Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Next US President?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Next US President?

    Would she? Could she?



    Sounds a lot like a "come and get me speech" to me

    #2
    Stedman seems to be on board with it.

    Comment


      #3
      I don't reckon the DNC would have the balls to run a black woman against Trump (or Pence).

      Yes, yes I know "but primaries", but Sanders

      Comment


        #4
        Stedman seems to be on board with it.

        He does. Nobody close to her is giving a flat out "no," nor even a qualified one.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by ad hoc View Post
          I don't reckon the DNC would have the balls to run a black woman against Trump (or Pence).

          Yes, yes I know "but primaries", but Sanders
          And "but Obama" too.

          I don't know if it's balls the DNC lack, more likely money and humility.

          Comment


            #6
            Good lord. Is this what it's come to?

            On the other hand, fuck it. Let's *really* expose the racism and misogyny in this country. The media doesn't want to cover real policy in campaigns anyway, so it might as well be two "personalities" who both, in completely different ways, represent many poor people's idea of a rich person and many dumb people's idea of a smart person. The difference is that Oprah actually knows what it's like to be poor and is actually pretty damn smart, just not super-knowledgeable about everything she'd need to be.

            And I suspect she'd actually do an OK job - Obviously better than the current shitshow, but that's not saying much - I mean, a lot better than even that. She's a good communicator, very smart, and has a lot of experience managing people and dealing with big egos. My concern is that she'd hire Dr Oz to be head of HHS, etc. Hopefully she's friendly with Obama and Hillary, who he could help her find qualified people for the campaign and cabinet.

            It's been said that DC is just Hollywood for ugly people, so let's just complete the merger.

            Comment


              #7
              I think Oprah would be a great candidate, and easily a better-than-average President.

              Comment


                #8
                All of that may well be true, but if the future of the republic rests on our gifting the highest office in the land to celebrities, then we are in even worse shape that I had thought.

                Comment


                  #9
                  But that implies that there's a 'category' better suited to governing: i.e. business leaders, bankers, ex-military, lawyers, career politicians, etc. To lump her in with the sort of 'celebrity' you'd see on Dancing With The Stars gives her short shrift.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Yeah. I'm with Ursus. This is fucking desperate stuff.

                    When we throw Trump into the incinerator, I want his replacement to be the exact opposite: a competent, skilled technocrat, and a dull but coherent communicator.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Stephen Harper isn't busy.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        We are in terrible shape, so we might as well make the most of a bad situation.

                        It could also be argued that, should we elect another celebrity, that it says as much about the culture of celebrity as it does about politics.
                        If we elect one that actually does a good job, then we'll be in completely uncharted territory, but that's better than where we are now. Trump's election was a surprise in many ways, but his performance hasn't been remotely surprising.

                        Reagan was the closest analogy, but he had some substantive political experience before being elected president. Jesse Ventura wasn't much as governor of Minnesota. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't much as governor of California, but that may have been mostly because the whole movement that led him to become governor was dumb and so the expectations were dumb, not just that he couldn't hack it.

                        Of course, Al Franken did a good job, but "celebrity" legislators - athletes, etc - aren't so unusual and the stakes are lower.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I suspect she'd be competent, but I really, desperately don't want to reinforce the idea that you can only be President if you're famous for doing other stuff. The idea is just immensely, utterly depressing.

                          The fact that she is touted as the opposite to Trump (because she's a liberal black woman) forgets the two points that are mostly made for the idea of her candidacy - She's As Famous As Trump and She's Run Her Own Company Worth Loads Of Cash!

                          Which are exactly the two main attributes that Trump brought.

                          Please don't let us use those two criteria for determining who is best to run a functioning administrative bureaucracy.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Reagan, of course, had been governor and two-time head of the Screen Actors Guild, so obviously had some chops. But even then, he was denigrated as 'b-movie actor runs for president'. Oprah's not Kim fucking Kardashian. She's been a reporter, talk show host, tv producer, network owner, actor, producer and publisher. Not to mention a good speaker and empathetic personality. She'd do fine.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Ice-T.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by WOM View Post
                                But that implies that there's a 'category' better suited to governing: i.e. business leaders, bankers, ex-military, lawyers, career politicians, etc. To lump her in with the sort of 'celebrity' you'd see on Dancing With The Stars gives her short shrift.
                                Yeah she's as much mogul as celebrity, which is precisely why she'd wipe the floor with Trump. She's way more successful at his supposed skill set than him. Whenever I've discussed the character of presidents with US born friends sooner or later you get into the area of myth. The idea that the President must be father (or mother, theoretically) to his people, the idea that anyone — rich or poor, of high or lowly birth — can become president. The position is heavily larded with this stuff. It seems weird — in the same way that college marching bands feel weird — because I'm not American but it clearly resonates with people, and Oprah addresses it big-time. After all, as well as Head of Government, he/she is also Head of State, essentially a figure-head, like QE2. It's a very tough gig, no one plays both hands with equal success, so knowing your limitations is key. Trump obviously has no clue in that regard. Oprah might, there's no way of knowing at this point.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
                                  I I really, desperately don't want to reinforce the idea that you can only be President if you're famous for doing other stuff.
                                  But everyone who becomes President gets there by being accomplished at doing other stuff.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    If you think about Oprah's life and career, it's been a long, steady climb. She's 'achieved'.

                                    But there's always been an underlying sense of higher purpose. More of a spiritual leader than a Martha Stewart-type of how-to.

                                    If she does go for it, it's not like she hasn't thought long about it. Michelle Obama, by contrast (and because her name has been suggested by others), has never wavered from her firm 'no thank you'.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Winfrey is pro-Israel. I realise that no presidential candidate, of either party, can be critical of Israel. But Winfrey has repeatedly alligned herself with Israel. Fuck her.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
                                        Yeah she's as much mogul as celebrity, which is precisely why she'd wipe the floor with Trump. She's way more successful at his supposed skill set than him. Whenever I've discussed the character of presidents with US born friends sooner or later you get into the area of myth. The idea that the President must be father (or mother, theoretically) to his people, the idea that anyone — rich or poor, of high or lowly birth — can become president. The position is heavily larded with this stuff. It seems weird — in the same way that college marching bands feel weird — because I'm not American but it clearly resonates with people, and Oprah addresses it big-time. After all, as well as Head of Government, he/she is also Head of State, essentially a figure-head, like QE2. It's a very tough gig, no one plays both hands with equal success, so knowing your limitations is key. Trump obviously has no clue in that regard. Oprah might, there's no way of knowing at this point.
                                        I'm really starting to see the point of separating the head of state from head of government, just so long as there's no way for the head of state to run a coup or dissolve the government. As we've found out, "norms" don't count for much these days.

                                        Comment


                                          #21

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Why should she feel guilty about her wealth?

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Yeah. Her being rich and enjoying the trappings of it is absolutely fine. Why would anyone care? She's right about that. Of all the things that might be disqualifying, that isn't one of them.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
                                                But everyone who becomes President gets there by being accomplished at doing other stuff.
                                                I think he meant that the president should have experience as a governor or senator.*

                                                Though if somebody completely unqualified with no political experience can win, all bets are off.


                                                *If you count Vice President as a higher office than legislator, McKinley was the last president we had whose previous highest office was member of the House of Representatives. Vice President has only been a high-profile position in recent decades. I believe Hoover is the last president whose previous highest job was in the cabinet (Secretary of Commerce). So it seems like Senator or Governor are the best jobs to have to get the profile and connections needed to win the nomination. Governor is better, really because Senators have to vote for things they don't want to because they're part of massive compromise bills, but then opponents use that against them, especially in the primary. Governors can set their own agenda more often.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
                                                  When we throw Trump into the incinerator, I want his replacement to be the exact opposite: a competent, skilled technocrat, and a dull but coherent communicator.
                                                  Isn't this part of the problem though? The complete lack of any progress in the House or the Senate really creates an absence of sensible candidates. On the East Coast they frequently mention Cuomo, who is outrageously uninspiring.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X