I'd vote for Oprah. How about you?

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.  

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.  

Right now we have an oligarchy instead of a democracy.  We have the largest wealth inequality since the Gilded Age.  We have infrastructure and environmental problems and poor support for unions.  We have no viable healthcare system that offers affordable healthcare to all.  We have at least seven undeclared wars going on and a military budget that never gets audited and sucks the life out of all other sectors.  We have unafordable college and many students leaving in huge debt.  These are just some examples of problems we must fix despite having a corrupt political system which serves the oligarchs over the people who vote.    

Where does Oprah fit in to that?  What is she going to do?  Is she going to stand up to her friends, many of whom have contributed to these problems. Is she just going to tell everyone to work on themselves and accept that they can't change these horrible situations?  Just read a suggested book and stand together and hug it out?  Are we all going to wear black in solidarity and then go home and take deep breaths?  Expand charter schools so we can all be Superman? Really, this is ridiculous.  Time to toss the identity politics and cult of the personality.  No one should want this woman to be president until she shows she is committed to specific policies that will benefit people over corporations, billionaires and Wall Street.

apple44 said:

Both seem to be on the short list, personally I hear her name more than his, including Obama having said she could be a potential candidate. I guess they both are similar to Obama before 2008, as most Americans probably have no or little idea who they are. 

Its worth taking a look at C Span from time to time. I just tune in and see what's being discussed. House, Senate. If nothing looks interesting I tune out.   While cable news, which I admit I'm addicted to, spends a crazy amount of time discussing tweets, some very impressive people are speaking on the floor. Much of it never gets more than a sound bite in the evening.

As for their name recognition, I agree. Outside of NJ many people do not know about Cory Booker. I imagine Kamala Harris might not have name recognition outside of California, but for those of us on MOL who take an interest in politics, Its exciting to watch people that may become the next POTUS.

For those who prefer their news online, try following a couple of senators. Or the Democratic party.  Log onto FB and suddenly see what Elizabeth Warren is up to. Always live videos popping up.

Kamala Harris was questioning someone, perhaps Sessions, so intensely that McCain interrupted her and told her to give him a chance to answer. She takes no prisoners. A former AG. Someone to watch.

Sometimes we believe what we want to believe. 

ml1 said:

I was being facetious in generalizing about arguing with conservatives.  It's probably just a rhetorical style a lot of people use, and I only encounter it with conservatives because those are the people who disagree with me.  Anyway, when it happens I find it to be one of those weird aspects of arguing on the internet.  Within five posts we go from discussing one topic, on to someone else's particular hobby horse.

I don't disagree that being a CEO could prepare one for some aspects of the job of POTUS.  But this guy was insisting that it was among the BEST possible experience.  To the extent that he said "most people" believe that (my question to him was -- who are these "most people"?)

But there are lots of jobs that might prepare someone well for the job.  Secretary of State.  Vice President. Professor. Army General.  Senator. Why someone would expect that being CEO of the Trump Organization would be great experience and far better than being a member of Congress, I have no idea.

terp said:

I think a CEO, especially of a large organization, would help you prepare for certain aspects of the POTUS job.  These high level corporate jobs are very complex and you make decisions that affect a large number of people using sometimes conflicting advise from various perspectives. 

Of course, legislative experience, provides good context for the inner workings of government and provides advantages in terms of existing relationships, etc. 

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.

I hate the fact that while I would vote for her, I don't think the country has come far enough to elect her.   People elected the Hitler we have simply because Obama was black and Clinton was female.  Yes, I do believe that.   A black woman?   We are not there yet, as much as I WISH we were.  The last thing I want to do is see democrats band together to back the wrong candidate.

there is that.

of course if I'm trying to make up a rationale after the fact for something I believe, I try to go for a narrative that makes sense.  If I had voted for Trump, I wouldn't be trying to argue that running Miss Universe or sending the Taj Mahal into bankruptcy was good training for becoming POTUS.  Maybe I'd argue that politics is so broken we need a guy with no relevant experience.  Or something.  

terp said:

Sometimes we believe what we want to believe. 

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.

This is true, and I don't think Oprah is qualified.  But wouldn't a SOTU speech that ended with "You get a car!!" "You get a car!!" "You get a car!!" "You get a car!!" be pretty cool?

boomie said:

I hate the fact that while I would vote for her, I don't think the country has come far enough to elect her.   People elected the Hitler we have simply because Obama was black and Clinton was female.  Yes, I do believe that.   A black woman?   We are not there yet, as much as I WISH we were.  The last thing I want to do is see democrats band together to back the wrong candidate.

You would vote for her because she is a black woman and the big problem is that people might be racist and not vote for a black woman?  What if she supports putting a cop with a machine gun on every corner and bombing North Korea, giving yet another 80 billion to the military budget and Charter Schools over public schools (the last one might actually be true)?  Are you still going to say we need a black woman? Do you even care what policies she supports or what she thinks our priorities should be? So far we know she is into self-help.  That's what the Republicans like.  

As for the Democrats, you re right to think they will back the wrong candidate since they have not changed a bit since their last big loss.  They still think people will fall for candidates who do the bidding of corporations and Wall Street over voters are the way to go.  They still think, despite research saying people are ready to move more to the left, that people want Republican-lite. 

meh, not worth it.

Morganna said:

apple44 said:

Kamala Harris was questioning someone, perhaps Sessions, so intensely that McCain interrupted her and told her to give him a chance to answer. She takes no prisoners. A former AG. Someone to watch.

She failed to take Steve Mnuchin prisoner and would not say why.  There was plenty of evidence against him. Now he's posing holding up our money with his trophy wife.

https://theintercept.com/2017/...

It's reasonable to believe that a lot of varied government experience would be the minimum requirement to prepare someone for the presidency. Then again, using that logic, you would expect LBJ, Nixon and Bush 41 to have been among our best presidents. At least it did help LBJ push a large number of things through Congress.

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.

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

...or serving in the US Senate

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.  

yes reasonable to believe yet belied by our experience.

You have to make a choice as to what is fact and what is not, at that point.

apple44 said:

It's reasonable to believe that a lot of varied government experience would be the minimum requirement to prepare someone for the presidency. Then again, using that logic, you would expect LBJ, Nixon and Bush 41 to have been among our best presidents. At least it did help LBJ push a large number of things through Congress.

actually, I think that Oprah could transcend that limitation. She clearly is loved by people across many, many boundaries. She's kind of unique.

boomie said:

I hate the fact that while I would vote for her, I don't think the country has come far enough to elect her.   People elected the Hitler we have simply because Obama was black and Clinton was female.  Yes, I do believe that.   A black woman?   We are not there yet, as much as I WISH we were.  The last thing I want to do is see democrats band together to back the wrong candidate.

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.

Do you understand that priority number 1 is that we need  a Democrat to win, even if they do not tick off all of your personal list of qualifications?

nan said:

boomie said:

I hate the fact that while I would vote for her, I don't think the country has come far enough to elect her.   People elected the Hitler we have simply because Obama was black and Clinton was female.  Yes, I do believe that.   A black woman?   We are not there yet, as much as I WISH we were.  The last thing I want to do is see democrats band together to back the wrong candidate.

You would vote for her because she is a black woman and the big problem is that people might be racist and not vote for a black woman?  What if she supports putting a cop with a machine gun on every corner and bombing North Korea, giving yet another 80 billion to the military budget and Charter Schools over public schools (the last one might actually be true)?  Are you still going to say we need a black woman? Do you even care what policies she supports or what she thinks our priorities should be? So far we know she is into self-help.  That's what the Republicans like.  

As for the Democrats, you re right to think they will back the wrong candidate since they have not changed a bit since their last big loss.  They still think people will fall for candidates who do the bidding of corporations and Wall Street over voters are the way to go.  They still think, despite research saying people are ready to move more to the left, that people want Republican-lite. 

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.

Actually, if you are going with the "prepared for and willing to do some distasteful ****" as what you want from a candidate its difficult to think of anyone more prepared than Hilary.

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.

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.

I don’t see anyone demanding Oprah get herself appointed Secretary of State for a couple years before running for President. I see a lot of people pointing out that she’s done nothing in government. Not even state senate. Not mayor of whatever rich lady town she calls home. Nothing. Do you really want another bored billionaire as president? I mean....better than Trump - but so were both Bushes. 

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.  

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.

She has all the experience in the world.  She's every woman!

RobB said:

I don’t see anyone demanding Oprah get herself appointed Secretary of State for a couple years before running for President. I see a lot of people pointing out that she’s done nothing in government. Not even state senate. Not mayor of whatever rich lady town she calls home. Nothing. Do you really want another bored billionaire as president? I mean....better than Trump - but so were both Bushes. 

I hope some of this convo is not in any way indicative of how Democrats will choose a candidate. This is how we got Trumped.

annielou said:

I hope some of this convo is not in any way indicative of how Democrats will choose a candidate. This is how we got Trumped.

It is. Some on the left apply purity tests that no electable candidate can pass, then stand on the sidelines and complain. It doesn't help people without health coverage or kids in bad schools, of course.

Anything is better than well.... you know who....

I would prefer Oprah a smart, thoughtful, caring and  classy person ...then well... you know who.....If you know who can win well...... so could Oprah