between Oprah and Gillebrand, and it would be tough choice.

People criticizing Oprah for lack of experience are being extremely short-sighted. She has a tremendous amount of management experience, and is obviously quite intelligent and accomplished. She knows enough that she would have to build a very substantial team.  And her whole professional life has been about appealing to people across whatever lines you'd like to draw, whether they be racial, ethnic, economic, whatever. She has obviously done a phenomenal job at that. No small feat.


In the end, being President involves understanding the issues and making decisions. Hire a great chief of staff and I have a lot of confidence that she could do that well.

What mostly appeals to me though is that she could really be a unifying figure, bringing together people who would otherwise remain apart. She has the charisma to do that - something I don't see in any other Dem prospect. And at this point in our history, I see this as a quite important quality. We can only drift apart for so much longer before the country just falls apart. And we're near that point, I fear.


(all of this comes under the assumption that policy-wise, she would be a good deal left of center. I guess that remains to be seen.)

Morganna said:

OK, just to explore my options DB, who do you see her running against in the Primaries. Naturally if she was the Dem candidate, most of us would vote for her over Trump or Pence. But as long as we are entertaining the thought, who could be up for consideration in 2020. I stare at C Span watching the current flock of Senators, although my pal thinks the best options come from  the Governors. So let's put out the names of our favorite could be candidates.

I need to take a closer look at Gillebrand. She was one of the pols that I followed on FB but I edged her out for a few other favorite pols pouring into my newsfeed. I have a passion for certain speakers so I'd have to look closer at comparing positions. I will listen to Elizabeth Warren who can rouse me the way Oprah rouses her audience.  As a NYC kid, there is something about Chuck Schumer that makes me feel at home. Biden, I love the guy. I think he would have wiped the floor with DJT. I think he's an experienced political operative who has the regular guy appeal. Here is someone that I love, Sherrod Brown. I watched him last month on the floor and his presentation was right out of a Frank Capra movie. For a sharper edge, I like Kamala Harris. She is fearless.