Support NeoGAF

[TheLaughingStock]

Was skimming liberal sites today and watching the news to gauge the reaction to Oprah's speech. The common theme I saw was that it's not that crazy of an idea for her to run, but she has no political experience.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hing-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.a6fa90d41259

Why are some people throwing cold water on this?

Oprah is black, a woman, she comes off as authentic, she has overcome adversity from being poor and became a very successful icon in America. Simply put, she has an inspirational story to tell and has the potential to be the kind of politician America needs.

On the other hand, the traditional politicians she'd be up against aren't very good at what they do nor should they be intimidating to folks new to politics. They've exercised poor judgement and need to bend over backwards to please donors. As a multi-billionaire, Oprah has more leeway with respect to being dependent, kissing ass and begging for money. That's a big reason why voters have turned to outsiders like Pres. Trump. People who have been in office for years have let their constituents down. Someone like Oprah could be the change the country needs and more importantly could be a serious political force if she runs as a Dem.

If Oprah has good ideas in mind and she can tap into people's emotions then it would be a crime not to run in 2020.

 

[Alx]

Well being a political leader is more than "having good ideas and tapping into people's emotion". You also need to be good at understanding complex issues in all fields, negotiating with all kinds of people, choosing and managing your own people, handling crisis,... And if people don't have experience in those fields (have no idea about Oprah tbh), it's only natural to doubt their skills.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Because traditionally people have had some type of executive experience before running for President. Heck, even going from senator to President directly is incredibly rare. That path usually involves being put on the ticket as VP and then going for President. Usually you're looking at governors because the experience you get from running a state might carry over. Politics is more complex than people realize, at least on that level.

A lot of aspects of the office basically run themselves, that's true. But I'm not sure we should make a habit out of electing people with zero public office experience to the highest position possible. That type of behavior (no matter who the person is) sets off the alarm bells with me, most significantly that our democracy might be breaking down if the only people that can win are celebrities. Sounds dramatic...but it's a warning sign.

 

[Razorback]

If this was pre 2016 elections I probably wouldn't even be able to muster the energy to laugh at the idea of an Oprah presidency. But these are different times, so sure, whatever.

 

[finowns]

The ideal would be a Thomas Jefferson, although that hasn't been the case for some time. Is Oprah the best we can come up with?

 

[borghe]

Trump, plain and simple. Now Trump is a moron, obviously. But experience in a political climate allows one to understand the limits of their office and what they can accomplish while wasting less time stumbling.

I wouldn't say political experience separates better candidates, or that it is prerequisite, but I would absolutely hold a lack of experience as a negative when evaluating a candidate. Maybe they have enough to outweigh the lack of experience.. but it would have to be accounted for.

And even when I say Trump is a moron... that is only partially behind his terrible policies. Clearly his sole intent is to enrich himself and his buddies further. His lack of intelligence just comes from how utterly transparent he is with it. Then again he realized decades ago that with enough charisma and the right audience.. it doesn't matter what you say or do.

 

[RainblowDash]

A celebrity's actions don't have actual consequences on the public.

This is why it could go so badly when celebrities suddenly have political power.

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

Was skimming liberal sites today and watching the news to gauge the reaction to Oprah's speech. The common theme I saw was that it's not that crazy of an idea for her to run, but she has no political experience.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hing-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.a6fa90d41259

Why are some people throwing cold water on this?

Oprah is black, a woman, she comes off as authentic, she has overcome adversity from being poor and became a very successful icon in America. Simply put, she has an inspirational story to tell and has the potential to be the kind of politician America needs.

On the other hand, the traditional politicians she'd be up against aren't very good at what they do nor should they be intimidating to folks new to politics. They've exercised poor judgement and need to bend over backwards to please donors. As a multi-billionaire, Oprah has more leeway with respect to being dependent, kissing ass and begging for money. That's a big reason why voters have turned to outsiders like Pres. Trump. People who have been in office for years have let their constituents down. Someone like Oprah could be the change the country needs and more importantly could be a serious political force if she runs as a Dem.

If Oprah has good ideas in mind and she can tap into people's emotions then it would be a crime not to run in 2020.

I know some people who are very passionate about clean energy, local leaders who are well known and have done a lot for their local community. But I wouldn't let this couple run a power plant.

Where would Oprah even start? Nobody can take anything away from her achievement, but seriously, President? She'd need at least two years to catch up on everything she needs to properly do the job.

Quite honestly, it's a difficult one. Like or hate Trump, his business empire gives his a wealth of experience that's led to him making some monumental decisions, but possibly more because he's understood the financial implications of his decisions. The economy in the US is looking great at the moment and really this is what the US needs. Wasn't it on the verge of defaulting under Obama?

Oprah is a wonderful person but a politician she is not.

I don't like the fact that most of our politicians in the UK are making a career of it. However, to be a successful politician, you really do need to understand a lot of things that I can't even begin to comprehend. Law, national infrastructure, powers of Parliament, taxation, state funding, international matters etc. She would need to campaign for herself, not follow the beat of someone else's drum.

The problem we have is that politics is now fought on a social scale, social media and the media themselves have more influence than ever and it's getting out of hand. Rather than do what's best for America, you have people wanting your country to make choices based on being politically correct and not the best thing for the country. It's happening here too and quite honestly. it's pissing me off. People looking to boost their own agenda whilst we pretend like we're making progress.

It's a scary world. And again, Oprah is an amazing woman, but not a President or Politician.

 

[SDCowboy]

To me, the thought of the democrats rolling Oprah out there (if this were to happen) is both laughable and terrifying (because I'm not sure if she would win). The Rock is the only celeb I could remotely take seriously from the ones rumored.

edit: by taking them seriously, I mean in the sense of having a greater chance at winning a presidential election.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

To me, the thought of the democrats rolling Oprah out there (if this were to happen) is both laughable and terrifying. The Rock is the only celeb I could remotely take seriously from the ones rumored.

You find the rock more credible than Oprah Winfrey?

What the hell.

You Americans should stop thinking everything is sport. It's turned your politics into a god damned disaster

 

[Grizzlyjin]

To me, the thought of the democrats rolling Oprah out there (if this were to happen) is both laughable and terrifying. The Rock is the only celeb I could remotely take seriously from the ones rumored.

I'm curious now, what about Oprah do you not take seriously and what is there to take seriously about The Rock? Lol

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Well being a political leader is more than "having good ideas and tapping into people's emotion". You also need to be good at understanding complex issues in all fields, negotiating with all kinds of people, choosing and managing your own people, handling crisis,... And if people don't have experience in those fields (have no idea about Oprah tbh), it's only natural to doubt their skills.

You're right there's a lot more to it than that. But Oprah has what it takes to be great. Moreover, Oprah can do virtually everything you've outlined.

However, she wouldn't meet the bar of understanding because no one has the mental capacity to understand complex issues in all fields. That's why every president has an administration full of people from different backgrounds standing behind them to help make the final call. What separates the POTUS or any high-level executive from the smart people doing the heavy lifting is their judgement. And Oprah is familiar with that because like Pres. Trump she built an empire (with less help than he had). The POTUS may be an expert in one area or well-rounded but at some point you'll have to defer when you simply don't know.

And the reality I think some people are missing is that Oprah has a lane in the first place because politicians on average suck. If the people in charge knew what they were doing, you wouldn't see people like Oprah considering a run or Trump successfully running on a platform to Make America Great Again. Oprah could be better than someone like Hillary Clinton ever would be if given a chance.

 

[SDCowboy]

You find the rock more credible than Oprah Winfrey?

What the hell.

You Americans should stop thinking everything is sport. It's turned your politics into a god damned disaster

I said absolutely nothing about credibility. I said I take one more seriously as a presidential candidate.

I'm curious now, what about Oprah do you not take seriously and what is there to take seriously about The Rock? Lol

First off, by taking him more seriously, I mean in the sense of having a real chance to actually beat the republican nominee (whom I assume will be Pence). I feel the Rock checks more boxes of things people care about. His charisma (which as silly as it may be, is arguably the most important characteristic of a candidate) is off the charts, and he's a relatively good looking dude, who gives insanely good speeches - that alone is a massive. Beyond that, while I obviously don't personally know either, I feel like the Rock is a more relatable individual, to me personally - and that would likely be especially the case with many young voters, whom are notoriously hard to actually get to vote. I also feel he'd run a better, broader reaching campaign - whereas I feel Oprah's campaign could easily fall along similar lines as Hillary's did.

In the end, it's nothing against Oprah. She seems like a great, caring person. But I just feel the Rock would stand a much better chance at actually winning.

 

[Narroo]

Oprah is black, a woman, she comes off as authentic, she has overcome adversity from being poor and became a very successful icon in America. Simply put, she has an inspirational story to tell and has the potential to be the kind of politician America needs.

Really? The person you saw on TV comes off as 'authentic' on her talk show, and she has an underdog story, so she would make a good president? There is so much wrong with this.

• First off, the person you see on TV isn't necessarily the person in real life, even if they ran a talk show.
• Second, being 'authentic' isn't a primary qualification. Do you know who many people feel is authentic? Donald Trump. And he is authentic; he says whatever he darn well feels like, he does whatever he feels like, he's authentic. He's also a vain, vengeful, and dimwitted man. You know who comes off as unauthentic? Hillary Clinton, who would have been a fine president. To be fair, you don't want to elect someone that comes off hating their constituants, or only politicking for their own benefit; you don't want a con-man, but that's not the same as authenticity.
• Countries do not run on Hallmark Original Movies. You cannot elect a person on 'wouldn't it make a great story?' That is not a qualification.

If we start just electing celebrities to presidency because we like em on TV, I'm leaving. I will jump over the wall to Mexico if I have to.

 

[luxsol]

I said absolutely nothing about credibility. I said I take one more seriously as a presidential candidate.
First off, by taking him more seriously, I mean in the sense of having a real chance to actually beat the republican nominee (whom I assume will be Pence). I feel the Rock checks more boxes of things people care about. His charisma (which as silly as it may be, is arguably the most important characteristic of a candidate) is off the charts, and he's a relatively good looking dude, who gives insanely good speeches - that alone is a massive. Beyond that, while I obviously don't personally know either, I feel like the Rock is a more relatable individual, to me personally - and that would likely be especially the case with many young voters, whom are notoriously hard to actually get to vote. I also feel he'd run a better, broader reaching campaign - whereas I feel Oprah's campaign could easily fall along similar lines as Hillary's did.
In the end, it's nothing against Oprah. She seems like a great, caring person. But I just feel the Rock would stand a much better chance at actually winning.

While i agree with a lot of what you said, it only shows how people are awful in just choosing actors like that.
And i very much disagree with Oprah being compared to Hilary. Hilary was an awful candidate with a lot of history that could be/was used against her. Oprah is a likeable blank slate, in terms of politics.

 

[SDCowboy]

While i agree with a lot of what you said, it only shows how people are awful in just choosing actors like that.
And i very much disagree with Oprah being compared to Hilary. Hilary was an awful candidate with a lot of history that could be/was used against her. Oprah is a likeable blank slate, in terms of politics.

At the end of the day, who knows. I'd be surprised if either actually ran, anyway. If one were to run though, I just feel solely between those two, that the Rock is a safer choice in terms of being able to win. He's younger, far more charismatic, his speeches would be (pardon the wrestling term) electrifying, and I feel he would charge up young voters far more than Oprah would. He has an aura about him that just feels commanding and presidential - not that that inherently makes someone a good president, but it is paramount in getting votes in this country.

Also in terms of comparing Oprah to Hillary, I was referring to a possible similar campaign style.

Maybe I'm dead wrong, though. Time will tell.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

Just because famous people can win a popularity contest doesn't mean they'll be good at a job in which they know nothing about. That's insane that people think otherwise.

 

[SDCowboy]

Just because famous people can win a popularity contest doesn't mean they'll be good at a job in which they know nothing about. That's insane that people think otherwise.

I agree completely.

 

[Seraph_Nicholas]

Politics is a particular skillset, and the positions that require it are some of the most consequential in the world. Wanting people to be good at the important things they do is just logical.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Really? The person you saw on TV comes off as 'authentic' on her talk show, and she has an underdog story, so she would make a good president? There is so much wrong with this.

• First off, the person you see on TV isn't necessarily the person in real life, even if they ran a talk show.
• Second, being 'authentic' isn't a primary qualification. Do you know who many people feel is authentic? Donald Trump. And he is authentic; he says whatever he darn well feels like, he does whatever he feels like, he's authentic. He's also a vain, vengeful, and dimwitted man. You know who comes off as unauthentic? Hillary Clinton, who would have been a fine president. To be fair, you don't want to elect someone that comes off hating their constituants, or only politicking for their own benefit; you don't want a con-man, but that's not the same as authenticity.
• Countries do not run on Hallmark Original Movies. You cannot elect a person on 'wouldn't it make a great story?' That is not a qualification.

If we start just electing celebrities to presidency because we like em on TV, I'm leaving. I will jump over the wall to Mexico if I have to.

Oprah is one of the top philanthropists of the 21st century and an embodiment of the American dream via her empire. Winfrey is not your typical con artist seeking to govern and is a trustworthy individual by all accounts.

In addition, Americans can elect whoever they want to under the laws they've designed. Electing someone with a transcendent message and humble beginnings isn't running the country like a Hallmark movie. Candidates only need to meet the demands of the USA's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. This is publicly available online.

Oprah has the mental capacity. There are people willing to work in her administration. She knows how to communicate with the public. She's an icon who has worked hard. She knows how to lead. If she has good ideas, then her message could take her all the way to the oval office if she ran as a Democrat. This isn't a dumb celebrity in over her head. The woman has undeniable potential as a politician. Furthermore, her liberal competition is trash. And the main threat standing in her way is Pres. Trump. If she runs, then Winfrey has a good chance to win. That's why people shouldn't dismiss her and give her a chance to contend for POTUS. I don't think any American is going to lose sleep at night if you go to Mexico with their living standards. Nevertheless, at the very least I think you ought to show Oprah respect and take her seriously. Oprah might be the next President of the USA. You never know.

Finally, Hillary once again would've been a horrible president because she's displayed poor judgement throughout her career. Her experience doesn't mean she'll be a good POTUS. And we have historical precedent for that. That's why she's sitting at home holding Ls. Total embarrassment.

 

[Shamylov]

Just because famous people can win a popularity contest doesn't mean they'll be good at a job in which they know nothing about. That's insane that people think otherwise.

The above is pretty much everything you need to understand about this issue.

You're getting caught up in the spectacle of politics and completely ignoring the fact that the president leads a large and multifaceted institution to solve the nation's complex problems. Being smart and inspirational isn't enough to grasp this; you need experience.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

Finally, Hillary once again would've been a horrible president because she's displayed poor judgement throughout her career. Her experience doesn't mean she'll be a good POTUS. And we have historical precedent for that. That's why she's sitting at home holding Ls. Total embarrassment.

Instead 22 percent of the population thought it was better to go with the guy who ran a giant education scam and thought the best way to sell steak dinners was to sell them exclusively at the Sharper Image. Oh, and spent years claiming the previous president lied about where he was from.

Yeah, judgement is really what set this previous election apart.

 

[Naudi]

I know some people who are very passionate about clean energy, local leaders who are well known and have done a lot for their local community. But I wouldn't let this couple run a power plant.

Where would Oprah even start? Nobody can take anything away from her achievement, but seriously, President? She'd need at least two years to catch up on everything she needs to properly do the job.

Quite honestly, it's a difficult one. Like or hate Trump, his business empire gives his a wealth of experience that's led to him making some monumental decisions, but possibly more because he's understood the financial implications of his decisions. The economy in the US is looking great at the moment and really this is what the US needs. Wasn't it on the verge of defaulting under Obama?

Oprah is a wonderful person but a politician she is not.

I don't like the fact that most of our politicians in the UK are making a career of it. However, to be a successful politician, you really do need to understand a lot of things that I can't even begin to comprehend. Law, national infrastructure, powers of Parliament, taxation, state funding, international matters etc. She would need to campaign for herself, not follow the beat of someone else's drum.

The problem we have is that politics is now fought on a social scale, social media and the media themselves have more influence than ever and it's getting out of hand. Rather than do what's best for America, you have people wanting your country to make choices based on being politically correct and not the best thing for the country. It's happening here too and quite honestly. it's pissing me off. People looking to boost their own agenda whilst we pretend like we're making progress.

It's a scary world. And again, Oprah is an amazing woman, but not a President or Politician.

Are you saying Oprah hasn't built an empire of her own? She is worth way more then trump and she can speak in coherent sentences to boot. Kinda makes you wonder why you question her intelligence yet are fine with trump. Who again can't speak better then my 6 year old....wonder why...

 

[Rookje]

We need a leader who leads on the issues, facts, policy not on emotion. And "spirit" and humanity is core to Orprah's world philosophy.

 

[Narroo]

Oprah is one of the top philanthropists of the 21st century and an embodiment of the American dream via her empire. Winfrey is not your typical con artist seeking to govern and is a trustworthy individual by all accounts.

In addition, Americans can elect whoever they want to under the laws they've designed. Electing someone with a transcendent message and humble beginnings isn't running the country like a Hallmark movie. Candidates only need to meet the demands of the USA's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. This is publicly available online.

Oprah has the mental capacity. There are people willing to work in her administration. She knows how to communicate with the public. She's an icon who has worked hard. She knows how to lead. If she has good ideas, then her message could take her all the way to the oval office if she ran as a Democrat. This isn't a dumb celebrity in over her head. The woman has undeniable potential as a politician. Furthermore, her liberal competition is trash. And the main threat standing in her way is Pres. Trump. If she runs, then Winfrey has a good chance to win. That's why people shouldn't dismiss her and give her a chance to contend for POTUS. I don't think any American is going to lose sleep at night if you go to Mexico with their living standards. Nevertheless, at the very least I think you ought to show Oprah respect and take her seriously. Oprah might be the next President of the USA. You never know.

Finally, Hillary once again would've been a horrible president because she's displayed poor judgement throughout her career. Her experience doesn't mean she'll be a good POTUS. And we have historical precedent for that. That's why she's sitting at home holding Ls. Total embarrassment.

Are you saying Oprah hasn't built an empire of her own? She is worth way more then trump and she can speak in coherent sentences to boot. Kinda makes you wonder why you question her intelligence yet are fine with trump. Who again can't speak better then my 6 year old....wonder why...

Ok. So being a good person doesn't automatically make you a great president. It helps a lot and is something we should expect: Being a good person should not be their primary qualification for presidency. And honestly, after watching her show a few times in the 90's and 00's, I'm not totally sure about her morale fiber; her show could be pretty trashy and exploitative. That, and Dr. Phil. And the secret, and so on.

As for building her empire; yeah, she is pretty talented in that respect and managed to take her talk show and turn herself into a major brand. Of course, a lot of that just rested on her day time popularity. Yes, she's done a fantastic job of leveraging her popularity and it's no mean feat, but I'm neither convinced that would make her a good president nor am I convinced she truly did it on her own with no help from anyone else. I'm bothered by the near Trumpian levels of worship she receives for basically being a daytime talk-show host that leveraged herself into a media brand.

Eitherway, your right, she would be a better president than Trump. Honestly though, so wouldn't most people; the man is deranged and malevolent, it's not a high bar to pass. Oprah Winfrey would probably be a better president than most regular people, but I think we can shoot better than that. Eitherway, electing a person simply because they're a popular actor and give nice interviews is a horrible way to elect a president. All because they pop on the cover of people magazine does not mean you really know them as a person, or their skills. Much of the reason why we like to elect politicians as president is because we can see their political history. They've been senators and governors and they've shown competence in national and international politics and policy making. Or they've been a secretary of state. Or so on. Oprah has some qualities desirable in a president, but we should expect more that just 'being a good person' and 'managing a business conglomerate.'

 

[Vicetrailia]

You can't prop up Trump and down Oprah, it's hypocritical.

She's worth 3.6 billion and is categorically superior to Trump as a businessman and as a leader.

 

[dragonfart28]

This populism and identity politics garbage is ruining democracy.

Obama may have had the luxury of getting some votes based on his skin colour, but he also had the political chops to back it up.

He wasn't just an intellectual, he also knew about how the game was played and who the players were.

He had a valuable hand in social justice, the economy and the environment.

Oprah's perspective is too limited and people need to demand more from their leaders.

 

[caffeware]

Playing devils advocate: if you choose the same kind of people you are going to get the same kind of results.

 

[nephilimdj]

Because talking down one of the most amazing women in modern times with her success makes Michelle Obama the chosen one chance better.

 

[Kotzen Ducha]

I wouldn't vote for Oprah, but I don't mind politicians and leaders who come from business and personal success and treat this country like a huge business.
Oprah is an insanely smart and successful woman. She's a winner. No reason why she'd do any worse than Jeb or Cruz or Warren or anybody.

 

[joecanada]

If you think traditional politicians aren't very good at what they do you're following the wrong ones. Even the young people I knew in University with degrees in economics and political science knew ten times more than the average person about government. Then add years of working as a bureaucrat and local politician, working your way up to candidacy it's a life long endeavor. It's the same as any other profession , anyone could do it but they usually shouldn't. You look at a guy like Bernie Sanders , old as hell he's got a fire under his ass still , obviously passionate about what he does, there's thousands more like him working all over the government that never get publicity or recognized. Usually the bad ones get recognized.

 

[Rocket Number 22]

FUCK OPRAH

Please America, enough with the celebrities....making a speech at an awards show is good enough to have you run for President?

Why is it not a requirement to have held a public office position before being eligible for running?

 

[Kadayi]

The problem with popularists is they like to remain popular, which is not necessarily what you want from anyone in a leadership position. You want people who are able to make tough decisions that might not go down that well in the short term but have long-term goals.

 

[Relativ9]

She's a bit of a snake-oil salesman, and you guys already have on of those in the white house. It's just that she's a snake-oil salesman on the left rather than on the right. I wouldn't trust anyone who's a business partner of Deepack Chopra, and I don't know why the left in America is okey with this. Not to mention the whole car giveaway fiasco.

I agree with the other guy in this thread, I'd much rather vote for The Rock.

 

[lil puff]

Until I know who's running, it's hard to say who the most viable candidate would be at this moment.

One thing... had Oprah ever showed any public desire to run for any office or actually delved that deep into politics until recently? I don't know where she actually stands on any issues - would like to know that 1st.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

If you think traditional politicians aren't very good at what they do you're following the wrong ones. Even the young people I knew in University with degrees in economics and political science knew ten times more than the average person about government. Then add years of working as a bureaucrat and local politician, working your way up to candidacy it's a life long endeavor. It's the same as any other profession , anyone could do it but they usually shouldn't. You look at a guy like Bernie Sanders , old as hell he's got a fire under his ass still , obviously passionate about what he does, there's thousands more like him working all over the government that never get publicity or recognized. Usually the bad ones get recognized.

The USA's traditional politicians on average have consistently ruined millions of lives around the world. Moreover, office holders have sent America in the wrong direction because of their corruption and poor skills. One of America's political parties routinely campaigns on shrinking the role of gov't because it's true that many politicians often make catastrophic mistakes that are difficult to undo. Poor performance on the job is the predominant reason why people like Oprah and Donald Trump have the incentive to run as well as a good chance to be elected in the US.

Poor performance on the job includes but is not limited to military catastrophes in the middle east, a poorly designed health care system, underestimation of North Korea, redistribution of wealth through legislation, being asleep at the wheel during the most devastating financial crisis in history, collectively sitting on their ass as they receive intelligence that Russia allegedly colluded with a reality tv star/real estate developer to become POTUS, etc. These folks are terrible at improving the life of an American and America is trending in the wrong direction under their leadership.

A big reason America is in bad shape is because the way you elect people and the way they maintain power in office isn't based off of individual ability nor achievement. You don't get rid of people when they fail. You promote them and let them stick around.

In any event, with respect to experience, people should know that nothing you've experienced in life can sufficiently prepare you to be President of the United States. There have been people with a lot of experience, people with scant experience, and starting in 2017 a real estate/media mogul. Your saving grace will be your judgement and the team you've got standing behind you. That's what determines if you'll sink or swim as one of the most powerful people in the world. And I truly believe Oprah gives Democrats the best chance to win against Pres. Trump. He's a formidable force and a political genius, but no one is unbeatable.

 

[Taco_Human]

I'd vote for her.

 

[xandaca]

Because Trump doesn't have any political experience, and right now, the more like Trump you are, the worse you are. In principle, the qualities that Oprah has demonstrated throughout her career - building successful businesses, interacting with people from all walks of life, humanitarian and philanthropic work, setting a vision and working to make it happen - all demonstrate high levels of competency in areas which could be extremely useful to the Presidency. The fact Trump was a successful businessman (and he was) isn't what makes him a terrible person and by most accounts, President: it's his vulgarity, his narcissism, his cynical opportunism, lack of self-restraint and reflection, and so on. Oprah is great at inspiring people and bringing them together, has lived in both great poverty and riches, and demonstrated consistently excellent leadership skills. She has what could be considered Trump's strongest suit - business acumen - while being strong in all almost the areas where he's visibly incompetent. If she's not got day-to-day experience in political office, that's what advisors and the like are for. If 'political experience' is the single most important requirement for the Presidency, to the exclusion of everything else, you're condemning your country to being perpetually governed by one class of person, which seems very dangerous to me. Plenty of people have learnt on the job before and as long as the essential qualities of good leadership are there, I see no reason why someone like Oprah Winfrey shouldn't be given serious consideration.

(This is not an endorsement of her views, by the way, as I suspect hers and mine are quite different. I just don't see any reason why she should be dismissed considering the many relevant qualities she's consistently demonstrated.)

 

[BANGS]

Democrats in 2016: "Some rich TV star isn't qualified to be president!"
Democrats in 2018: "Oprah for president!"

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

We are going to need someone that can fix all the stuff trump is dismantling. We are going to have a huge market correction in about 2-4 years. On top of that we are going to have more financial issues with climate change. Inflation, jobs, stagnant wages, and health insurance + drug costs are going to be huge issues. What we need is someone that can put the right people in the right places inside our government to fix everything the GOP is destroying.

Do I think Oprah is qualified to do any of this? Maybe, but the issue could be that she is a tv personality. I'm not saying she can't do the job, but I think she would create too much dissonance with voters. Some people are just going to ask why would she be any better than trump, he's a tv personality and look at the damage he's done.

The good thing from all this is at least people are asking about who is going to run.

 

[gioGAF]

Lol at people giving Oprah shit. Our current president had zero political experience, so as of now it looks like the position of president requires zero experience in the field.

 

[Relativ9]

Lol at people giving Oprah shit. Our current president had zero political experience, so as of now it looks like the position of president requires zero experience in the field.

You think the people giving Oprah shit are doing so because they like Trump?

 

[Sinfamy]

I would hope Democrats aren't as swooned by fame.
What's her stance on Medicare for All, social security, poverty, corporate tax rates, fighting income inequality, corporate influence in politics, ending wars.
Giving good speeches isn't what I am interested in.

 

[Naudi]

Hopefully trump isn't the new standard we base all new presidents off of...Oprah would be better then trump but that's not saying much if anything lol

 

[BANGS]

Hopefully trump isn't the new standard we base all new presidents off of

President Comacho may be closer than the 500 years away we initially predicted...

 

[Clockwork]

Just because famous people can win a popularity contest doesn't mean they'll be good at a job in which they know nothing about. That's insane that people think otherwise.

Really this is all that should need to be said.

 

[mckmas8808]

FUCK OPRAH

Please America, enough with the celebrities....making a speech at an awards show is good enough to have you run for President?

Why is it not a requirement to have held a public office position before being eligible for running?

So are we to believe she knew about his ways before?

 

[Zoe]

And i very much disagree with Oprah being compared to Hilary. Hilary was an awful candidate with a lot of history that could be/was used against her. Oprah is a likeable blank slate, in terms of politics.

Oprah does not have a blank slate at all. She has a horrible pseudo-science record and put the anti-vaxxer movement where it is today.

 

[gioGAF]

You think the people giving Oprah shit are doing so because they like Trump?

I'm not excusing the situation, just stating that our current political landscape is a shit show.

 

[J-Rzez]

FUCK OPRAH

Please America, enough with the celebrities....making a speech at an awards show is good enough to have you run for President?

Why is it not a requirement to have held a public office position before being eligible for running?

She'll be buried before she even gets "in the running."

But the democrats are hopelessly desperate right now, and bank on the first two traits the OP mentioned for a candidate "Black, Woman." The battle between the Republicans and Hollywood would be intense though.