I'd vote for Oprah. How about you?

What about Tulsi Gabbard? I can't really figure out what the DNC's strategy is, but I hope they're not just waiting to see if somebody gives a good speech at the Golden Globes. Is there a lifetime achievement award given out at the Oscars so we can narrow down the VP field as well? 

Democratic Underground had many postings against Gillibrand for leading the charge against Franken...... they would stay home rather than vote for her or a Republican opponent.

A major Woman Dem diner also announced monetary support for those who went against Franken. Gillibrand has an uphill battle.

jfinnegan said:

What about Tulsi Gabbard? I can't really figure out what the DNC's strategy is, but I hope they're not just waiting to see if somebody gives a good speech at the Golden Globes. Is there a lifetime achievement award given out at the Oscars so we can narrow down the VP field as well? 

Yes. Tulsi Gabbard and the Rev William Barber. If they are not the candidates they must play leading roles in the campaign.

LOST said:


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?

good point.  Let's make it any random person over 18.  The odds are very, very strong that any random name out of whitepages.com would have made a better president than the Very Stable Genius.

I think the chances of finding a candidate who (a) ticks all of my boxes and, if so, (b) can still win are nil. Are others feeling luckier?

ml1 said:

LOST said:


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?

good point.  Let's make it any random person over 18.  The odds are very, very strong that any random name out of whitepages.com would have made a better president than the Very Stable Genius.

Strong odds, but not a slam dunk.

(Re-posted graphic to include timeline)

Most of the push back on Oprah has to do with lack of "experience". I pointed out Obama didn't have much experience either, but someone reminded me that he was  State Senator for a while too, which I had forgotten about. And taught classes on the Constitution . (Calling him a scholar is pushing it though. Did he publish any papers?)

This all begs the question  - exactly what experience do you think is needed?  The Presidency is probably the most unique job on the planet - what kind of experience do you think would be pertinent?

Constitutional scholar? For what? They're not going to be a Supreme Court justice.

Legislative experience? For what? Is being one of a hundred or more legislators anything like being the President? I think not. 

Governor? Maybe the closest thing you can get to being a Prez, but in the end, is being the guv of Arkansas anything like being Prez?

To me, a President has to be (in no particular order, and not meant to be inclusive) smart, well-read, curious, a leader, decisive, empathic, and most importantly, knowledgeable of their weaknesses and able to to hire the right people to fill in those weaknesses.

I think Oprah has those qualities, so I think she's quite qualified.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

Democratic Underground had many postings against Gillibrand for leading the charge against Franken...... they would stay home rather than vote for her or a Republican opponent.




A major Woman Dem diner also announced monetary support for those who went against Franken. Gillibrand has an uphill battle.

I admit that I was angry that she went against Franken. I thought it was extreme and I have posted it on MOL.  Initially I felt I could not vote for her. But in the end I'm a pragmatist and will listen to her positions on other issues if she throws her hat in the ring. Actually I felt she pushed the Franken issue because it was consistent with her stance on sexual harassment in the military but I also had the uncomfortable feeling that she was anxious to be a front runner on this issue hoping it would resonate with women voters.

I saw a statistic that stated a majority of women voters from Minnesota, I assume Democrats, were against his resignation.

Amazing.

One speech and we have a Oprah as president movement. Before her speech this was not even on the radar.

Sorry, but a speech doesn't do it for me. I'm not so shallow as to sell my democracy cheaply.

I would have to better know her positions and take a look at her history. What she stood for and stands for now. I would then compare her to other candidates.

However, if it turns out to be Oprah and Trump (forget third party bs), then I'd be for her. I know enough to know she'd be incomparably better than Trump (as would over 99% of the populace).

ps - I'm leery of Gillibrand. An opportunist?

Oprah's speech left me thinking, "Wow!" but it never occurred to me that I should be considering her as a presidential candidate. I thought her speech was strong, but not at the level of Obama or Bill Clinton at their best. Watching Sidney Poitier win his Oscar, while very inspiring, is a story that has been told before. Same with, I am a woman achieving something and hope this inspires little girls watching at home. We need to hear those stories more, but I'm not sure that telling them earns someone the presidency.

And that's not to say I want a male candidate, I'd love to see a woman on the top of both tickets in 2020.  We're looking for a hero during a challenging time, and the usual suspects - sitting senators, governors and generals, politicians out of office - somehow aren't fitting the bill. That's what opened the door for Trump in the first place.

If one wants a non-traditional candidate, why not Michelle Obama? Presumably she at least has a decent perspective on how the job works.

apple44 said:

I left her speech thinking, "Wow!" but it never occurred to me that I should be considering her as a presidential candidate. I thought Oprah's speech was strong, but not at the level of Obama or Bill Clinton at their best. Watching Sidney Poitier win his Oscar, while very inspiring, is a story that has been told before. Same with, I am a woman achieving something and hope this inspires little girls watching at home. We need to hear those stories more, but I'm not sure that telling them earns someone the presidency.

And that's not to say I want a male candidate, I'd love to see a woman on the top of both tickets in 2020.  I think to some extent we're looking for a hero during a challenging time, and the usual suspects - sitting senators, governors and generals, politicians out of office - somehow aren't fitting the bill. That's what opened the door for Trump in the first place.

One can ask, if one wants a non-traditional candidate, why not Michelle Obama? Presumably she at least has a decent perspective on how the job works.

Michelle Obama was on many Dems mind when she was campaigning for Hillary. She has the charisma, the legal background, and the perspective as you point out. I would cheer for that pick. But she has said no to the idea many times. Oprah as a cheerleader for Michelle makes sense.

I agree with your reaction to Oprah's speech. Moving, rousing but not the feeling that I got the first time I heard Obama speak. I was never swept away by Bill Clinton as an orator. But Barack Obama caught my attention. I remember calling someone and saying Wow, this guy should run for president someday.

By the way, on FB Cory Booker posted that he and his friend Kamala Harris will be joining the Senate Judiciary Committee

2020?

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. 

apple44 said:

I guess they both are similar to Obama before 2008, as most Americans probably have no or little idea who they are. 

Then again, that 2004 speech ...

Yes, but it was a convention speech, I'm not sure how deep its reach was beyond people who follow politics closely

Sure.  Why not?

Now that we've turned government into a Reality Television program, I think we should consider cutting some costs.  Given our current production values $4 Trillion a year seems like a bit too big of a budget. 

I see no reason to spend $$ on complex and expensive weapons systems.  Instead of using these weapons to kill poor people we could produce this entertainment with CGI.  It would save us quite a bit of $$ and dare I say, it would save lives. 

Just my $.02

For a few years I worked in the WH press corp. What I heard pre or post interview or briefing- things that were off the record- would curl your hair. Most Americans have little idea what is done in their name on a daily basis. Obviously, the presidency is much, much more than the clown show we've seen for the past year. Suffice it to say that what the press is given and in turn allowed to tell us is only a small piece of what's really going on. While Trump is stepping in one and then another pile of shite to our amusement/horror/amusement the real work of being a world power is being handled by people we don't hear from on a daily basis. Believe that.

I don't think most Americans consider the fact that the Presidency is a brutal job. The POTUS changes the course of history on a regular basis. Most of what the general public thinks the job entails has nothing to do with the actual work of maintaining the structure currently in place to retain dominance on a global scale. We didn't become a world power by giving out cheap cars and smiles and reassuring hugs. We blow shite up, upend regimes, place and then replace leaders, steal, conspire and plunder.

Obama was a great speaker and an engaging guy but obviously he also spent a great deal of his time bombing people he promised to respect into oblivion. POTUS is a brutal, dirty, frightening job.

Oprah Winfrey is an entertainer- not a statesman. She made her millions based on other people's investments. That's no small feat and she deserves credit for surviving and thriving in a hostile environment, but not one bit of 'living your best life' has much to do with steering this ship. She's not built for this work. Her head would explode after the first real briefing. 

Instead of falling prey to yet another simple minded distraction like 'Oprah For President' (as if the same voters who hated an intelligent Black man in the job and convulsed at the idea of a ruthless white woman as a replacement would ever support a Black woman as leader of the free world) we ought to be debating a real world strategy to deal with the charlatans who are using Trump to enrich themselves and rob us blind. 

Hell, let’s get rid of the arbitrary 35 yr old limit as well. It’s only the Presidency. No need for any requirements or minimum qualifications.

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?  

Those are leadership competencies. And yes, it would be great if we assessed for those (like any good employer would). Problem is they are hard to measure. 

But how about some minimum educational and experiential qualifications? Graduate degree in law, political science, government or business. X # (5?) of years government experience. That would be a good start.

drummerboy said:

Most of the push back on Oprah has to do with lack of "experience". I pointed out Obama didn't have much experience either, but someone reminded me that he was  State Senator for a while too, which I had forgotten about. And taught classes on the Constitution . (Calling him a scholar is pushing it though. Did he publish any papers?)


This all begs the question  - exactly what experience do you think is needed?  The Presidency is probably the most unique job on the planet - what kind of experience do you think would be pertinent?

Constitutional scholar? For what? They're not going to be a Supreme Court justice.

Legislative experience? For what? Is being one of a hundred or more legislators anything like being the President? I think not. 

Governor? Maybe the closest thing you can get to being a Prez, but in the end, is being the guv of Arkansas anything like being Prez?



To me, a President has to be (in no particular order, and not meant to be inclusive) smart, well-read, curious, a leader, decisive, empathic, and most importantly, knowledgeable of their weaknesses and able to to hire the right people to fill in those weaknesses.

I think Oprah has those qualities, so I think she's quite qualified.

We should not get into the habit of vetting tv personalities to lead the country. It's comical and makes us look like our only options are from William Morris. 

What do any of those things have to do with being President?

Like I said, how does 5 years of wandering around a state legislature, in probably a part-time position, prepare you for the Presidency?

And more importantly, a vital Prez function is foreign affairs. There are very, very few jobs available in the U.S. that give you any significant foreign affairs experience, so we end up electing these experience-free people all the time.

conandrob240 said:

Those are leadership competencies. And yes, it would be great if we assessed for those (like any good employer would). Problem is they are hard to measure. 




But how about some minimum educational and experiential qualifications? Graduate degree in law, political science, government or business. X # (5?) of years government experience. That would be a good start.

drummerboy said:

Most of the push back on Oprah has to do with lack of "experience". I pointed out Obama didn't have much experience either, but someone reminded me that he was  State Senator for a while too, which I had forgotten about. And taught classes on the Constitution . (Calling him a scholar is pushing it though. Did he publish any papers?)


This all begs the question  - exactly what experience do you think is needed?  The Presidency is probably the most unique job on the planet - what kind of experience do you think would be pertinent?

Constitutional scholar? For what? They're not going to be a Supreme Court justice.

Legislative experience? For what? Is being one of a hundred or more legislators anything like being the President? I think not. 

Governor? Maybe the closest thing you can get to being a Prez, but in the end, is being the guv of Arkansas anything like being Prez?



To me, a President has to be (in no particular order, and not meant to be inclusive) smart, well-read, curious, a leader, decisive, empathic, and most importantly, knowledgeable of their weaknesses and able to to hire the right people to fill in those weaknesses.

I think Oprah has those qualities, so I think she's quite qualified.

I would say that we're in a very sad state of affairs if we automatically disqualify one of our most accomplished citizens because she had a TV show.

Seems to me Oprah is kind of an incomparable individual. Is there anyone in the entertainment industry that even comes close to her accomplishments?

Instead, do we really need to settle for people who have some veneer of governmental experience that in actuality gives no experience at being President?

Something doesn't make sense here.

kibbegirl said:

We should not get into the habit of vetting tv personalities to lead the country. It's comical and makes us look like our only options are from William Morris. 

I got in a discussion with a guy on FB who's a friend of a friend because I suggested that bankrupting casinos and running pageants probably wasn't relevant experience for a POTUS.  Of course he immediately engaged in "whataboutism" asking about the "community organizer's" previous experience.  He went on to adamantly argue that being a CEO is far more relevant experience than being a U.S. Senator.  Apparently, running the Trump Organization in his mind prepares someone better than serving on committees in the Senate, and knowing the Constitution well enough to teach it in law school.

Why do people think running Walmart or HP or some other corporation automatically qualifies one to be president?  The mission of running a business is totally different than being chief executive of the federal government.  Maybe by chance a CEO would have all the relevant skills and would learn quickly on the job.  But the argument that being a CEO is obviously more relevant experience than serving in Congress is dubious.

Not to mention the fact that we've only had 45 presidents, and arguably only since FDR has the job resembled what it is today.  It's a very small sample under any set of criteria.  We've had good presidents with chief executive experience like state governor or military leader, but we've also had poor presidents who have served as chief executives. We've had good presidents who had been in Congress prior, and some who were not so good.

And of course the guy eventually reminded me why I shouldn't argue with conservatives I don't know on social media.  About five replies in, we were no longer discussing Trump's qualifications, because he managed to change to subject to how the U.S. is headed for collapse due to debt.  I think that's another difference I've found between liberals and conservatives.  If you argue with liberals they tend to go over the same rhetorical ground over and over. If you argue with a conservative, they gradually manage to change the argument to something completely different from where you started.

drummerboy said:

(Some stuff, Clipped because seriously - too long)

Then she should have no trouble winning the IL governor’s race next year and then run against Trump in 2020. Though she probably should have run for Governor in 2014 and maybe spared Illinois 4 years of Bruce. 

I still think it’s ridiculous we’re even talking about this. Oprah is likable. I’m not her key demo but I like Oprah. So there’s that. But you should have to do *something* to be considered for president. I don’t want another billionaire to be like “ho hum, so bored, might as well be president for awhile.”

more evidence that we should have an amendment to the Constitution to create a position of Head of State of the U.S.  It could be a ceremonial role -- foreign goodwill trips, host state dinners, hand out awards, etc.  Then we can elect any celebrity who is popular.  Who wouldn't want Tom Hanks or Oprah traveling the world on behalf of the U.S., hosting dinners, and appearing at the Kennedy Center awards?

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.

+10

ml1 said:

more evidence that we should have an amendment to the Constitution to create a position of Head of State of the U.S.  It could be a ceremonial role -- foreign goodwill trips, host state dinners, hand out awards, etc.  Then we can elect any celebrity who is popular.  Who wouldn't want Tom Hanks or Oprah traveling the world on behalf of the U.S., hosting dinners, and appearing at the Kennedy Center awards?

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. 

Regarding your commentary on Political discussions.  I think it's very difficult to discuss politics today.  We are very balkanized at this time.  We tend to paint with broad brushes and make all kinds of assumptions regarding other people's views based on very little information.  There is much to criticize on both sides.  I find that Progressives don't necessarily stick to the "same rhetorical ground" unless that ground is "those people aren't even worth talking to".  I find that this is where the conversation usually goes with progressives. 

ml1 said:

I got in a discussion with a guy on FB who's a friend of a friend because I suggested that bankrupting casinos and running pageants probably wasn't relevant experience for a POTUS.  Of course he immediately engaged in "whataboutism" asking about the "community organizer's" previous experience.  He went on to adamantly argue that being a CEO is far more relevant experience than being a U.S. Senator.  Apparently, running the Trump Organization in his mind prepares someone better than serving on committees in the Senate, and knowing the Constitution well enough to teach it in law school.

Why do people think running Walmart or HP or some other corporation automatically qualifies one to be president?  The mission of running a business is totally different than being chief executive of the federal government.  Maybe by chance a CEO would have all the relevant skills and would learn quickly on the job.  But the argument that being a CEO is obviously more relevant experience than serving in Congress is dubious.

Not to mention the fact that we've only had 45 presidents, and arguably only since FDR has the job resembled what it is today.  It's a very small sample under any set of criteria.  We've had good presidents with chief executive experience like state governor or military leader, but we've also had poor presidents who have served as chief executives. We've had good presidents who had been in Congress prior, and some who were not so good.

And of course the guy eventually reminded me why I shouldn't argue with conservatives I don't know on social media.  About five replies in, we were no longer discussing Trump's qualifications, because he managed to change to subject to how the U.S. is headed for collapse due to debt.  I think that's another difference I've found between liberals and conservatives.  If you argue with liberals they tend to go over the same rhetorical ground over and over. If you argue with a conservative, they gradually manage to change the argument to something completely different from where you started.

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. 

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

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

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