![\"\"](\"http:\/\/uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com\/wp-content\/dropzone\/2018\/01\/Screen-Shot-2018-01-11-at-5.07.49-PM.png\")
\nPhoto by nayrb7 |\u00a0CC BY 2.0<\/a><\/h5>\n
Being president isn\u2019t like hosting a talk show or running a media brand. Oprah\u2019s success in her field is no more indicative of her potential to be a good president than Trump\u2019s success in real estate was. You can\u2019t criticize Trump for having no relevant experience or evident understanding of public policy, then say that the solution for Democrats is just to throw up their hands and find their own celebrity to promote.<\/p>\n
\u2014 Paul Waldman, \u201cGet a Grip, People. Oprah should not run for President\u201d, Washington Post<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Will she or won\u2019t she?<\/p>\n
No one knows for sure.\u00a0 Best friend, Gayle King, says Oprah Winfrey has no plans to run for president, but longtime Oprah partner, Stedman Graham, disagrees. Graham says bluntly, \u201cShe would absolutely do it. It\u2019s up to the people.\u201d<\/p>\n
So who\u2019s right and who\u2019s wrong? And what\u2019s up with the Golden Globes? Was the reaction to Winfrey\u2019s emotionally-charged speech really as spontaneous as we\u2019ve been led to believe or was the deluge of adulatory coverage in the media already in the works? I don\u2019t know about you, but the ridiculous outpouring of praise \u2013including more than 700 gushing articles in the MSM accompanied by a saturation campaign on social media\u2014 smells fishy to me. Was this supposed to be an inspirational speech to fans and well-wishers or a \u2018product launch\u2019 by Democratic party leaders who needed a glitzy venue to showcase their future presidential candidate, Ms. Talk TV herself, Oprah Winfrey?<\/p>\n
If I was a gambling man, I\u2019d bet that the whole Sunday night extravaganza, including Winfrey\u2019s heart-wrenching oration, was a set-up from soup to nuts. My guess is that the DNC honchos have cynically decided that their best chance to beat Trump in 2020 is by following the blueprint that worked for the inexperienced, 2-year Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.\u00a0 First, they start with the product launch to a target audience, then they create a positive buzz in the media and on the internet, then they magnify the size of the \u201cgroundswell\u201d of support (remember the fainting ladies at O\u2019s speeches?), then they transport their candidate from one soapbox to the next where he\/she mutters the same stale chestnuts over and over again to the adoring throng.<\/p>\n
Oh yeah, and one other thing: Real issues have to be avoided like the plague while promises should be made in the vaguest, but most uplifting terms possible. That was the key to Obama\u2019s success and it looks like that Oprah is following his lead. \u00a0 Here\u2019s a brief clip from her speech:<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve interviewed and portrayed people who\u2019ve withstood some of the ugliest things life can throw at you, but the one quality all of them seem to share is an ability to maintain hope for a brighter morning \u2014 even during our darkest nights.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ahh, another 8 years of hope and change. Who would\u2019ve known?<\/p>\n
Of course, Winfrey is enormously popular but her popularity does not necessarily translate into political support. Take a look at this excerpt from an article in the Washington Post and you\u2019ll why her transition from TV celbrity to presidential candidate could be bumpier than many people expect:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cA March 2017 Quinnipiac University poll found Winfrey had a 52 percent favorable rating (and just a 23 percent unfavorable rating). She was most popular with Democrats (72 percent) and independents (51 percent). But that doesn\u2019t mean those polled wanted her to throw her hat into the ring: Just over 1 in 5 said Winfrey should run in 2020, and 69 percent said she shouldn\u2019t.\u201d (Washington Post)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a lost cause, it just means that her presidential bid is not a sure thing.\u00a0 It\u2019s going to be a long, uphill slog with plenty of pitfalls and mudslinging.\u00a0\u00a0Even so,\u00a0 most analysts expect Winfrey to sail through the Democratic primaries without breaking a sweat. There\u2019s simply no prospective candidate in the party who could compete with her charisma, her name recognition or her wide-ranging fan-base. But nabbing the nomination and becoming the party\u2019s standard-bearer merely puts Oprah in a position where she can lock horns with big Don Trump in a no-holds-barred cage match that will decide whether the country is going to be governed by a flamboyant billionaire oligarch or by a flamboyant billionaire oligarch.\u00a0 Could things get any weirder?<\/p>\n
I always thought the Dems would put Michelle Obama on the 2020 ticket, after all, for the \u2018identity politics\u2019-driven Dems, Michelle has it all; she\u2019s black, she\u2019s a woman, she\u2019s bright, she has massive name recognition, she has stature, gravitas, charisma, she knows how to deliver a riveting speech, she knows how to handle herself among dignitaries, and she knows \u2018the drill\u2019, that is, she knows that the president is a meaningless figurehead who has very little power and follows a tight script that is written by his big money constituents. Michelle knows all of that which is what makes her the perfect candidate.<\/p>\n
But Michelle probably didn\u2019t want the job. And why would she? Hubby just cashed in on a $60 million book deal, so Michelle can afford to put her feet up and enjoy life. That\u2019s why the Dems moved on to Door Number 2: Oprah Winfrey. If Trump can win with no political experience (the thinking goes), then why not Winfrey?<\/p>\n
Why not, indeed? Here\u2019s how Paul Waldman at the Washington Post sums it up:<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s true that Democrats have underappreciated the importance of charisma in presidential politics. But the answer to those electoral failures isn\u2019t to stop caring about substance. It\u2019s to find candidates who are both charismatic and serious, who would be able both to win and to do the job once they took office\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n
(Paul Waldman, Washington Post)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Bingo. And what would it take to make Oprah Winfrey a \u201cserious\u201d candidate?<\/p>\n
Well, she\u2019d have to have a good grasp of the issues which means she\u2019d have to take a crash course in policy, world affairs, negotiation and economics. She\u2019d need to have an opinion about the nuclear standoff with North Korea, the confrontation in the South China Sea, the Saudi war and blockade of Yemen, the escalating conflict in Afghanistan, the US occupation of East Syria,\u00a0 frayed relations with Turkey, economic sanctions against Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Cuba. And she\u2019d have to understand domestic issues, cuts to Medicaid, corporate tax cuts, burgeoning budget deficits, stagnant wages, the skyrocketing price of tuition,\u00a0 out-of-control health care costs, free trade, deregulation, Wall Street, the environment, transportation,\u00a0 law enforcement, national security and the steady evisceration of the American middle class. Whew.<\/p>\n
The fact that Oprah really has no grasp of any of these things nor any understanding of how to negotiate with congress, staff an administration, or appoint judges to the bench, makes me think that Democratic honchos are merely using her as a stalking horse to shoehorn themselves back into power so they can\u2013once again\u2013enjoy the spoils of war.<\/p>\n
Isn\u2019t that what this whole \u2018Oprah for Prez-thing\u2019 is really all about?\u00a0 Aren\u2019t the party fatcats and their behind-the-scenes constituents just looking for the right vehicle to tout their message and fly their banner without any intention of addressing the issues that ordinary working people really care about?<\/p>\n
Of course they are. These people are cynics.<\/p>\n