Next US President?

[Hot Pepsi]

I'm not picking on HP, but there's an odd preoccupation about elected leaders being tight with the poorest of the poor. But, truthfully, who among us is? Don't most people typically hang with people of their own socio-economic group? I mean, I know people much wealthier than me and much poorer than me, but we don't eat at each other's houses. I hang with my peeps and they hang with theirs.

I don't recall saying that I thought elected leaders need to be tight with the poorest of the poor. I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about the broad narratives that swing elections.

My comments about Oprah's comments were more just what I thought of that attitude in general, not about her fitness to be president. As it is, I would prefer somebody who has spent their career working to improve the lot of working class and marginalized people, and understands the issues facing those people and how government can and can't help them. But seeing as that's a pipe-dream, somebody who at least seems to care about justice and human welfare in a vague feel-good-sorta-way may be the best we can hope for.

[WOM]

I don't recall saying that I thought elected leaders need to be tight with the poorest of the poor. I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about the broad narratives that swing elections.

My comments about Oprah's comments were more just what I thought of that attitude in general, not about her fitness to be president. As it is, I would prefer somebody who has spent their career working to improve the lot of working class and marginalized people, and understands the issues facing those people and how government can and can't help them. But seeing as that's a pipe-dream, somebody who at least seems to care about justice and human welfare in a vague feel-good-sorta-way may be the best we can hope for.

Oh, I agree. And I meant it when I said I wasn't picking on you. I thought the broader narrative was 'kinda guy you'd like to have a beer with', but maybe that's as dated as 'soccer moms'.

But yeah, somebody with a long and deep understanding of the problems of 'most people' would be lovely. But those people don't make it past the first cut in the US system where cash is king and influence is currency.

[anton pulisov]

The two interesting things about the previous election are that (1) Bernie Sanders came very close to the nomination without corporate cash and (2) Clinton seriously outspent Donald Trump and still lost. Trump might be rich, but he put up f all of his money.

So maybe money isn't as important as people thought when it comes to the presidency.

Connections probably more so, however. FDR did more for the poor than any US president. The man came straight from aristocracy.

[Hot Pepsi]

He didn’t come that close.

[anton pulisov]

Well yeah, super delegates and all that.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

which in turn was heavily influenced by the amount of money that hilary was bringing to the table.

[Satchmo Distel]

Presumably Oprah would have a cabinet that is competent and experienced, not full of clowns like Trump's is? I think she has the ability to the job and to campaign, so I'd have no problem with the nomination.

I understand the ethics of wanting a dull John Kerry type to win the Presidency but I think that ship sailed when the Internet was invented, sadly. It may already have sailed in 1980, when the country elected someone on the premise that he would recreate the illusions of the 50s, pre-Vietnam.

[anton pulisov]

A fiver says he'll call her "Whining Winfrey."

Watching her speech now. Did she hire Obama's speechwriter? It's the same old stuff. Denzel looks bored.

[tee rex]

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.

Yep. President Clement Attlee, please. Obviously he couldn't get elected, but then after Trump there's no "obviously" any more.

[anton pulisov]

Yes, bollocks to hopey changey bollocks sponsored by Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

How about a leader that actually read up on Keynes.

[Various Artist]

The two interesting things about the previous election are that (1) Bernie Sanders came very close to the nomination without corporate cash and (2) Clinton seriously outspent Donald Trump and still lost. Trump might be rich, but he put up f all of his money.

So maybe money isn't as important as people thought when it comes to the presidency.

The key thing about Trump, though, was that he didn't need to. He was a famous, loud, opinionated, absurd, orange, self-aggrandising TV celebrity; a giant bullshit-spouting, larger-than-life, rival-baiting personality, who just waded into the primary process and from the get-go made it all about him merely through his preposterous, obnoxious, deafening presence. The media lapped him up and made it so the world couldn't ignore or overlook Donald Trump, even if they were ridiculing him. He never needed to crack open much (relatively speaking) of a campaign war-chest, because he had all the publicity anyone could possibly buy, for free, for every move he made and every time he opened his mouth. I can't think the same would apply to any 'normal' candidate, in contrast.

[Hot Pepsi]

Oh, I agree. And I meant it when I said I wasn't picking on you. I thought the broader narrative was 'kinda guy you'd like to have a beer with', but maybe that's as dated as 'soccer moms'.

That is still an important factor. But only if you can out-folksy the opponent.

If Bush has been running against somebody folksy who didn’t come from money - or even Obama - it would have been easier to get people to see him as an out of touch preppy. But Gore went to St Albans and Harvard and came off as stiff and weird. Kerry went to St Paul’s and Yale and despite mediocre grades, was in Skull & Bones. And his wife is loaded and he wasn’t folksy. So the Democrats couldn’t play that card very effectively. He tried to point out that he actually served in Vietnam, but they swiftboated him.

Bill Clinton was folksy. Obama, despite his huge brain and education, mostly talks like a normal person. Hillary was not folksy. Hillary looks and talks like the president of an off-world colony in a sci-fi movie, to be played by Jodi Foster. In fact, Jodi Foster played that role in a that Matt Damon movie.

[sw2borshch]

That last para was beautiful, Peps.

[WOM]

That last para was beautiful, Peps.

He says what none of us were thinking, but wish we were.

[Paul S]

How about a leader that actually read up on Keynes.

And his brother Milton.

[Amor de Cosmos]

I am assuming a lot, but she's so unbelievably famous, I find it hard to believe that she can even walk down the street without being mobbed with well-wishers and people wanting pictures. I just don't see how she could just pop into a Starbucks without it becoming a whole thing that takes up a lot of her time. I've heard a number of interviews with famous people who say those kind of things are very hard because if they tell anyone "no" then it gets out on the internet that they were rude.

Maybe she does slip into a soup-kitchen a few times a week, but it's hard to imagine that could stay a secret in this day and age. So if she does, it's still a heavily protected and controlled interaction, and everyone talking to her will know they're talking to Oprah and that will color the whole conversation (kind of like Liz Lemon's imaginary interaction with her on 30 Rock). So it wouldn't be a whole lot different than when politicians meet with constituents.

I'm kinda surprised Warhol could do it without a fuss. But perhaps the patrons and other staff of the soup kitchen didn't know who he was, didn't care, or if they did, he was sufficiently well-liked in the neighborhood that everyone would keep it a secret. I just can't see that happening now when literally almost everyone is carrying a camera connected to the whole planet. And there was a time when a famous person could tell reporters not to report something and they wouldn't do it out of respect (perhaps too much) and an interest in maintaining that relationship. That's rarely true now. Indeed, Andy Warhol couldn't be Andy Warhol now.

It's possible Warhol wore a wig for his work with the homeless. He had, of course, a huge collection and they probably weren't all silver or white. He'd certainly have to do something like that these days. Anyway I was really trying to make a larger point. As much as we think we "know" public figures, much of that knowledge is really personal projection. For most of us they're characters delivering a performance, a performance we call "real life." It goes without saying that we apprehend this through the same media we consume films and TV shows. And yes of course, when put on the spot, we understand the difference between fact and fiction, but audiences habitually set aside that difference. One which has become increasingly blurred, over my lifetime, in any case.

Your comments on Oprah's interactions with the general public are very likely true (again, they're a performative contrivance considered necessary) but have little to do with who she is when she looks in the mirror. I don't know whether she's kept in touch with childhood friends, for example. For me that would be important as it takes her out of the celebrity bubble. I'm guessing she gives lots of money to charities, easy enough if you're as wealthy as she is. But does she give her time (a much more precious commodity) and if so how? In the presence of cameras, or more invisibly?

[Hot Pepsi]

He says what none of us were thinking, but wish we were.

I appreciate it.

This is the one I was thinking of. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535108/...nm_flmg_act_14

[Hot Pepsi]

It's possible Warhol wore a wig for his work with the homeless. He had, of course, a huge collection and they probably weren't all silver or white. He'd certainly have to do something like that these days. Anyway I was really trying to make a larger point. As much as we think we "know" public figures, much of that knowledge is really personal projection. For most of us they're characters delivering a performance, a performance we call "real life." It goes without saying that we apprehend this through the same media we consume films and TV shows. And yes of course, when put on the spot, we understand the difference between fact and fiction, but audiences habitually set aside that difference. One which has become increasingly blurred, over my lifetime, in any case.

Your comments on Oprah's interactions with the general public are very likely true (again, they're a performative contrivance considered necessary) but have little to do with who she is when she looks in the mirror. I don't know whether she's kept in touch with childhood friends, for example. For me that would be important as it takes her out of the celebrity bubble. I'm guessing she gives lots of money to charities, easy enough if you're as wealthy as she is. But does she give her time (a much more precious commodity) and if so how? In the presence of cameras, or more invisibly?

Yeah, I don't know about any of that. I was just pointing out that fame, especially at that level, becomes a barrier between the celebrity and everyone else. And she has an additional layer because she's the boss of just about everything she's involved in. To be a good leader, she must have some people who she trusts who tell her the truth no matter what, about her personal life, making TV, publishing, and, I suppose, her style.

But if she goes into politics, she's going to need people like that who also know a lot about politics to tell her "No, we shouldn't do that event, we should do this event. We shouldn't say this, we should say that" etc. Trump doesn't really have that. He is, as John Delaney said, "a horse loose in a hospital." But Oprah needs to be more informed than that.


One thing she'd have going for her is that she'll draw big crowds to live appearances and, if she's willing to work at it and kiss some ass, she could raise a lot of money. A lot of Democratic establishment types will resent an "outsider," especially a celebrity, swanning into their party. But if she brings in the money and the numbers, they'll get over it, especially if Obama and Clinton support her.

[sw2borshch]

Surely it's Kool Keith who says there's a horse in the hospital?

[anton pulisov]

Free healthcare for everybody in the audience!

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Hillary looks and talks like the president of an off-world colony in a sci-fi movie, to be played by Jodi Foster. In fact, Jodi Foster played that role in a that Matt Damon movie.

hahahaha. I don't think it helps that there are a lot of these characters that seem to be based on her. I got a very strong DNC vibe off the rebellion in the latest star wars.

there were plenty of accounts of the elaborate disguises George Michael used to have to put on to go out doing charity work. He apparently got very good at them.

[Renart]

Well, the country's going to need a lot of therapeutic soothing after Trump...

Personally, I'd like to move away from the rule-by-billionaire-TV-celebrity model, but if we must stick with it, Oprah is probably our best bet.

[WOM]

Sloppy Steve is out at Breitbart.

[Renart]

Sloppy Steve is out at Breitbart.

Cucked!

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

I hope not. the only black person he knows is Ben Carson, and that would just be too embarrassing