Spot on, but we fail to acknowledge that Clinton lost because of poor political strategy, not popularity. (She is still one of the most popular and respected women in the world.) Democrats will win when they run candidates who are unquestionably qualified AND have the ability to connect forcefully with the public. I'm thinking Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and maybe a male candidate to be named later.
26
As I've said in a number of other venues, in the end, I don't think Oprah would run.
Some of the reasons why not Frank describes here well, but I also think Oprah would have to give UP too much power--and too many revenue streams--to be President.
But I do think she will have a prominent fundraising role in the Democratic contest in 2020, and will likely put here support behind one of the candidates--my supposition being a younger candidate of color, perhaps a Cory Booker, a Kamala Harris, or someone not even on the radar yet.
And, one thing she can help with quite a bit, given her Golden Globes Speech--she can keep reminding everyone that Republicans are not supportive of the aspirations of those who are non-white, non-heterosexual, and non-male. There are already movements (i.e., #MeTOO) that, I think, won't result in 53 percent of white women voting for a Republican again in 2020, and Oprah can have a lot to do with keeping attention to those.
8
I want a superbly qualified nominee who can win in states we don't always carry. There is a danger of nominating a candidate who piles up popular votes in blue states but loses the electoral count. That is one of several reasons I'm leaning toward Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown (assuming he wins re-election in 2018). He has a proven record of winning state-wide elections in a tossup state, while being one of the more progressive members of the Senate. Read what Senator Warren says about him in her recent book.
16
It's not just that Clinton has no charisma, although that didn't help. It's also that she was complicit in NAFTA, workfare, and the general abandonment of the working class by the so-called Democratic Leadership Council led by her husband. I'm not sure how many otherwise Democratic voters actually voted for Trump for those reasons, but it's why a lot didn't bother voting, or, like me, voted Green. (But I live in California, so it's not my fault! Clinton got our electoral votes, as I knew she would.)
So, the question about Oprah is whether she would solidly embrace the working class, and understand that social problems need collective solutions, not just self-improvement. If so, she can just hire an experienced VP and an experienced Cabinet and let them do the hard work. If not, then she'd still be better than Trump, but not enough better to win in 2024.
8
I disagree. We don't need anymore billionaire gurus spurred forward through support of the anti establishment, left or right. We need real leaders and people, career politicians (like that's a bad thing!) who can inspire and get the job done. Actual politicians who are respected, and trusted by all classes and generations, and can be both establishment and anti establishment. Social media favorites like Kamala Harris, Joe Kennedy, Ted Lieu, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker are just some of the amazing Democrats inspiring real commitment, hope and excitement from people. Let's hope that's what moves the next elections forward, not endless media spin and opinion, and anti establishment agenda.
14
How about a candidate who actually knows a bit about the actual running of government? This entire phenomenon of celebrity is staggeringly stupid.
40
" ...self made billionaire."
Think about that for a second. Never mind the 'self made.'
A million dollars is 10 thousand hundred dollar bills.
A billion dollars is - 10 MILLION hundred dollars bills.
And Oprah is a 'billionaire" several tines over.
Dr. Oz. Dr. Phil. Jenny McCarthy.
If you think that's what makes America great - go ahead and jump on the bandwagon.
I'll pass.
11
the presidency is an executive position. just being famous and celebrated, for good or ill, is not a qualification. if all it takes to be a real contender is being well known, we're in serious trouble. what about a sports hero with brain damage? a supermodel who doesn't know how to operate her own zipper? a well known serial killer?
what have we become? how has our history of shortchanging education crippled us?
it remimds me of the ancient Romans, poisoned by the leaden wine goblets.
with this low a bar for entrance , someone could run for president who could not qualify apply for a taxi driver license.
12
There's another African American woman out there who is whip smart, an attractive wife and mother of two lovely girls and who gives a damn good speech.
21
JimvanM: "she will be ill prepared for scrutiny and harsh criticism, as she lives in a bubble of hero worship." What? She had a youth as a black woman, she has overcome, she knows more about scrutiny and severity and going straight through hell & brimstone fire than anyone. You really assume there haven't been JimvanMean and moronic comments 'embellishing' her every step, all her life?
Dave from Vestal: "had to go back to 1944 to find a victim of racism to stir up an extra helping of anger and resentment." To the contrary: 2017, 2016 and previous years of police brutality and mass incarceration stirred up compassion for those uglily profiled by rampant racism (and misogyny) in spades, as does her well-chosen example.
"like she has to spit the word men out" She started her speech in love with Sidney Poitier, went on praising three men by name, and ended with giving a general salute to "some pretty phenomenal men.' No spitting. Recognition, gratitude, embracement and outreach instead.
This was a post-Harvey Weinstein acceptance speech at the Golden Globes in glorious but still visibly 'Selma- and Louise-shaken' (sic!) metoo shall overcome mode. Together with Michelle's 2016 speech in New Hampshire, it defines the metoo have a dream moment in history.
Hardly anyone I know rivals Oprah's eloquence. Yes she can relate and appeal to "disgruntled unemployed white male steel and auto workers," Samuel Russell. Because she speaks from the heart. That's all we or they need to hear.
4
Oprah lost me a while back. Dr Phil, Dr Oz, goop, circus-like giveaways. I want no one who had a "show runner" or screaming consumer fests. Her empathy became submerged in stuff and misery porn.
How I miss Obama or any educated, hard working adult with manners and governing skills that benefit the people, environment and country's safety.
26
Oprah for Veep!!
1
She was best friends with Harvey Weinstein for 20 years and either knew or did not know, and either condition disqualifies her.
Worse, she is at the head of an industry that is RIFE with sexual abuse, world-class predators, and sexual harassment in the workplace that is so bad it's a running joke . . . and she makes a political coming out speech totally ignoring the in-your-face obvious. Instead she goes back to Jim Crow and white rapists as the whipping boy.
And the press sobs with joy.
That was the weirdest moment of the night and the chattering class gushes.
Mad magazine would have a field day with that material for SNL would not get within a thousand miles of it.
10
If Oprah would run as an independent, I'd consider voting for her -- if only to help break the two-party stranglehold that has been choking America to death for more years than I've been alive. Oprah for President, and Angus King of Maine for Vice President, and to hell with all the Democrats and Republicans, who have shown all too clearly that what they care about, first and foremost, is getting elected and reelected.
3
Whatever happened to the idea that expertise matters?
I have nothing against Oprah. She's an admirable person and an accomplished businesswoman but that does not translate to the ability to run the country. Many point out that Ronald Reagan was a celebrity. Well, yes, but he also was a two term governor of our largest state before he became president. Arnold Schwarzenegger was also a governor of California. He was a disaster. The old pro Jerry Brown set things right there and now the state is booming.
Hillary Clinton's problem wasn't so much a wonky temperament and a lack of charisma as it was a demonstrable lack of judgment. She supported many of her husband's policies, NAFTA, banking deregulation, criminal justice reform, policies that by 2016 had gone toxic. She supported the Iraq War--a disaster. As secretary of state she pushed for the ouster of Khadafy--another disaster. As a candidate she felt it was more important to hobnob with rich donors than voters in the Midwest and don't get me started on what her primary opponent called those damn e-mails.
We are living with the result of those bad calls. It's name is Donald Trump.
Surely there must be someone, somewhere who has a record of achievement in government coupled with sound judgment, an ability to talk with ordinary people, a quick wit and above all the ability to look at our present predicament and envision a future that is as good as or better than our past.
12
Oprah is a powerhouse. Gayle is her rock. I would vote for her if she could be a little more honest about her personal life.
How many different times and ways are you going to write a column about how unlikable Hillary Clinton is, Mr. Bruni? How many more years is it going to continue? Now that’s exhausting.
16
Oh please don't so this! You remember how the Trump campaign got its legs? The press talking and talking about him and imagining a Trump presidency from the moment he walked down the stairs, before anyone had any interest in him. Then talking about how badly he fits---but always talking about him, lending legitimacy to his run.
Here we go again. Even writing how she should not run is feeding the whole thing. I know that the thought of her running is great print, but please do not jump start another campaign.
For years people have openly wondered who had the biggest ego, Trump or Winfrey. Both think about themselves 24/7--because they no doubt dream about themselves at night. They put their names on everything and never stop feeding their egos. Of course Winfrey managed to get onto that stage that evening so that she could make her speech. Did anyone for even a moment think that she would be there as a woman's movement took wings? She simply would not have allowed it to proceed without her.
Trust me Frank---we the people are not talking about this even a fraction as much as is the press. You are not reflecting our conversations and thoughts--you and others are driving the bus. PLEASE let it go before your spring another monster ego on us all.
11
On 1.8.18, on CNN from Brian Stelter, this ticket being floated: Biden (POTUS) / Oprah (VP). Once elected, Stelter went on, Biden could resign and Oprah would become POTUS without being elected to the office. Mr. Stelter has found a way for a woman to become POTUS by Affirmative Action and not on her own in a race for the office.
Despite all the comparisons by Bruni and others that in very many ways Oprah is similarly situated with 45, she cannot be elected without Affirmative Action?
Preposterous.
Check your privilege already. Oprah does not need a white man to accomplish anything.
2
neither.... she's just Oprah.... a person with inadequate qualifications... like stumpy, unlike HRC...
7
Oprah reads. Enough said.
1
Oprah would stand zero chance of winning a presidential election. She's too intelligent and articulate, and she's the wrong sex and race. There are too many misogynists and racists who will go to the polls against her.
1
"Is Oprah the Un-Trump, or the Un-Clinton?" I don't know, but that question is Un-Helpful.
Personally, I would vote for Bugs Bunny running against Trump or any Republican. And I do mean ANY Republican. It should not be a question of who Democrats run, it should be a question of how best to rid our nation of the orange Trumpian Horse and the red rodents which have spilled forth from its Iron Curtain of shadowy ties and lies to despoil America.
11
Shame on you Mr Bruni. If someone had said the things about a gay man you just said about HRC you would have eviscerated them.
Lest we not forget she won. And not by an inconsequential margin.
22
This is ferocious and pernicious misogyny from Frank Bruni. I’m a gay man and I adore Hillary; her service to our country is astounding. Why is the NYT publishing this misogyny! Oh I forgot. Russia, Comey,
Bernie Sanders AND the NYT gave us Trump. And I include Maureen Dowd and Frank Bruni as part of the anti-Hillary vitriol. YOU gave Trump the freedom to verbally assault/attack/ Hillary. Nice going Frank.
17
Because columnists like Frank Bruni need to fill space, we get the same nonsense about Oprah that got us started to the Trump presidency. Frank, I know this is hard to believe, but we really couldn't care less about Oprah. There are real problems in the world. This is claptrap.
7
Better Oprah than Michelle Obama.
2
It ain't about political experience, it's about ANY experience. Trump represents the administration of an everyman, a moron. Trump inherited a real estate business which to this day has never gone public. So basically he had lived his life as a Prince of his fiefdom.
That is who the white Americans wanted. it just shows the depth of ignorance of those white Americans.
So as to Oprah. She is over-qualified to be president and should not even bother.
If democrats couldn't get white men to vote for Hillary, how are they going to get white men to vote for Oprah?
3
Good Grief. We really have lost our collective minds.
Are some of you actually thinking that what we need as POTUS is another over-rated TV personality?
Are some of you actually thinking OW could win the presidency?
Neither of these things are true, and if you think they are you need a crash course in critical thinking ASAP.
If this is what you are thinking then we truly have fallen far below the minimum intelligence necessary to maintain our democracy.
We are through as a world power, over, stick a fork in the US we're DONE.
We are simply too stupid to lead anyone anymore.
8
Let's all hope it's not Andy Cuomo!
4
Nothing frightens white Republican men more than a brilliant, strong black woman who does not need their money nor their validation.
If Oprah runs, she wins. If she picks Bernie Sanders as her VP, she crushes.
Take a screen shot of this comment, so I can come back and say "I told you so."
2
The absurdity of this is stunning! We have an ignorant conman in the White House, working to destroy anything and everything President Obama did because he was singled out by said president at the correspondence dinner, and trump goes to any extreme to "Get even" for insult. So now we jump at the thought that another Billionaire,
who can give a good speech,can makes the United States whole again. No wonder the entire world is laughing at us. Oprah is the un-president.
6
Desperation must be seeping in for democrats to beg a “celebrity” to run of president in 2020. The problem is that they can not point to an any current member of the House or Senate who has even a long shot at beating Trump. How about Ronald McDonald! At least everyone already knows he’s a clown.
Articulate thoughtful but........unqualified (the current guy is enough) and unelectable
3
Oprah is a distraction. T rump got where he is because of this kind of infatuation. Stop now and focus on viable candidates.
9
Well.... I guess Oprah is the anti-Hillary in that:
* She's never held public office.
* She's never campaigned, put herself out for election, or had her opinions challenged in the public sphere.
* She doesn't have a degree in anything related to governing (Hillary's are in Political Science from Weselley and Law from Yale; Oprah's is in Communications from Tennessee State University).
* She's did not spend years of her life advocating for abused and impoverished children.
* She doesn't know anything about: Washington, the legislative of administrative process, foreign or military affairs, the law or Constitutional issues, or really how government works at all.
* She has never drafted a bill, developed a policy, debated legislation or had to make a decision on public affairs.
So.... Yeah, I guess if you are looking for an Anti-Hillary, maybe Oprah is your candidate.
14
Well then, who?!
It's disturbing that there is no one among the Dems who is showing...anything!...at this late date. There is a hot culture war being waged and the lying, cheating, mysognist, racist, war-mongering, inhumane, anti-science, plutocratic...evil...side is in control. No time for casual flirtation with another media celebrity (as good as Oprah is as a human being and an entertainer), we need a real, qualified champion to lead the opposition and yes, save the country from Trump and Trumpism.
Who, then? Time is short.
4
"The party put its chips on the wrong candidate."...there ya go...democrats defeated Clinton, not Trump.
So...gonna go for two in a row?
3
You missed the parts about Wall Street and refusal to endorse progressive ideas like Single Payer, for which the country was ready.
The Times keeps forgetting that their unfavorite politician, Bernie Sanders, is America's favorite politician and would have easily beaten Trump (see polls during 2016.)
And Oprah is another billionaire--rich like Clinton and Trump. Enough with rich people for president.
Of course you won't publish this. I am out for criticizing the Times.
4
All you avid Hillary Clinton commenters: Get over it. Except for their fine educations and flawless presentation, the Clintons are every bit as devious as Trump. And without their sterling Ivy League credentials would be probably be pathetic Arkansas grifters today. Anyone who walked into the White House penniless and emerged multimillionaires show a strong streak of avarice, self-interest, fast-dealing, dubious deal-making and many of the traits that make Donald Trump so very ugly to Americans of pride and dignity. Don't cry for Hillary; be glad she's exited the political stage. May she languish in the wings forever.
2
I think it's quite safe to say had Hillary Clinton been a man - she'd be President. And these sexist assaults would never have occurred.
10
So Frank Bruni is now writing "seriously" about Oprah; three other columnists have also taken up her bandwagon since the Grammy Awards. The woman merely gave a distinctive speech several days ago! Are we so mired in Trumpian tweets and gossipy books (e.g., Wolff's) that we now deify a talk show hostess to the point where we have her running for President as an antidote to our current one?
The level of intellectual discourse has been dumbed down; we now seem to be looking for anyone who talks coherently and makes good sense to be our savior!. Has Trumpism triumphed? I expect more substance from NY Times' columnists.
This has nothing to do with Oprah, I've always admired and respected her.
8
Good discussion!
Really well said!
When they have a medical issue, why is it most people seek out a well trained, competent doctor with experience relevant to their malady? When something is wrong with their car they seek out a mechanic who knows something about their make and model? But when it comes to choosing someone for the most critical position in the country, "let's choose someone from the entertainment industry". Are we stupid or what?
17
“...someone poised to...fill in many of the holes his predecessor had.” Barack Obama’s only “flaws” were that he was earnest and decent and intelligent and had the best interests of America at heart.
Donald Trump has none of those “flaws,” and America is still deeply racist enough to reward a failed ignoramus with another four-year term. It also says here that Oprah Winfrey won’t tarnish the brand that she’s built over three decades. There’s nothing in it but failure and ignominy, the kind that Trump has now forever attached to himself.
He’s a fool. She isn’t.
2
The majority of the American people are embarrassed by this president in a way that's never happened before. We've disagreed politically with past presidents but we've never been humiliated by them like we have been with Trump. Everytime he opens his mouth it's an affront on everything we think we stand for.
The next president isn't just going to need to inspire people, they're going to be expected to redeem and repair our tattered image of the presidency. Democrats will need to make sure that whoever goes up against Trump has no skeletons in their closet. Oprah reminded us what a true leader sounds like.
Aren't we forgetting something: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/magazine/the-speech-that-made-obama.html
Is it that Oprah is woman that we are even questioning her capabilities?
2
"How did such a spectacularly unqualified person [as Trump is] with such a proudly offensive natue manage to win the Electoral College?"
Because the Republican Party, over the past half-century has systematically rigged the Electoral College with it egregious gerrymandering...that's how.
9
Hey, maybe she could talk Woody Harrelson into being Veep. Just please not Reese, Opie.
“But she was a terrible fit for the times, which were anti-elitist, anti-erudition, anti-Washington.”
“It was smoothly delivered but nothing soaring. Nothing that gave goose bumps.”
Apparently, we have the president we deserve, if that was the criteria. We don’t need to fall in love or be swept off our feet. Erudition is never out of style. Intelligence, competence, maturity, humility and intellectual curiosity are prerequisites for the job.
We are now all experiencing goose bumps but not the kind you get from an exciting speech. More the kind you get when someone with extreme impulse control brags about the size of his nuclear button and gives his “enemies” nicknames that manage to be both incredibly childish and extremely nasty.
We need to stop looking for perfection and, frankly, even for charisma. Intelligence needs to become the new sexy.
8
Oprah has her share of baggage too.
1
Oprah Winfrey is not the only Democrat who can connect with people and tell an involving, credible, connecting story better than Hillary Clinton. Fortunately.
I voted for Hillary twice. I'm voting for Oprah.
I will take Oprah over ANY Republican.
4
Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
3
I strongly disagree that Hillary Clinton was " the wrong fit for the times". This is revisionist history. Statements like" she plotted her whole life to become president " are conjecture. The Republican Party had a visceral hatred of the Clintons from the get go and spent 25 years demonizing and continually investigating them. LBJ and JFKhad 1000 times more lurid sex histories than Bill yet no one, not even liberals can let go of Bill's history even now - 25 years later. Hillary put up with 7 Benghazi investigations and they all turned out no fault. Then there is the e-mails and on and on. Few political figures have been as hunted as these two and yet they survived to do a lot of good in the world. Hillary would have made a great president. More qualified than any other candidate in the field. Household name and known and respected by all the world leaders.
Why she lost is fodder for a future and unbiased time. Never has the hatred of the patriarchy been more concentrated and vehement as on Hillary Clinton.
So #metoo get off her case and honor her as the first woman who bravely fought patriarchal hatred and injustice.
#metoo is no good if Democrats continually use it to flagellate their own. Shame on them.
10
Yes and yes.
Oprah would be far more useful if, instead of running for office, she used her celebrity as a soap box to promote a Democratic agenda and rally her millions of fans around it. And who better to rally women and African Americans to get off the couch and VOTE?
4
Oprah is another bored mulit-millionaire whose failed attempts at a tv network and movies have created a void in her soul. So why not run for an office? She would be worse than LL Cool J receiving a Kenneday Honor. Go interviews Matt Lauer or something rather than preaching to America.
1
Don’t blame Hillary Clinton for the ignorance of the American voter. Her flaws, whatever they were, were minuscule compared to Trump’s. She is qualified to run the country. He is not.
If Americans are choosing a pilot to fly their plane, or a doctor to do their brain surgery, they know enough to select the most qualified person. Why do we select presidents based on goosebumps?
7
Oh grow up, America. Stop reaching for the shiny object like a toddler trying to grab a Christmas Tree ornament. I dream of a career public servant with a deep knowledge of government and the constitution. And I’d even take a touch of elitism. No, what America needs is to eliminate the electoral college. May I remind, Mr. Bruni that HRC won the popular vote and with no electoral college — her boring, wonky, extremely competent self would now be president.
10
No one wants to blame Obama for the Democratic loss in 2016 by allowing Hillary to be the candidate. I do. Biden's bowing out reason made no sense whatever. Instead it must have been the palace intrigue where everyone has something on everyone else so the most ruthless and driven ends up demanding a shot at the crown. Obama must have known that Hillary's negatives could cost her a victory yet he did nothing. Actually that fits his style perfectly. He could have anointed Biden as his successor but he didn't have the courage. By the way I'm John Poole not Erin.
2
"She lacks Trump’s shamelessness, which enabled him to transcend his unpreparedness for the office. He was happy to claim knowledge that he didn’t possess and stake out positions to which he’d given minimal thought because, hey, he was Trump!"
The list of things about Trump which we find disgusting is endless. But, shamelessness explains a lot. It's not normal (in a very bad way) to be able to lie with impunity, with a straight face, and be completely comfortable doing so. What is that? Either he has no respect for anyone other than himself, or is revealing his major character flaws. With Trump, it's both. But, our so-called president is hardly alone. When it comes to shamelessness, he has plenty of company -- virtually all Congressional Republicans. Look at how they have shamelessly lied about health care. About their tax bill. About pretty much everything.
The question is not whether Oprah is prepared and qualified to be president. The question is what must we expect from anyone who hopes to hold the position of Leader of the Free World. For me, it's are you capable of experiencing shame?
Nope, no way to oprah. She is just another promoter of junk science, much like the orange very stable genius we are currently stuck with.
4
Mitch Landrieu is Oprahesque. His speech following the removal of Confederate statues from New Orleans soared above even Oprah's. It also showed that he has the words and empathy to unite this hopelessly fractured America...if the Republicans allow it. They didn't with Obama.
3
Mr. Trump was not elected owing to his celebrity status. Many of us who support Trump dislike his celebrity image. We support him because he doesn't appear to hate white people or wish to turn them into a minority.
1
“Is Oprah the Un-Trump, or the Un-Clinton?”
Just ‘Un.”
I guess Oprah would be an indication that Trump proved people with no experience can do a good job.
1
Her long term relationship with Weinstein is troublesome. An issue the left chooses to ignore.
3
She's rich!! She's good on TV!! She runs a "very successful"(whatever that means) company!! Boy can she rile up a friendly crowd with a speech!! She's an American Success story!! The media loves her!! Did I mention she's rich? This temporary tizzy over Ms. Winfrey says a lot about the sad state of our national media companies and their enabling of celebrity culture. Yes We Can ... do better.
5
For Oprah to succeed, she should spend the next two years studying our government. She should hire the best and the brightest, who would tutor her so that her knowledge of the issues would exceed that of most of our current legislature.
She would be completely prepared to debate the current pathetic state of our healthcare and education systems. She would be able to propose ways to more equitably distribute the incredible wealth of this country. She would be statistically prepared to demonstrate that cutting our defense budget in half would still make us far and away the strongest military power on Earth.
She has the intelligence and charisma to defeat the most competent opponent the Republican Party could produce. If somehow they were idiotic enough to run Trump again, she would win in a landslide.
2
In realizing that so many white people hate me and hate my daughter, I'll be relieved in having a black female president. It just feels safer. I was in French Guiana most of last month, where there are very few white people (maybe 8%). It felt so nice to have no one hate me. It was nice.
Go Oprah go!
1
"... we moved, within 20 hours,..." YOU, Frank, The Media. The all devouring, all distorting media. Even the NYT misled us in the Fall of 2016. Clinton's probability of victory was always at or above 80%? It's a harsh world, and the media, from the best to the worst, are dependent on advertising revenues. The advertisers call the shots, even if indirectly. And the public, hungry for continuous social media stimulation, go along with that. America's problem?
Poor little rich kids!
2
Let's face it. Whoever the democrats nominate will have to be someone who flips some of the red states in the electoral college. That means appealing to white, older, at least somewhat racist and sexist voters. Which states do you think she would flip? America as defined by the electoral college is a deeply prejudiced country. Trumpism has revealed that truth for all to see.
2
Google “Oprah pseudoscience” to see how qualified she is. We have tried a scientific illiterate TV personally once, don’t need to do that again.
4
The difficulty with the underlying comparison is that Trump was not unqualified for the Presidency because he had never held public office. He was and is unqualified because he is an ignorant, capricious, mentally unstable and intellectually incapable bully, successful largely due to the fact that in many fields wealth, inherited and acquired, often can simply have its way if it is unscrupulous enough, skirting the law, evading responsibility as well as taxes, amassing ever more wealth, to an extent systematically obfuscated by our mind-numbing cultural idolization of "entrepreneurs." His greatest success has been in ideological theater, playing at success. We have also yet to come to terms with the likelihood that Trump, the showman, has long been little more than a front for the Russian kleptocracy's global money laundering, without which his real estate empire would have collapsed decades ago under a mountain of debt and bad deals. If Winfrey decides to run, her qualification or lack thereof will be more than tested on the campaign trail and in debate performances. However wealthy, she is still a black woman. She will not get a pass based on braggadocio and insults, as Trump did. And there is one bedrock qualification above all others that we know utterly separates Oprah from The Donald: she reads.
2
It's amazing how Bruni could dance around the obvious fact that the Democrats not only picked the wrong candidate--the neoliberal Wall St. wanted, yet again--but that Sanders would have pulverized Trump and been president today, as all the exit polls in the Midwest incontrovertibly demonstrated. By using the Black Congressional Caucus and black preachers to smear Sanders, thereby preserving their stranglehold on the economic policies of the Democratic Party as the second party of the rich, Goldman and the rest guaranteed that a Gary Cohn would be at the next president's ear, whether her name was Hillary or his name was The Donald. We've got to stop treating Sanders as a non-person, and give him credit for being the winner he was, however successfully thwarted by the idiotic, damnable lie that he was somehow less the friend of blacks than the Clintons. Sanders was not a weird fluke. He was and is the most principled, and savviest, politician to run for the Democratic nomination in American history. Members of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party need to keep their eyes firmly on the Sanders "revolutionary" prize and support Sanders-like candidates at all levels from here on out, in order to break the Wall St. stranglehold on the party they made, from top to bottom "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative," in other words, the lapdog of the "liberal" rich.
1
It is understandable that with a dangerous imbecile in the White House, Democrats and many in the media are impatient to begin imagining the next president. But three years until November 2020 is a political eternity, and someone will emerge with the right message and the right experience for the times. He or she eventually will become as well known as Oprah Winfrey. After all, who would have predicted in 2013 that Bernie Sanders would have been packing stadiums with fans and seriously threatening Hillary Clinton for the nomination? Democrats need to take a deep breath and focus on the midterm elections as the best way to thwart the current president.
2
Are you kidding? Another media figure up for President of our country? No wonder the serious world of real so called politics is dead. Life is not a movie. Our country seems to be running like a bad movie. The idea of one America is foolish. Rich will be rich, poor seem to remain poor. Every group seems to hate each other. The United States seem to be falling apart. Each state runs like it's own country. American freedom has changed. To consider another "false" media person to tighten up our "ship" let's try to find a real leader to run our country.
3
As I said just after the last election,
The bad news: Hillary will not be president.
The good news: Hillary will NEVER be president.
4
Frank Bruni writes that: "To many voters, she (Hillary Clinton) was a career politician who had been pining and plotting for the presidency her whole life. And she had spent so much time at the center of so much controversy. She was exhausting."
Frank Bruni had the resources of the Times behind him to do independent reporting and analysis. He chose not to. If Bruni had talked with Hillary or if he had actually read her policy proposals, instead of focusing on on the many lies of the vast rightwing conspiracy and Hillary's email, he might have found Hillary to be winning. Instead, Bruni accepted the lies of the Right. NOT once did Bruni find fault with those lies.
Bruni was sure Hillary had ulterior motives for running for President. Not once did he consider she ran to serve our country. Not once did he consider her a patriot. Maybe the fault is not in how Hillary campaigned, but in how "liberal" columnists like Bruni covered her campaign.
5
It should come as no surprise that the likes of Oprah would be considered as a possible POTUS candidate. American in enthralled to, and bows to the altar of, Cults of Personality. It's what got us in trouble with the current POTUS. My question is are we really that deluded to contemplate putting another entertainer with zero pertinent experience in such a position (again)? Really? I hope not.
John~
American Net'Zen
2
wow. People thought HRC was exhausting? Wait until they get Oprah. I can't stand the woman avoiding her at all costs and I get exhausted by her.
She is everything Donald Trump only in a black woman. Arrogant, self important, unlikable almost to a fault and I'm betting very very difficult.
Nominate her at your own peril. I wouldn't vote for her in a million years. And I'm a very liberal woman.
1
Oprah is the un-politician. Like Trump was in 2016. America hates politicians more than any other group of people. Unfortunately, it isn't the politicians who are corrupt it is our political system that corrupts every one of them.
Electing outsiders doesn't change the corrupt system, changing the corrupt system will change our politicians.
1
This is disgusting. Oprah Winfrey was complicit for years in "all those secrets." A gabfest of thirty years and somehow people actually think she is a political possibility?
Not in any Democratic party I belong to.
Without proper due to your entire piece, Frank, and only in response to the headline - Neither. Oprah is a celebrity cult leader, as evidenced by the glassy-eyed women in the audience. She has let loose on the world a stream of popular frauds - Deepak Chopra, Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, et al. - which is as unforgivable as Hillary's Regime Change fixation.
Do we need more amateur celebrity pols with no record of public service? Why does that question even need to be aske?
2
America hasn't voted for a childless president since Harding and they're not going vote for Oprah or Kamala Harris, either.
And actually, we don't need a lot of charisma---the American people have had enough of Trump's circus---Remember, Hillary didn't lose by much and won the popular vote--so, an Oprah lite candidate would be winner in 2020...
She's an entertainer. By definition, what you see is an act. Stop confusing entertainment with reality. Is this country going crazy????
3
H.L. Mencken would love these comments. Maybe it's time to abolish the Presidency.
1
The answer to your headline is very easy - Oprah is the Un-President.
Not that I love Oprah less, but that I love America more.
1
Yes, she will be Oprah-esque, go Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris!
1
Trump and the GOP Congress shamelessly and openly deride and despise the average American while hooking themselves up to Putin, Koch and other scoundrels. Oprah cares about the common person. This refreshing change of pace allows us to take a deep breath and start again.
how about the un-candidate?
She’s neither the un-Trump nor the un-Clinton, she’s the future. A New Day , to paraphrase her.
Why settle for an Oprah-esque when you can get The real Thing? Run Oprah, run!
Joe Biden should be the nominee in 2020, and Kamala Harris should be his running mate. I like her, but I don't think she's top of the ticket electable just yet. Yes, Joe will be 78 come inauguration day, but if God forbid anything should happen to him, Harris would be more than capable of taking over.
However, if a Biden/Harris ticket materializes and wins, they will be the last "traditonal" politicians to serve as President and Vice President of this country.
Democrats need to get off their high-horse re: a possible Oprah candidacy, and accept the fact that we've finally reached the point where celebrity and politics are completely intertwined. They will never again be separated - at least not in my lifetime. I want someone who will WIN in 2020. If its Oprah, then so be it. She's TRULY a self-made business person who WOULD surround herself with the best and brightest cabinet, and is beholden to NO ONE - no big donors, and no Wall Street interference. If we need to go the celebrity route to win this thing, then Oprah Winfrey is the one I want to travel with.
I hope to God Elizabeth Warren is not the nominee. While I agree with many of her positions, she will never win a national election. Same goes for Gillibrand. Not electable. Both are too much like Hillary, and are divisive, even within their own party. Now, Michelle Obama - she's a Democrat's dream come true, but its my understanding that she has no interest in running for office, and I can't say I blame her.
1
In an era where calling someone a "career politician" is meant to be an insult, I guess this makes sense. In reality though, we need career politicians in government. They have the qualifications, information, understanding, interest and dedication for the job. Oprah, as accomplished as she is, really doesn't.
1
Hillary Clinton did not lose the Election. She won the Popular Vote. My recollection is that she won the Popular Vote by a larger margin than Obama did during his first term. She lost the Electoral College due to Russian Interference, gerrymandering and rampant sexism. But most importantly, she lost the Presidential Election because many people in this country were not ready for a woman to take the helm even though she was immeasurably more qualified than Donald Trump to do so. (And this includes many U.S. Senators and Congressional Leaders.)She also lost because the critical thinking skills of many American Voters has dramatically diminished. they can only absorb information in 120 Characters. Trump is NOT the only American with this problem. Did Hillary make some mistakes? Yes she did. What Presidential Candidate hasn't? Hillary did move many people in this country. She wasn't wonkish, she wasn't an entertainer either. She wasn't running as our National Entertainer. She was running to lead this country. Oprah is inspirational, honorable and intelligent. I admire and deeply respect her. Potentially, she could powerfully and effectively serve this country in many ways...but not as President. Hillary wasn't
afraid to tackle the hard challenges we face: Climate Change, Health Care, Globalization, Economic Disparity. She didn't end up President because too many people in this country have lost their spine and their integrity.
6
Why not take the antipathy that many voters had towards Mrs. Clinton at face value? We felt that she was a terribly flawed candidate with a long history of ethical shortcomings and recent poor policy choices, e.g., her senatorial vote to launch a war of aggression against Iraq and her actions to turn Libya into an ISIS breeding ground as secretary of state. Now that she has demonstrated (once again) that she is too clever by half by taking victory laps in her 2016 presidential campaign before securing crucial battleground states, perhaps Hillary will finally go away and enjoy the millions of ill-gotten dollars she and Bill have collected over the years in speaking fees and "charitable contributions" to their slush fund masquerading as a charity.
4
The nutshell:
" Do we not understand that as soon as Oprah entered into partisan tussles and made tough political decisions, she’d be Oprah no more?
"I’m betting that she realizes it and won’t run in the end, for that reason and another: She lacks Trump’s shamelessness, which enabled him to transcend his unpreparedness for the office."
I, too, hope that Oprah has this insight and won't opt to destroy herself by succumbing to the temptation of running for the presidency. And winning.
1
You nailed it. Our culture is obsessed with fame (and wealth), whether admittedly or not. It's an aspirational thing. Your piece reflects our wishful thinking that a candidate with her passion, her intelligence and her broad appeal can emerge. NOT Oprah (Anyway, I don't think she'd want the job. And she retains far more power from where she is, in a place where she faces far less vulnerability. And what's not to love?).
1
"How did such a spectacularly unqualified person with such a proudly offensive nature manage to win the Electoral College?" Here is ONE answer:
"Donald Trump: 'We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes'" The Guardian, December 2016.
And here is another, Hillary's words, "We came, we saw, he died" talking about the death of Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi's death led to chaos in Libya and a majority of people who subsequently drowned in the Mediterranean were from Libya.
2
Let me say that I am neither anti-Oprah, nor a fan of her. I don't think much of cults of personality, but it's a free country and people are free to follow who they want.
Having said that, I agree that we don't need another media personality to lead our nation, no matter how different from the current clown-car driver in the White House.
Oprah would serve the nation, and all her fans and admirers, far better by stating clearly she will not run, but will instead advocate actively for the candidate she feels is most worthy of the office. Anything more would just be another trump campaign redux. OK, with a more positive message and better speeches, but it would still be a media personality supported by her cult of fans.
2
I almost had to check to make sure I was still on the NYT site when I read this. A Times article that admits that Clinton was a dull campaigner and had already turned off enough of voters to the point that they couldn't stand the idea of her? I'd better check outside. There may be pigs flying.
Now that at least Bruni understands how Hillary's "Nope We Can't" message was, to put it kindly, uninspiring, can we get it through to her adoring followers? It wasn't Bernie; it wasn't his supporters; it wasn't really either Comey or the Russians; it was the bland, boring candidate herself that did her in.
With that out in the open, can we start to heal the Democratic Party? No, sweet as she is, Oprah doesn't belong in the White House. It really isn't an entry-level position for the plutocracy. Please, someone with experience and without a quarter of century of political baggage.
While we are about it, cheers to Diane Feinstein for getting the message out to the public that the Russian connection was so disturbing even a person in Trump's inner circle told the FBI about it. She is fighting back against the GOP obstruction on Mueller, as is Pelosi. So get rid of ineffective Schumer and his gang of Clinton left-overs and get this train in motion towards the mid-terms this fall.
Unlike Trump who is wholly unlikable in addition to all his other deficiencies, I really like Oprah. But, please, let's not.
2
The Dems got their foot shoot off when Wasserman-Schultz was allowed to prevail in her anti-Sanders movement. So many polls predicted Sanders would or could beat Trump but Hillary might not. The Democrats let the country down when they had the chance to do the right ting. They didn't do the right thing and they will have to pay the piper.
1
“Putting the well being of the country and citizenry above partisan gain” does not exist today in either party.
I think she's more the unPresident as in unqualified, undedicated to government service. She's a media celebrity, and billionaire and haven't we yet learnt those aren't what makes a great President. If this is supposed to be the Liberal left rebuttal to Trump, please do dig a little deeper and try a little harder.
2
No question Oprah is impressive and has built herself into a very successful person. She is and should be a roll model for everyone. We have had Ronald Reagan and now Donald Trump come out of movie/television fame, and so an Oprah run is a possibility. However, I deplore the need to find a charismatic person with little public government experience so that whatever flaws in policy judgement or governance are yet to be discovered. Perhaps, our need for a "star" comes because our television news needs excitement, not issues, and we have not taught our public how to discern a candidate whose policies fit the needs of the individual. Rather, I suspect that if quite a few do decide to vote (as only a small percentage seem to show up in between major elections), they are looking more for someone with whom they would feel comfortable having a drink, or someone whose public face seems pure than for what the individual would do if elected. Many people don't even understand what the position is supposed to do, let alone what the person wanting to hold the position would do if elected. Oprah, I suspect, has been following policies closely and also has developed skills to run organizations, otherwise she wouldn't have been as successful as she is. This is not to say that she can't be a decent president, but to ask why we need to have a celebrity and turn away from a very human policy wonk who also has experience in government.
Ah yes all true, but unlike Trump she has a proven commitment to social justice and years of personal, real hands on experience building and managing a large successful, solid business.
Most of the Oprah frenzy isn't shared in the hinterlands. She is admired and respected. We know she puts her money where her mouth is, she's smart.
She gave an inspiring, energizing talk- something we've been starved for since The Ides of January 20. 2017.
We want a politically savvy, tough fighter with a couple of notches on his/her belt in government. Someone Oprah and the rest of us would be glad to make speeches for.
2
UNFAIR TO COMPARE oprah with don jon- except as outsiders to politics. oprah has demonstrated class and competence all her life- the opposite of don jon.
1
Oprah spoke and the audience was starry eyes and mesmerized . That does not phase Oprah, she is a self made billionaire learned early on how to stand on her own two feet.
It is up to Oprah to decide what to do with her life, just because all are running ahead Oprah is solidly grounded, she will decide if she really wants to run for President or remain powerful being an outsider.
No one else may decide that for her, Hollywood is fickle and she knows it and trump is not done as yet so we shall see how Oprah craze will turn out.
1
Oprah is too self aware to run. She knows exactly what she is: an earnest, empathetic, articulate, well informed and balanced actor. That's right: she is an actor. But her persona is a brand.She has honed her skills to be able to deliver her brand on multiple platforms ( radio, tv, publicly, ) and garner a dedicated and committed following. But it is not the same thing as being ready to be POTUS, especially following the disaster that is Trump. In a way she is like a classical pianist who would be trying to cross over to main stream rock and roll. As such, her brand would suffer and the very reasons we like her would be lost.
It is telling that we continuously seek a better leader. We need, however, to look inside ourselves. Democracy that are real must be of the people. We must find the leader within before searching for the one without.
From this vantage point peering through the prism back at my native country, what do I see?
I see a nation of frustrated people flailing about trying to find someone of substance who can actually run the country. I see that this quest is usually unproductive because our American values are shallow in their obsession with money and don't reveal the best in our culture.
Oprah is a wonderful individual whose charm may have little to do with succeeding in the Oval Office.
I'm still waiting for the primal shock to occur that will wake up our country and result in a serious reset of the values we need to succeed in the twenty first century!
2
Surely Oprah is the liberal Trump? Sure, she's socially acceptable and smart, but she has no experience of government or policy. She'd be an emotional figurehead for people on the left, in the same way as Trump is for white, working class conservatives. Is the political class really so broken that we have to replace then with celebrities, the next most risible group in society?
1
What worries me somewhat is that the Russian bots went all in for Oprah. That means the Russian Republican strategists of the vast right wing conspiracy (who have an eye on her since the first rumors a year ago, aggravated by her spending a vacation with the Obama's) are convinced they have dug up devastating dirt on her in the vast archives of her televised past. They'll for sure try to scare all good, traditional Christians away from her with some hit jobs depicting her as trafficking with the Devil of New Age. Yet I'm betting on them completely misreading modern society. Won't fly.
From a strategical perspective Oprah enthuses in all the right places: the black vote, women, the anti-Washington gullible, Independents (the key vote you need to carry, where Hillary failed miserably) and what has decided every presidential vote I can think back of: projected likability to have a beer with.
Now even though it looks like each and any candidate will beat Trump, that's just our wonkish bias. Too many people live in the mist, know nothing, and are ready to be told anything. We gotta take into account that we're up against more money and media dominance than ever, and against the most severe voter suppression in the pipeline ever, so we do need the candidate whose charisma deals a shellacking blow with the true vote.
I'm worried the Dem establishment is again set to prevent Warren or Sanders at all cost. If I have to choose from the establishment-tolerated:
Run, Oprah, run.
1
If she runs and wins, the nation will be her audience. Maybe she can buy all of us a brand new car.
1
Hillary Clinton was and is the most consequential woman in American politics. Her talent, intelligence, depth and breadth of experience is compelling as is her professional preparation and impressive intellectual credentials. I LOVE Oprah...she is also an amazing, accomplished and consequential woman for multiple reasons across the board BUT she has none of Hillary's highly relevant experience and preparation for the presidency. THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS VOTED FOR HER. The electoral college, a real antique, deprived her and all of us of her sober, steady, calm, competent internationally consequential presence. Women are as competent as men, especially Hillary who is vastly more competent that any of the Republicans especially Trump. Many of us want her to run again and she will win this time.
Please, not Oprah "The Secret" Winfrey. There are plenty of other qualified, experienced, effusive and charismatic women in and around politics who would be better choices.
The difference between Oprah and Donald, though both have no government experience, is that one is smart and the other thinks he is Mr. Ed. I have no doubt that she would surround herself with people who know what they are doing, he surrounds himself with sycophants. Basically, the difference is like night and day.
Still, the elections of Reagan and Trump should have told us that we need to elect people with government experience, not entertainers. If I want to be entertained, I will watch TV or go to the movies.
1
Yes, Trump had no previous government experience. But is this truly the reason why the Trump presidency is such a disaster? Or is it such a disaster because of the particular combination of two independent facts:
1. who Trump is, as a person, and
2. what the GOP has become, as a political party?
Most people clearly agree that as a person, Oprah is simply off the charts, as soon as someone like Trump becomes the "norm" that you're comparing her with. She has been able to build an internal integrity that is only comparable to people like Michelle and Barack Obama.
But a president isn't a king, and Trump isn't a complete monster either. So it could be that the most important reason why he's taking so many VERY bad decisions is because the GOP has lost its sense of reality, year after year, and for almost two decades now. They've been spreading so much lies, that they not only are paralyzed as a governing party, but in the process have also lost a LOT of competent conservatives working for them. That's why Trump's cabinet is such a joke - NOT just because of Trump himself, who, in the end (and as he just repeated once again, and has shown with HC and taxes too) is willing to sign no matter what that Congress puts on his desk.
The Dem party, however, never had this kind of problem. They're full of solid, serious people, adoring science and evidence-based governing. So THAT's what a President Oprah would be surrounded with. Which could lead to a totally different outcome ...
First it was Chelsea Clinton who at some point in the future would be president. Then is was going to be Ms. Obama who should run, and now the press is beating the drum for Oprah. I guess the press want another coronation instead of letting the Democratic party members decide who should be the next candidate for president. Of course I am not talking about the super delegate fiasco, hopefully the democrats have moved on from that disaster.
1
I love Oprah (who doesn't?), but this idea that our leader has to be beloved or someone we want to get a beer with rather than someone with the experience, capability, intelligence, and fortitude to lead the United States has been/will be one of our greatest downfalls.
We're not looking for a monarch that we can shower with adoration, but an employee (they work for us, remember?), who we trust to run things for a while. As the boss, we're supposed to protest, criticize, and hold this CEO in check whenever they step out of bounds or mess things up, not hold our breath, feign ignorance, and declare our loyalty while the company careens out of control.
Hillary was the job applicant who was awkward in her interview, but was focused, had all the answers and an impressive list of experience because she'd spent all of her life fighting for the position of POTUS. Shouldn't we want someone who views the position as important enough to ardently prepare? Instead, we opted for the slimy, offensive guy, who showed up late, handed in a crumpled application, and promised that he was the best person for the job, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I guess the fact that we were eying an extremely likable person for his replacement is at least a step in the right direction, but still utterly problematic. The leader of the free world has to be more than just good TV.
I look at the current "front runners", although it's way too early to think of front runners, and I just see Trump, in his very, very ugly way, eating them alive. Yes, I think some of them could give him a good fight, but he's going to be uglier in his fight in 2020 than he was in 2016.
And then I think of an Oprah candidacy and I truly believe that she could run against Trump and "even" the playing field. Is she inexperienced in governing? Yes. But is she inexperienced? No way. Not at all. I think she'd pick her very experienced VP candidate early; show the voters she's truly serious and she'd run from there. And, yes, with a lot of guidance from Obama.
I reiterate - she would level the playing field against Trump, and that's what we need in the 2020 election.
1
Will her finances be able to withstand scrutiny?
"But she was a terrible fit for the times, which were anti-elitist, anti-erudition, anti-Washington. To many voters, she was a career politician who had been pining and plotting for the presidency her whole life. And she had spent so much time at the center of so much controversy. She was exhausting."
What you call "the times" here is actually a carefully designed GOP strategy that started already with the founding of Fox News.
The question is rather: how did it become possible to let Trump, Fox News and the GOP determine what the elections would be about (because as scholars have shown, in general it's the candidate who manages to do so who ends up winning)?
And it could well be that it was Trump's talent to convey charisma and Hillary's difficulty to deliver a similar message - together, of course, with the fact that she's a woman and that Russia and Comey completely distorted public perception - that was the main factor here.
People want to hear charismatic people talk. So they'll end up listening to you anyhow, even if they disagree. And that's all you need to get the conversation going about the campaign themes that YOU want to talk about, as a candidate.
Fox News had created Trump's message for two decades already, and most of the GOP base believed their lies. All that Trump did was taking them over, in a very charismatic way.
Could we please focus on getting people to the polls in the next election, the one this year? There is so much work to be done such as finding the one third of the Country that doesn't participate, helping people to register and figuring out how to block the Russian influence. By the time 2020 comes around we could have a very different view from our White House.
Oprah should not become the Dem's nominee.
Late stage capitalism is defined not just by a bulbous swelling of money in the hands of an oligarchy that controls the political system, it is also defined by fame and money overwhelming the intellectual checks and balances that keep the populist tendencies of uneducated voters in check. The Constitution was built upon the failings of the Greek Republic and while many of the obstacles our Founding Fathers put in place were racist in nature, others (including the unwritten ones observed by all presidents until Trump) ARE worthwhile, yet have eroded slowly over the course of time.
Oprah isn't just a celebrity. She represents the tendency of people to ignore norms and put their faith in BIG personalities that represent not political discourse, but the promise of something better. And yes, when I hear her speak, I think fondly of how she could circumvent the alt right racists that put Trump in the White House. I imagine her pursuing equality for minorities and women in ways that Obama never dared. But those are populist impulses. And populist celebrities without any understanding of political policy are guaranteed, intentionally or not, to destroy the obstacles between whiplash populism (if you implement laws X, Y, and Z, the next president will dissolve those and instill A, B, and C) and the elite that govern the country (who, if they have too much control, step on the average individual w things like voter purges & ID voting laws).
1
So now besides being educated at Wellesley and Yale Law School, being the First Lady of Arkansas and the USA, being a two term United States senator, Secretary of State and the first female candidate of a major political party, Hillary should also have had a successful talk show and acting career to develop the skills she needed to give a rousing campaign speech?
Call me crazy, but I just want to vote for someone who can do the job. Then I want the person I elected to be too busy doing the job to be giving rousing speeches. This is government, not show business.
3
We don't primarily disparage Trump because he lacks experience. We disparage him because he doesn't listen, because he has no self control, because he has no interest in making the country better, and because he is in hock to a foreign power.
Oprah as the Commander In Chief of the military of the United States of America? I don't think so. Remember all of those women who voted for Trump rather than a woman.
2
There is no "Opraesque" human being. She is unique, and we either get her, or someone entirely different.
1
Oprah's grit has poise. She's risen above the boys with dignity, acumen, and finesse outfoxing racial prejudice and misogyny to become a global symbol of a made in American great. President Winfrey has everything it takes.
While I grant that the thought of a shift to an ethos of mostly “Entertainers for President “ is a bit nauseous-making - especially in light of our current national chief executive experience, I find that I cannot endorse Mr. Bruni’s preferred “career public servants only “ approach to selecting candidates for president either. My reason can be summed up with a single name: Michael Bloomberg.
Mr. Bloomberg, with zero prior public service experience, sought what is arguably the second most difficult political executive job in our nation, and was fairly elected and served three full terms with enough positive accomplishments and results to qualify him for serious consideration as one of the top three Mayors of the City of New York of all time. While he was by no means perfect (I thought his overturn of the term limit law in order to run for his third term , and support for overzealous “Stop & Frisk” police tactics were reprehensible, for example) I would say that overall his administration proved (with one small addition) the wisdom of Albert Einstein paraphrased thus: “For the job of political chief executive, imagination and character are more important than knowledge.”
2
Finally someone with the proper focus
She is the opposite of HRC in every way
The D party should have recruited her for 2016. Instead they supported the circular firing squad that was Bernie and Hillary.
Oh for heaven's sake. It's the same old rope-a-dope for the Democrats. The Right Wing drags the bait (a TV personality or someone with a huge campaign war chest and a lock on the Media or someone that only "East Coast Liberals" would vote for) in front of the Democrat's noses, and they go yelping after it, splitting the vote. In the meantime the Republicans move their man into position and gain the Presidency. Worked with Ralph Nader and Jill Stein, costing us years of progress in environmental and social issues.
I love Oprah...and wish her only the best. Perhaps as a Cabinet member she would be terrific. But if I want to fly from NY to CA, I would want a pilot with many years of experience, like Hillary Clinton, in the cockpit; not a TV personality no matter how brilliant.
4
Oprah knows what she doesn't know...and I think that's why she won't run for the presidency. Trump does not...nor does he care.
2
I would worry that a Black Woman for President at this time would only double down America's current high profile Racism and Mysogeny. Yes, the country needs inspiration over confrontation; always. But there's an old story, that when Demosthenes spoke, the people said, "How well he speaks"; and when Caesar spoke, the people said, "Let us march!" Women are now rightly on the march against mysogeny. We need also an inspirational leader to march the country against its cruel, ugly, destructive, divisive racism. We need a Lincoln.
2
Name recognition is 9/10 of the way to getting elected in the US.
The job description changed. The president must be both media sensation and mogul in order to win and keep support, and fend off attacks. That narrows the field considerably. Anyone who finds an Oprah candidacy to be a folly is still going off the old job description, and is assuming this Trump presidency is an aberration in an otherwise stable democracy.
1
Hillary Clinton deserved to be President but lacked favor with the people. She's just not likable, because she doesn't come across as authentic. Oprah was born under a lucky star that allows her to ultimately succeed in most of her undertakings. Her major failing in life is not getting a grip on her lifetime weight problems. I am afraid that the stress of running for high political office and campaigning cross country will be detrimental to her physical health. I predict she will gain lots more weight as President. She has serious weight issues and although she's been battling them of late, this unbelievable stress could send her nose diving into morbid obesity. It's not worth it, Oprah. Your health is more important. On the other hand, Trump is gaining weight by the day due to major stress and self-indulgence. Sad to say, but he looks like a coronary incident waiting to happen. Hillary also was unable to control her appetite and wore clown costumes to hide it.
Obama, by comparison, was the epitome of health, elegance and vitality. Even Bush cut a decent form as President. Bill Clinton lasted long enough through his Presidency to discover his clogged arteries before it was too late. But at least he jogged every day. I guess my point is that people with serous weight issues and eating disorders should do themselves a favor and not fun for high office. I am not fat shaming, I am just pointing out that Oprah is too valuable to our society to lose her health over this.
Democrats are still in denial that their center-right, neoliberal, corporate, corrupt, warmongering, lying, cheating, primary-rigging candidate lost to the ConDon fair and square under the given system of the electoral college.
Her major qualification all of her life was being married to Bill Clinton. Talk about a feminist icon.
The fact that Oprah is even considering running as a Democrat just shows how morally bankrupt the Democratic Party is.
2
That person who may not be Oprah but is full of inspiration... it sure sounds like you're describing Bernie Sanders.
Unless the Democrats can craft a message that appeals to all Americans, especially to the working class which has been ignored over the last decade from 2017, they will not win. I do not believe Oprah Winfrey is the savoir of the left; the possibility of her running for president is a liberal fantasy. Thank you.
She is the un-candidate. Watch and see.
1
I hate hate hate Trump. Not an Oprah follower, but I know she is an inspiration to many.
But all the buzz about Oprah as FFPOTUS reveals how self unaware democrats are. Oprah is a successful TV host, actress, producer, businesswoman ; she can out market Trump with her eyes closed and both hands tied behind her back. But she is the boss of her own enterprise, not one source of power in a multi branch government where power is shared (and abused).
BUT IS SHE qualified to lead our nation? Does she know the ins and outs of government operations, domestic and foreign policy issues, military policy, etc? Does she have well considered policy positions?
Isn't Oprah the Trump,of the left? Sure, she appeals to the progressive ideals of liberals and Democrats, but is she qualified? She would continue the trend of celebrity chief executives. Would real power devolve to Congress and their donors ? Those donors would probably love a series of celebrity Presidents, as the plutocrats continue to buy Congress, while the President entertains the masses.
1
Inspirational? Radiate empathy? Optimistic? That doesn’t seem likely. Most of the dems currently thought of as candidates such as Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, etc would more likely shriek, demagogue, denounce, and bite your head off. What the country really needs is not what it’s going to get: a technocrat willing to solve problems without partisan affiliation. Someone to lower the temperature not just shift the fever to the other side. Someone like Bloomberg.
2
Don't try to tag Oprah with Trump's horrendous flaws or bad faith. That stuff is Trump's alone.
The Democratic Party put goodwill in a barrel & shoved it over Niagra Falls in 2016. If they want millions of young voters to turn out for them in 2020, they need a fresh, humane candidate who generates goodwill. No Democratic politician fits the bill. Democratic Senators stupidly threw Al Franken overboard. That cynicism taints them all.
Whoever takes out Trump must be as media savvy & comfortable on tv as he is. You can complain all you want that shouldn't matter. But we learned in 2016 nothing matters more.
You can whine all you want but it is what it is.
There's no rolling back the clock to when someone 'qualified' with 'credentials' can steamroll someone as media savvy as Trump. Trump would grind Gillibrand, Warren or Sherrod Brown into dust. Yes, its a shame but live & learn, folks.
Basically the internet, cable & Fox News changed everything. We're actually lucky Oprah is there. Who else has spent more hours selling themselves on tv than Oprah? What other billionaire with any human decency owns a tv network?
I see Oprah as the only person who can defeat Trump. Trump can't intimidate her & sees how essentially good & decent she is - he even talked about running with her. Oprah running against Trump is his worst nightmare.
If not Oprah, we'll lose to Trump again.
You don't have to like it. But you'd better face reality.
Oprah Winfrey is a godsend.
4
Too many dismiss Oprah because they only know she once had a tv show.
Watch Oprah on "60 Minutes" when she moderated a panel spread across the political spectrum discussing Trump, this divided country & how things could be better. She was smart, patient, eager to hear everyone & condescending to no one. It was brilliant.
Also see footage of Oprah on a recent "Ellen" when she got roped into a shopping trip to an L.A. supermarket. Ellen looked uncomfortable like she hadn't bought groceries in years. Oprah was relaxed, funny & goodnatured, actively searching out people & asking what was their day about, what was bugging them, what was in their shopping carts. She had endless curiosity about the lives of others. When was the last time we had a candidate genuinely interested in strangers & comfortable talking to them? It was like Oprah shopped in that market every day.
Oprah's a powerful famous billionaire but that clip showed she hasn't for a moment forgotten her 1st 33 years - growing up in rural poverty & struggling in her 20s & 30s to get a foothold in the middle class. She's said many times she had hard times when she couldn't pay her bills.
Oprah's the wealthiest African American woman in world history. Anyone who thinks that was an easy journey for a poor young black girl growing up in the rural south knows nothing about her life. And she's maintained worldwide respect & goodwill through 30+ yrs in the public eye.
Dismiss Oprah at your peril.
3
trump in unfit, and Winfrey is unqualified for the office of President. So stop the California dreaming Democrats. The only winning Democratic ticket that I see at the moment is Biden/Booker or Biden/Patrick. Both experience/experience candidates.
2
Perhaps the Democrats should steal a page from the GOP playbook once and play to win rather than play it safe. If anything has been learned from the past year, it is that Washington still doesn't work. The elites still remain out of touch and in control. Experience in that town probably stands for less now than it did in 2016.
think it is highly unlikely that Trump will finish his first term. He will either be wheeled out or run out. That results in a Pence presidency. He generates as much excitement as a sloth and has established nothing more than a reputation for being anti-LGBTQ.
Too many of us have already dismissed Oprah for the same reasons too many of us dismissed Trump early on. No relevant experience and too much personality. However, there is a major difference between Oprah and Trump. She would freely admit she has a lot to learn and would surround herself with bright people. Despite being a billionaire, she has humility. And, unlike Trump, she didn't have millions from birth. If ever there were an American success story, it is her.
She has nothing to lose by throwing her crown into the ring. Go for it!!!
13
It always seemed that our country needed a leader that could inspire greatness in the people. We need renewable energy, opportunity for all in education,work and quality of life. With global warming, the world has to move from war and conflict to productive sustainable living. Corporations and economies need to put humanity first. With fast changes in science, technology and artificial intelligence it seems that the future could be wonderful. We need leaders to inspire countries and people to reach high.
11
Even Trump understands the power of Oprah's formidable presence and celebrity. She has spent her professional life appealling to our better angels. And she accumulated considerable and actual wealth in doing so, not by using smoke and mirrors and travelling all over the world for shady funding for her businesses. She has proven she is committed to learning what she doesn't know and educating herself and others for possible solutions to vexing and seemingly intractable problems. She also brings to the table an understanding and personal history of racial, gender and economic strife and how to best overcome those challenges with a spirit of optimism and hard work. She IS the true American dream brought to life. America needs her to heal the ever widening divides in race, gender and class the current administration has fostered and exploited. We can either watch our nation plummet into that crater of hate or give ourselves permission to heal. I opt for the latter: give Oprah a chance.
18
The best antidote to Trump is someone with personal ethics, a strong sense of family, smart and political experience at the executive level. The two people who best fit this description are Kasich and Romney. My only question is whether either will reverse the dreadful tax bill if the trickle down experiment causes the deficit to explode putting at risk Social Security and Medicare. The average Social Security check is less than $1400 per month. Many people have this paltry sum as their only source of income.
6
"But she was a terrible fit for the times, which were anti-elitist, anti-erudition, anti-Washington. To many voters, she was a career politician who had been pining and plotting for the presidency her whole life. And she had spent so much time at the center of so much controversy. She was exhausting."
Excellent column, Frank Bruni! I hate to admit what you so eloquently nail, but I must. She did come across as wonkish, abstract, and yes, even at times, scolding and calculating.
Friends and associates always said, her public persona wasn't the real Hillary, and because of my overall admiration, I so longed for her to show her real side.
That said, I really hope Oprah stays Oprah. In one sense, we need her on the sidelines because of her truth to power. And yes, politics would ruin her, force her to make choices that would be second-guessed and critiqued all over the map.
In this vast country, there mus be a Democrat of conviction, charisma, and class. A person, male or female, that can tap into the American quest for justice and progress. A candidate that can cleanse the stain that is the Trump administration.
Some already exist, but as long as Democrats pine after an Oprah-like celebrity, they won't be emotianally ready for the real real deal when he or she emerges.
45
Wow. You longed for her to show her "real" side? Just wow. She was real enough. She had a real grasp of real issues. I'm not sure where you get scolding and "calculating"? This opinion piece is what is scolding and calculating. Your comment reminds me of when Anderson Cooper asked HRC about smiling more. She sidestepped the question and he was discussing the exchange later with one of his female pundits who said "You gave her a chance to be human and she didn't take it". I don't know who that was because I was listening on the radio, but Anderson agreed. Would we be asking these questions of men? Hillary Clinton gave enough by being willing to put herself out there and withstand being battered not for her platform, but for not being "real" (a new, special job qualification just for women) by both the right and the left. Interesting times as we see how backwards we truly are.
2
I have yet to see a Democrat who I can see winning. I mean winning on his or her own account as compared to winning as an anti-Trump. I liked post election Obama better than Obama the candidate and I liked 2008 Hillary better than 2016 Hillary. It’s early.
And no solution exists for NK but perfecting the missile shield defense. 2 out of 3 is not good enough.
1
A quick note: two NYT columns today on Oprah, another celebrity known by one name. (The same tradition exists for outstanding local African-American restaurants; Martha's, Sylvia's, Alice's, Dave's, Mama Dip's, Dooky Chase (sometimes the whole name is one word).) First names are considered friendly than surnames. This sudden clap of mystic chalk dust in digital print brings Lebron to mind--and recalls the millions unnamed, in refugee camps, or facing famine or starvation, death, health crises; an ever swelling group hidden in countries rich and poor, their plight and displacement connected by war/law/airs/ire.
Columnists once held favorite ideas and big notions for slow news days: is Oprah that metaphor, so representative and commanding that she is the muse of good and evil for gifted columnists? Or is celebrity more important, or perhaps a mere rest--certainly a distraction--from the levels of the inferno burning in polite and powerful society, which, despite the caged working class, is so wealthy that its waste receives the looking glass (Alice's), carted about by blind mules.
It feels like Romper Room. I never say myself in that magic mirror of acclaim and perfection, no matter how hard I looked.
What's matters is a clear list of challenges and opportunities, of trends and troubles, of signs, warnings, and wonders that face the next decade. Oprah has always addressed our inner needs. But we need wages raised, skills realigned, and real debate beyond the soundbite.
17
Agreed. And to me, Oprah was queen of consumerism! At the end of her shows, too often the studio audience were sent home with bags of goodies, too often stuff that would wash off and pollute our seas. Indeed, in that way, she might be an interesting bookend to Trump. If she were the nominee of the Democratic Party, I'd vote for her--while holding my nose.
"Oprah has always addressed our inner needs."
My inner needs don't seem to chime extremely well with thine.
Frank, IMHO, one of the great movies of relatively recent vintage has to be Robert Redford's "Quiz Game".
Redford's film concludes with a disillusioned Dick Goodwin, having watched his investigation of the quiz show scandals of the 1950s largely crash and burn, tell a Congressional colleague - "I thought we were gonna get television. The truth is... television is gonna get us."
That's my opinion of both the Trump presidency and a possible Oprah candidacy.
I have no interest in a candidate with empathy.
I'm only interested in a candidate with the technical know how to deconstruct the oligarchic forces currently choking the life out of our once fabled democracy.
Elizabeth Warren in 2020.
36
She is too strident. A scold.
9
Elizabeth Warren is also going to be too old. We keep putting up older presidential candidates and younger SCOTUS. Wrong direction on both. 50s to early 60s is ideal for a chief executive.
4
Contradicting yourself! No empathy? And Warren?? She's packed with empathy and that helps to direct her know-how to the fight we want.
Good grief. American politics has turned into a 24/7 reality TV show.
And not a very good one at that.
51
You said it, indeed!
13
Agreed, too bad american votes can't elect a queen.
Oprah (POTUS) / Jerry Springer (VP), that's the ticket!
Oh, Springer is a Brit, right.
Oprah (POTUS) / Geraldo Rivera (VP), a fusion ticket!
Not feeling the fuse?
Oprah (POTUS) / Wendy Williams (VP), a study in contrasts ticket?
1
The very first thing Oprah herself would say to Democrats is this: "Stop your damnable, self-defeating condescension!"
Unlike most media moguls and celebrities, I have never seen her belittle or condemn others for who they are. She may speak out forcefully against some, but never with pettiness. Some tips for all the angry Dems out there, a la Oprah Winfrey:
-- Stop listening to NPR and MSNBC for the next two years. Give up your addiction to "confirmation bias" and at the very least listen to your local news instead.
-- Give up shopping at Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Starbucks, and Panera Bread until 2020. Instead, shop where working class and lower-middle class people shop. Actually buy something, anything, at Walmart at least once a month.
-- Go to high school basketball, football and volleyball games. Talk to people there. Listen, listen, listen.
-- Visit the local VFW on bingo night.
Get off your high horse for a change and realize that the people you've been denigratingfoe so long actually are loving, caring human beings with many of the same hopes and desires you have.
Without them, you will just keep losing elections at almost every level. Lose your elitism or lose your future in government!
73
Well, sure. Elitism. The new trash word to blank out all factual discourse and empirical understanding. What happened to healthy, educated, concerned, informed? All elitism worth trashing. Why not add other nonsense to this. Lets trade healthy food habits for unhealthy one, so one may connect with those too lazy and lame to know the difference! Lets transform all abstinent non-smokers back into regulars in smoke filled bars where they get drunk with opiate addicted two-steppers in order to have relevance with the 'real people'. Lets throw captains and navigators over board, for they are elitists.
I talked to quite a few Trump voters. Maybe they have some hopes for themselves - but they surely have no time for those who are not like them. It is them who brought this divisiveness into our world. Every bad thing happening to them serves them well.
1
What? We're not supposed to stop listening to FOX (self-so-called) News? Oh, what a wonderful world it will be.
Peter, thanks for the invite, but I think I'll pass it up. It's just a little matter of personal dignity.
Extremely well put! I would add one item -- visit with 50 year old white males who lost their jobs and hopes, thanks to the elite's adoration of (not so) "free" trade.
Hopefully, she is the Un-candidate.
13
"That person will radiate empathy."
==========================
Yes, Oprah has empathy, because she focuses on her guests. It is not all about her and her ideas. Hillary was about Hillary and that was boring. Trump is about Trump and that is interesting, because he is so crazy.
Perhaps, perhaps, Oprah should consider a run for Congress, instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be easy for her to win a House or even a Senate seat and go from there. By being in Congress, she would add interest to Capitol Hill, in a dynamic way. This, in itself would be a great accomplishment.
I say, run, Oprah, run, but start in Congress!
==================================
1
Yes, she is. Both.
2
Well if she isnt' exactly a Washington insider she isn't exactly an outsider, given her exalted status in the Democratic Part as a funraiser, an Obama White House pal, and a Clinton booster. Oprah is just too much of the same, a Democratic Party elitist. She no longer connects with the lifestyle of the poor or the working class or even the middle class. She's a one-percenter and live the life of a one-percenters. We need someone in touch with the lives of working class Americans. She is not that person.
But: this talk probalby has got Liz Wrren and Kristin Gillibrand quaking in their ambition-heavy boots, and that can't be bad.
11
Up to 20% of Americans count themselves in the 1%, and there are plumbers and electricians in the real 1%. Practically every working person's life includes a dream of getting rich, and that is what has drawn most immigrants to the US.
The nation could do a lot worse than Oprah.
In fact, we have.
19
If Oprah is the best thing the Democrats can throw at Trump, then the Democrats are truly . truly in very deep trouble.
1
Here's an idea: Make military service a requirement to run for president. That would have eliminated the draft-dodging Clintons, the war-mongering George W. Bush(sorry, National Guard would not count), Trump and Oprah. Time for the grownups to take the wheel back.
11
Hillary was not subject to the draft.
2
on what basis does militarily service make a better candidate or President? really sweeping idea, with which many would disagree. prove your proposal.
You know the founders didn't even want the federal government to have a standing army? And I'll bet you love Reagan. Did you know that his eye sight was too bad to be sent overseas, and he spent WWII making movies for the army? Does that count?
Oprah is utterly unqualified to be President, no matter how much less qualified Trump is.
42
Those slamming Oprah as someone who would be just like Trump aren't paying attention. Professionals guessed Oprah endorsing & stumping for Obama in 2008 earned him millions of votes.
Oprah recently vacationed with Barack & Michelle Obama. Do you really think she wouldn't listen to Obama about how to run a campaign or how to govern? Who knows more about running as a person of color or woman than the Obamas?
Trump inherited millions & never bothered to learn anything. Oprah's enormous success & worldwide goodwill point to a brilliant person living the most singularly created American Dream in modern history.
Oprah's nothing like Trump. She's the real thing.
Oprah would have the best advisers in the world. She could raise more $$ than the GOP. Wall Street hasn't got their hooks in her. Both Trump & the Clintons were accused of using philanthropy to profit themselves. Nobody can claim that about Oprah.
Oprah is the most media savvy & least corrupt person who could run for President in 2020.
Oprah's the un-Trump & the un-Hillary.
Oprah's the ideal antidote to Trump's cynicism. Yes she's a celebrity but so are Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Bill Gates, Tom Hanks & Bruce Springsteen. Muhammad Ali had a long run as the world's biggest celebrity. Malala is basically just a celebrity. May would argue these are the most inspirational people of our time. Find some other reason to disqualify Oprah. Her fame & success shouldn't knock her out of contention.
60
Much smarter analysis than everyone illogically concluding that, because Oprah is a Celebrity, shes's another Trump.
Oprah is the anti-Trump and the antidote we need for Trumpism. She fits the time perfectly.
Oprah would motivate massive turnout; people would rise off their death-beds to stand in line. The Trumpsters will be swamped and washed down the drain.
Oprah could be a better president than Obama, now that Obama has prepared the way.
1
You are dreaming. The South is still fuming about the civil war, the West is another country, New York City is another world and now you think another celeb can make things better? Dream on, Oprah is just another over hyped celebrity. She resides in the world of celebrity. Our country talks too much. Where are our real leaders? The civil war still continues.
2
OW is a former journalist who got rich via the Spielberg-Hollywood machine. She made a "career transition" into acting and ID politics. The two are NOT compatible, despite what Reagan achieved.
2
Oprah doesn't have the killer instinct required to run for office. If Trump makes it to 2020, the Democrats will need a candidate who can eviscerate him on live TV. Oprah is much too humane for that. Kamala Harris on the other hand...
17
Kamala Harris is backed by big money, which makes her doubtful in my view. I
go for Bernie (or someone with his same instincts).
Please! Give me a break! Who is this Kamala Harris? If she were a white male of intelligence and accomplisment (WMIA), would you even have heard of him?
Kamala would create huuuuuuuuuge support for Trump.
I cannot speak to Oprah's chances for political success. BUT comparing her to Trump is incomprehensible. Day and Night. Good vs Evil. Hope / Despair. Insight as opposed to Clueless. Compassion vs a Heart of Stone. Reaching out /complete narcissism. Intellectual Curiosity or Moronic lack of Interest. Book Club or Illiterate. Altruistic or Self Aggrandisement. Polar Opposites might apply.
13
Can we please do one thing when discussing the next presidential election? Stop making decisions ahead of voters. It is way too early to call Winfrey’s prospects a “mistake”. NYTimes already made some catastrophic mistakes with their patronizing assumptions in the last election.
19
Can we just lay off the criticism Hillary Clinton? She was a very qualified candidate, a dedicated public servant and a graceful loser.
I am not sure why Oprah or any other woman would want to run after seeing the criticism, insults and now, investigations that Hillary continues to endure...after losing over a YEAR ago. She lost! get over it.
35
She's not a good politician.
You forgot vindictive, dishonest, entitled, and corrupt.
Kamala Harris is too young to be Oprahesque but she has the makings of it.
4
Oprah could campaign and fund-raise for this ticket: Kamala Harris (POTUS) / Cory Booker (VP).
The person who radiates empathy like Orpah Winfrey (Oprah's real birth name when she was born in January 63 years ago in Kosciusko,Mississippi) - the woman who is 'most Oprah-esque in America today - is our former first lady, Robinson Obama. born in Chicago, Chicago, That Toddlin' Town in January 53 years ago. Michelle Obama, like her husband, our 44th president for 2 terms, has the humanity. empathy, brilliance and education to be America's next president. Michelle Obama's behaviour is impeccable, beyond controversy. A woman, wife, mother, daughter, of valour. Michelle Obama is the Un-Clinton, Un-Trump. We, your choir, Frank Bruni, can discern in your column on Oprah Winfrey today the exquisite leadership potential of our beautiful former First Lady.
11
All true but Michelle as a coattail candidate would be as offensive as Hillary was as the wife of Bill.
5
A beautiful first lady she may jave been, but she is not presidentlia material. She might have been better presidential material in 2008, but she let her husband run. She doesn't have the bona fides to be president. In recent years she's devoted herself to Oprah-like accutrements like clothing, jewelry, travel, homes. Not to the poor.
Oprah should not run and if she does, the DNC should not support her. Why is it that people think the most powerful position of the President can be filled with someone who has absolutely no experience?
Does anyone imagine for one second, a scenario where Angelina Jolie or the man who runs the local bank, can decide one day to drive up to Cupertino, give a brilliant 10 minute speech to Apple's board of directors and have them say "That was a brilliant speech! Why of course you can run Apple!" Most people own some type of smart phone, but that doesn't make us qualified to run Google.
It's unfortunate that Hillary Clinton didn't have the ability to connect through her speeches, because she was one of the most qualified people ever to run for the job of president.
Apparently to at least half of the voting U.S. citizenry (at any given time), one needs no knowledge of history, geography, law, the Constitution, the state, the country, the world's politics, economics, business or science to run for president. You don't need to have run for any office, or have proven anything that shows you are able to take on the most awesome responsibility of running our great nation. Just give good speeches that connect with enough people and you have the job.
114
It's unfortunate that people didn't listen to Hillary Clinton's speeches. They weren't fun enough. It wasn't her not having an ability to connect.
it's true Kerry: "Just give good speeches that connect with enough people" - However, much as I agree on HRC's qualifications, this talent of communicating with enough of the nation is an essential skill and one she did not have a lot of. Also you're ignoring the Dead Moose in the Middle of the Floor: the level of mistrust is now so high, even within D & R parties, much less between them, that the ability to get a clear majority of US citizens to trust you enough to listen is harder than it's ever been. It wasn't just that HRC wasn't a great candidate - it was that she'd been smeared for 30 YEARS with lie after lie that created a wall that I don't know if FDR would have been able to breach. Propaganda speaks louder than truth in this time - and that's a fact we have to grapple with.
2
But her core supporters, like Meryl Streep, declare: “I want her to run for president...now she doesn’t have a choice.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/01/08/meryl-streep-...
1
I'm not a big Oprah fan, but I am mostly positively inclined towards Oprah. She has shed some light one important issues to those around the country who have no other way to see that light.
As far as President though, I am terrified that a precedent has been set for CELEBRITY SURPRISE PACKAGE CANDIDATES that have been vetted chosen and coached by anonymous interests for private reasons who can turn against the American voters, even the ones who voted for them to get them elected, and who are rich, powerful and well connected enough never to have to feel the wrath of a disappointed citizenry.
That's why I prefer that Oprah and all other TV personalities and celebrities stay far away from politics, at least until they have made their values and policies well-known and clear to the people for many years.
7
Thank you. She is the un-Clinton. Is an inriguing idea but as you say she knows the reasons. Wouldn't mind heain her out campaigning for someone. She is very powerful and inspiring something I miss.
1
The thing we love about Oprah is that she is the antithesis of Trump in terms of empathy, sincerity, honesty and integrity. She would stand out and dwarf the current president in terms of class. Also, she is strong and clear enough in her speaking and arguments that she can really take it right to The Donald. And he needs so badly to have a forceful candidate go right into his face.
But celebrity turned sour is a real scenario that can happen. And a less known candidate can start with a cleaner slate and not have decades of public statements excavated from a TV career. While we can agree she would win the inspirational contest, this country needs a nuts-and-bolts politician with a good image and an ability to inspire.
I don't think we can handle another celebrity-turned-politician.
34
Oprah appears to relish the role of Lady Bountiful, throwing cars and laptops and goody bags to her adoring audiences. She's a proponent of the mini-messiah to solve problems; thanks, Oprah, for Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil, two self-promoting hucksters. Her magazine has her on the cover, EVERY issue. Oprah may be a decent enough human being, but like Trump, seems to have a profound case of self love.
The fact that this is even a semi-serious discussion is just another indication that the citizens of this country and its political class are not ready to have the necessary and important discussions about a path forward.
1
HRC "was a terrible fit for the times, which were anti-elitist, anti-erudition, anti-Washington." Perhaps the truest simple assessment of the 2016 debacle. Yes, and not Oprah for POTUS, please.
Is there a novice politician who hasn't faked grab a fellow performer's boob--wrong as it was--that has charisma and who stands for the basics revolving around the tenet of equal access?
It's horrible to think that Oprah might be our only hope to be rid of #45 (or Pence, Ryan,...).
6
Great piece Mr. Bruni! I always appreciate your insights.
2
Frank is really demonstrating just how insidious sexism can be.
His is manifesting even as he thinks he's being woke.
5
Oprah is a great host who listens and makes people feel heard. Hillary went on listening tours and rejected most of what she heard from the people who backed Bernie Sanders.
Oprah can tell a believable and intriguing story of her life that invites a wide audience to see their own story as similar or sympathetic with hers. Hillary was never able to tell a compelling and broadly inviting story about herself that held people's interest, so she resorted to embellishments about being under fire on the airport tarmac that earned her a reputation as a disingenuous politician.
Oprah has been able to criticize injustice and promote the best aspirations of humanity without directly shaming or blaming anyone. Hillary was not particularly inspiring except to white (female) liberals of a certain age, and she effectively organized and motivated her most dedicated antagonists by calling them a "basket of deplorables."
Oprah has created a powerful business and broadcasting enterprise with a broad following. Hillary continues to tout her decades of experience without demonstrating tangible and appealing benefits to the people whose support she would like to gain.
In short, Hillary Clinton is no Oprah Winfrey.
11
As a lifelong Democrat (I wish there was a better party, but there isn't at the moment) favoring the politics of Bernie Sanders (who seriously is too old) I cannot believe this thing is getting such play. If Oprah was not a shrewd business person, but a real human being interested in the better of the country, she would immediately say this is off the table and pick a career politician she supports - how about the Representative of Hawai: Tulsi Gabbard?
11
Is Oprah Winfrey the female Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama?
Having a seemingly secure temperate positive humble humane empathetic sunny hopeful disposition is a character trait advantage that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton lacked
The debate of whether great events or great people make, matter and move history is an enduring subjective counterfactual debate. We know what happened but not what might have happened in real time. Separating the person from their times is futile. Contemporary chronological context and perspective matter. Hindsight lacks the text of many present possibilities about an unknown future.
1
I like Oprah, but we've had enough of the cult of celebrity as president in this country. Oprah is one of those mega-watt celebrities who is known by only one name. I don't doubt that she would be 100x more serious at the task than Trump -- who wouldn't be? -- but still, she has no experience in either government or politics, and her celebrity would always be in the spotlight no matter what she accomplished as president. It's ludicrous. Of course she gave a good speech. She's an entertainer. But we need someone who can work with the mopes in Congress, connect with all the many divergent groups of citizens in this country, and somehow keep his/her integrity in the process. I don't know who that might be, but somehow I doubt it's Oprah.
16
Hollywood is clearly being heard these days, but will it last? Oprah is the latest trial balloon, but this time, her popularity might be at the mercy of the wake left by Trumpism, which may be spelled out in nausea and vomiting from voters who caught the flu while trying to drain the swamp. Don’t know yet if Trump comes out smelling like a rose after Russiagate or is there is trouble ahead. Point being voters could sour quickly on billionaires and on celebrity substitute for accomplished work history in elected officials, and that is the wild card going forward.
2
Why is this even being discussed? Are we all part of a national game show?
This election cycle is about the future of the people who live and work here, not telegenic Democrat or Republican politicians
Oprah-esque? Please.
13
Oprah would study and learn, so the comparison with Trump isn't as apt as it might be. She would also realize the need to acquire qualified people and listen to them, another distinction between her and Trump. None of this means she should run. What it does mean, however, is she would be vastly superior (in all the ways that count to the presidency) to the current office holder.
16
I don't doubt that Oprah wouldn't 'study and learn' but I for one would prefer her to do so as a Vice President perhaps or in another candidacy if at all possible. My dog would be a better president than djt but that doesn't mean we need another celebrity. I would prefer someone else although, I don't know who that person might be at this point. I think that Oprah could be a really cool vp and might transform the office and give it its own agenda. She's got the time in her life to get to the presidency. We desperately need a woman in this office but why not start with the vice presidency.
1
Just imagine how the gun lobby/NRA would completely freak if she decided to run, not to mention the scores of other right wing groups/causes ... pick your favorite. Can't wait for the next election cycle!
3
The problem is that our electorate has been so dumbed-down. They have no idea what it takes to make a good president. In 1980, they voted in a former movie star, who, from my point of view, started the snowball of governmental neglect rolling down the hill. People want to be romanced by their candidate. They want to swoon. They want promises, regardless of their possibility to be kept in any consistent fashion.
We have been so enmeshed in test requirements for our students. How about a minimum mandatory knowledge of civics? Europeans know more about our system of government than we do. It's embarrassing, and if we don't start to educate our voters, we can expect more of the same.
31
I can't wait for the debates: "Look under your seats! Everyone, look under your seats!"
10
Well, Oprah's lack of experience in politics may be a weakness, and it might be duly exploited by the institutionalized racist environment, and culture, still beating regularly in American's hearts. Not that a Hollywood actor, even if second-class, may not win the presidency 'a la Reagan' (but he at least had a governorship under his belt). Whatever flaws Hillary had, she was a responsible and knowledgeable politician that would have spared us from Trump's stupid megalomaniac disaster. But after duly introspecting, and considering the country's needs, and it's role in the world to maintain peace, we urgently need a paradigm 'a la Obama', requiring a 'Renaissance' individual experienced in politics (the art of the possible), a woman, ideally, as the last one was cheated ignominiously by an anti-democratic Electoral College, handing the reins of power to a brutus ignoramus instead. Besides, it is not fair to sacrifice an example of virtue and straight talk, like Oprah, into a snake pit of pettiness and bigotry, as witnessed during Obama's rein...by dedicated obstructionists in a republican congress.
2
Oprah as POTUS would be historical in more ways than you might think. Not since Benjamin Harrison, 1893 , has a president had a beard.
1
For many Democrats who value substance, intelligence & experience above celebrity shock & awe in our Presidents & candidates, Hillary Clinton will always be the most extraordinary & gifted candidate that got away. She has been knocked down so many times by deceitful Republicans & conservative media & gets right back up to fight which is both remarkable & laudable.
The election, fraudulent or otherwise, of reality television host Donald Trump, severely diminished the reputation of the United States & forever trivialized the Presidency.
Oprah is everything Trump is not. She reads books. She behaves with civility, grace, diplomacy & compassion, not unlike Barack Obama. Oprah makes her living making people feel good about themselves. Donald Trump makes a living making himself feel good at the expense of everyone else. The politics of the Presidency grows more toxic each year, especially in the nanosecond social media environment which rewrites the truth to fit a particular narrative. Speaking truth to power, as Oprah so eloquently spoke at the Golden Globes, is a central tenet of free societies but when that truth is manufactured & poisoned, bad outcomes result. Would a nicer President Oprah be able to navigate the same toxic political environment of lies in which Donald Trump seemingly thrives? The gender issue alone is a huge obstacle for Oprah or any female candidate as polling reveals that many Americans don’t favor a female becoming the most powerful person in the world.
18
I think there are many reasons why Oprah would make a good president - one of the main ones being BECAUSE she knows how much she doesn't know. She excels at finding the best people for the right positions. She is very intelligent, well read and well intentioned. Her goals for America and the world are selfless. With top advisors in place, she could be in a position to make presidential decisions and inspire the world. That said, I don't want to see her run I think having celebrities in government, especially inexperience in government at top levels, would be a dangerous road to travel. I would love to see her put her power and money behind a strong, experienced, intelligent, focused female candidate, and help propel her to the White House to start this country back on the path to democracy.
7
Truman was a haberdasher, Lincoln the former owner of a general store. Oprah is a journalist, talk-show host and businesswoman who examined the full spectrum of the human condition in America for many years. She has charisma as well as the common touch. I'm not opposed.
8
Lincoln was also a lawyer before he went into politics, and Truman worked in politics for many years. Both of those professions put you on a path towards a career in government. Both were civil servants long before they were presidents. And, if I remember correctly, Truman's clothing store was a failure. It wasn't their business acumen that allowed those men to succeed in politics.
If Oprah wants to try her hand at a government job for a time, fine. Making a fortune in business is not the same as running a country. It's just not. She'd make a great monarch with that common touch and charisma, but this is not a monarchy.
6
I do not want another celebrity billionaire, no matter their politics, inner goodness, or personality. I hope that donnie has not turned the office into a trophy for them. I further hope that Oprah knows she would be thoroughly trashed in a campaign. I want to see a new generation of politicians with actual ideas rise through the ranks and bring us a new wealth of professionalism, realism, and experience. I am probably dreaming..
14
Lee, I couldn't agree more.
2
I agree totally. There are many great Democrats who would make great Presidents. I hope they aren't overlooked in favour of this new direction in politics.
3
Can't you see Oprah as the yin to 45s yang?
1
Re Trump staking "out positions to which he’d given minimal thought"...
Minimal thought? How about zero thought... I would say negative thought if that were possible. Or better yet the square root of negative thought, which would be an imaginary number, and gives the proper value of Trumps thoughts - in an imaginary alternate universe. Even saying that makes me feel bad for insulting the value of imaginary numbers.
11
A very sincere thank you for not mentioning anything about "you get a car" in regards to why Oprah shouldn't be the democrats pick for presidential candidate. Usage of that phrase belittles her and all of the amazing work she's done.
1
Can we please focus on winning in the mid-term elections in 2018, not to mention developing an actual Democratic platform? No matter how attractive the candidate, it would be refreshing to focus on ideas rather than continuing this cult of personality kind of politics.
11
The last thing America needs, well, maybe not the last thing, but still, is an Oprah presidency. We have got to get away from the various cults of personality and find people who are smart and make smart decisions, putting the well being of the country and the citizenry above partisan gain. I'm sure there will be some disagreement about what that all looks like and how it gets done, but could we please be reality based?
5
Mr. Bruni - Please stop maligning women. You have crossed a line willingly when you attacked Oprah's motives for those wonderful words. They were meant to inspire young women and to empower them to reach for a better future. Those words were not meant for you. What you've done is insulting and rude and in this exact moment in time that makes you unsavory to say the least.
I doubt you want to side with Trump or Roy Moore on women. Men like OJ, Robert Blake, Phil Spector and Bill Cosby abused women. Wake up, please.
2
I am a woman and Oprah’s does not speak for, or to, me. She is a cynical peddler of pseudo-science and a celebrity hound, not a viable candidate for presidency or a role model. You are silencing Mr. Bruni because he dared to express his opinion while male. What are you going to say to women who disagree with you?
He is a man, what do you expect? Their loyalty and hero worship and accolades only extend to other males.
Take that Mr. Bruni! As you can easily read from the comments that Ms. Clinton should have won based on the depth of her qualification for the office! After having elected a black man to change things (who could be more different?) and then watching the bankers collect their bonuses as usual, the supposed universally racist working class white men were not fooled by the femininity of "The Most Qualified Candidate Ever". They looked at her record and correctly assessed that she would not be an agent of change. So they rolled the dice instead and we all lost.
2
the greatest good for the greatest number
Why on earth would Oprah want to pursue political office let alone the office of President? She is a self-made billionaire who has everything one could want and the freedom to pursue goals that are important to her like funding schools for African girls. The Presidency would offer nothing but stress and tension. Instead of living in one of her beautiful homes in serene settings, she would wake up every day in the White House facing political enemies and crises.
2
Oprah is too smart to run for the presidency. She is a billionaire who can go where she wants and do what she wants, she has an estate near Santa Barbara, another fabulous estate on Maui and an enviable life. Why would she give that up to be a prisoner of the White House, surrounded by Secret Service and factotums? Why would she let herself be a target for the millions and millions of haters, the woman-haters, the racists, the white men who love guns and hate women, children and wildlife? Oprah does not need American electoral politics.
Who cares about Oprah? People who watched the Golden Globes and the elite media and were seduced by a speech. Who did the people who watched last night’s football game want for President?
10
This is the stupidest, dumbest ego trip thing of all time. It's dangerous and a non-starter for yet another entertainer with zero political savvy and experience to suddenly go on an ego trip thinking they can be president.
Here's the truth that you might not like: a black woman with a big ego and no background in politics, law or policy will be an absolute non-starter, especially as president with 90% of the males in the US.
She will absolutely lose the election immediately for the hopeless moonbeam Democrats, who have forgotten that the first way to affect change is to get elected.
Sorry to say it, but we need a recognizable male candidate -- and soon.
We first need to get reelected, then recapture support, to reverse every retrograde Trump disaster. After about 2 terms of stability, then we can start thinking again about women or women of color -- who have political experience -- to run for office.
Just because you have money and some name recognition does not make you qualified for President of the United States.
Oprah, if you're serious, start by running for local mayor or county board. Then work your way up over about 20 years through various offices, learning the ropes. Then maybe you'll be ready. That's the way it used to be done in this country; that we've gotten away from that model is what gave us disasters like Trump, Bush and more.
9
I agree that unfortunately the next candidate should be male if we are to have a chance of winning.
Thanks Trump - now every celebrity in America, from Kim Kardashian to Macaulay Culkin, is saying to themselves, "If this clown can be president, I can be president."
10
Why not? Give the public what it wants, as long as it understands it gets the government it deserves.
Jay Z would be OK as the First Man, no? I'd vote for Beyonce in a sec.
Speaking of Kardashian, Kanye could be the UN Ambassador, that'd shake things up.
Kanye and The Worm "fact-finding" with Kim Jong Un!
1
At this point, what concerns me is supporting a candidate that could beat Donald Trump. Even with all her charms, I think the GOP could successfully spin Oprah as an elite, Hollywood insider, not concerned about the left behind workers. Trump would continue to be spun as every-man billionaire fighting for the left behind workers. The Trump take-down machine could prop up a nasty characterization of Oprah that resonates with red states and the working class. Instead of the empathetic, hopeful, kind, smart dynamic leader Trump makes her into a connected hypocrite, buddies with all the fancy rich. He may even go so far as to plant racists seeds for his base to run with.
Would Oprah be aggressive enough to attack Trump? How would she perform in debates when Trump gets ugly? Oprah may be too classy to go there against Trump. She may spin Michelle Obama's "when they go low, we go high" excuse not to sweep the leg, not to get dirty. This could be seen as weakness, as cowardice. And she could get bulldozed by the shameless Trump and Fox News.
I like Oprah. I think she would make a great president. But, I am concerned about her being chewed up by the GOP attack machine. And her not having the skill set to attack back.
4
Oprah: Experience in governance, none. Questionable judgement as to what she sells her audience.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/oprah-presidential-case-marr...
6
In her favor, Oprah was never a fan of her fellow Chicago neighbors, the Obamas. Although she modestly supported his initial candidacy, she went silent shortly after his election. She also lacks the corruption of the Clintons.
2
The Republicans had 30 years in which to "throw Clinton in jail". They, with all the gummint money in the world to back their "investigations" were unable to take her to task. Even the FBI said "they're no "there" there" on the email issue although the FBI did in fact do their dirty work to ensure that Clinton lost the Presidency. If Oprah ran for President, you can be sure that word would get out about some "sex ring at a pizza parlor" and other dirty tricks. Oprah has remained as pure as Caesars wife because she has not had to dirty herself in that mud-wrestling contest called running for office.
For any person to want to be President today, they must be a bit "off"and have more than a little self-important grandiosity, sense of superiority, and conceit. In Trump's case, it meant a complete separation from reality----he is a very sick and dangerous sociopath. The point is: Nobody who is completely sane and normal would wish to subject himself/herself and family to the daily scrutiny and profound responsibility that is necessary for this role. After watching the election cycles for many years, I have concluded that the only candidate who will get my complete enthusiasm is an accomplished man or woman who is urged to run for President against their better judgement---and against their will. This would be our sign that the candidate still has a bit of sanity.
4
We might as well face it...we're far along into the pop/media/information age to expect a charismatic & bright media sensation to be the next president. We let the dark side of celebrity prevail in Trump. Let the bright side triumph! Oprah is authenticity personified. She's smart enough to surround herself with the best advisers to help form her policies. If ever a wounded country needed an inspired leader...THERE SHE IS...despite her complicated private life and penchant for luxury, she does all with grace and dignity, and should run with Elizabeth Warren.
3
I like Oprah very much but - if the absolute imperative is to get Donald Trump as far away from Washington as possible - how about Tom Hanks? He is as close to this generation's Walter Cronkite as exists and I can't imagine he wouldn't win easily.
Democrats need a candidate who is a charismatic leader with a message based on hope. Oprah showed those qualities and the crowd went crazy. Obama won two terms the same way.
1
Oprah for president would complete the debasement of American politics. Celebrity and name recognition now count for more than talent or experience. First we elect an actor (Schwarzenegger), then a professional wrestler (Jesse Ventura), followed by a comedian (Al Franken) and then a reality TV star (Trump).
But forget Ohrah, let's go all the way: Kim Kardashian for President!
3
Studied "communication" in college. No government experience. Apparently no education in law, political science, public administration. Stick to talk shows, rallying support for women's and racial issues, and raking in millions, Oprah. She'd be an utterly inappropriate nominee for the presidency. Do not go there, Democrats. Do not. And while we're at it, why are we pinning hopes on soon-to-be octogenarians Biden and Sanders, with Warren bring up the rear? These people are not the future of the Democratic party.
6
Democrat party bosses stupidly forced Democratic voters to accept Hillary Clinton, one of the most unpopular candidates of all time and the WORST presidential candidate of all time.
The result was the election of Donald Trump, the second worst presidential candidate of all time.
5
Call me an unwashed Philistine if you will, but I'm ready for Oprah in 2020! Oprah can be Queen of Philistia if she wants to be! #Oprah2020. #DraftOprah. I don't need experience if all it amounts to more trickle down economics, free trade, bank giveaways, welfare cuts, prisons, and weapons deals from the left. Call up the DNC, Oprah. Let's get this rolling.
"Is Oprah the Un-Trump, or the Un-Clinton?"
Answer: Yes
1
Well unlike Clinton, women would vote for Oprah
1
Why?
1
This is so pathetic I barely have words for it. This country is beginning to act like a baby that fell off the changing table, banged its head and doesn't know now what's up and what's down.
Please get a grip, people, and you too, Oprah. Do we really want to be the nation that tries to replace a billionaire ignoramus who had a TV show with another billionaire ignoramus who had a TV show? Sure, Oprah is a nicer person but the above still applies.
10
I respect and admire the actress, but that is all. Oprah is not a political leader.
11
So, yet another pipedream in what has become the dogpatch of American politics, where every bored multi-kazillionaire thinks that they can magically spring off the small or large screen, and ride to the defense of the country.
Sorry, but I'm not buying into it -- especially since it promises to be just more of the same.
Between the Trump campaign and his eventual confirmation, there has been more talk about "change" in the past two years than it's worth remembering. And let's be honest, two TV celebrities vying back to back for the same office, albeit at opposite ends of the spectrum is a recipe for disaster.
One might have thought Americans already realized this...the hard way. Apparently not.
Time to go to a commercial break.
14
We don't actually know what her political opinions are, since she has not inflicted them upon us.
You have apparently forgotten that Obama's initial campaign was "Hope and Change," which quickly transformed into "change is generally bad when implemented by a dictator."
"Oprah soars. Oprah gives goose bumps."
At one point in the speech, I was absolutely sure Oprah was going to yell out, "And EVERYONE is getting a car!"
12
Is Oprah the black Hillary? Or the female Obama? Or vice-versa.
4
Neither since Oprah is not a war monger, unlike Clinton or Obama. Obama left the White House giving the Pentagon $11 billion dollars every week, a marionette dangling from military industrial complex strings.
The Democratic Party leadership, including my local Congressman, is responsible for the fiasco of 2016. Thank all those super delegates. Truth is, if Clinton had run against a “normal” Republican she would not have scrapped together 200 electoral votes. Say good bye Virginia, New Hampshire, Maryland, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. While there is energy at the grass roots, the Democrats are still led by politicians in their late 70s. The Party and Clinton’s lasting contribution to American women will be a 30 year Trump Supreme Court. Thank you Hillary.
12
The Clintons spent from 2001 to 2016 raising money and using it to buy super delegates. She would have gotten the votes of the super delegates if she had been running against a perfect Democrat. [All of the money Obama raised was used to fund his own campaigns and then turned over to OFA in 2012 to fund his retirement. Today, having lost the rainmaker Clintons, Democrats are still indebt a year after the 2016 elections and the Republicans are raising money faster from small donors.
1
Were he not so old, Bernie Sanders would almost certainly get the Democratic nomination, so Bruni does not need to speculate about the attributes of the successful candidate.
3
The problem is a gossip driven political media that sells water cooler speculation for political analysis and needs a constant feed of new material to feed to voracious 24/7/365 spin cycle. This is not driven by voters or the law or the American system. This is driven by for profit media who needs eyeballs to sell ads.
Maybe we should all just cool our jets for 2020 and let things work out and voters- yes voters- decide who they want to lead them and our nation before anointing someone. When big media lined up behind Ms Clinton it froze the Democratic field and when it pushed her at the expense of others it helped the already considerable insider effort to make it a fait accompli before anyone voted.
Tell the Beltway Press to eat your Dinner before dessert and leave the choosing of nominees to the people. Spend more time fact checking policy proposals and less time on the horse race. Spend more time on the editorial page raising questions of policy instead of speculation.
The only reason for the First Amendment relative to the press is to serve democracy through an informed public. Does not say anything about selling ads or attracting a particular demographic to increase ad rates. Serve democracy by ending the practice of endorsements and giving special coverage (as in this paper's coverage of HRC) to some but not all viable candidates.
Americans may have voted in Trump, but the media enabled the whole thing from Hillary to Trump as President. Shame on you.
12
The only "special" coverage this paper gave HRC was harping on her emails. They rarely covered her policy proposals.
8
Agreed. Shame on all of you working in media, that are feeding this nonsense into the bandwith.
Donald has changed things. In a post 2016 environment, a celebrity branding expert may well once again bulldoze their way through the primaries like a one person wrecking crew, regardless of what the party establishment wants.
The days of the sincere wonkiness of George H W Bush are long gone. The presidency is a show. It's like Batman and the Joker, escalation happens on both sides. If not Oprah, expect another colorful celebrity on the left to try their hand.
2
In case Hillary's exploits didn't convince you, the nation (at least the thinking part of it) isn't into having the press choose our presidential candidates.
6
Ms. Winfrey may well run, and she may win. Then again, she might go down spectacularly. Certainly name recognition would not be an issue. But if she chooses to toss in her hat, she'd best be prepared for the down-and-dirty swiftboating "dirty tricks" and innuendo that would make the race to the White House running a very brutal gauntlet. The line between entertainment and outright objective reality is blurred enough. We don't need another celebrity to try and do politics. Let her do what she already does best. She's likely far more effective there than she'd be having to battle Congress.
5
How can the word "Majesty" and "Trump be in the same sentence? "Majesty" definitely describes Oprah's speech the other night. And she showed dignity and humility. Something Trump sorely lacks.
I do not think she will run. I do think she will have a lot to do with the Candidate the Democrats decide to back, provided they have learned their hard won lessons. They chose a candidate in Hilary that exuded entitlement. And in a lot of ways they weren't wrong. However they did not "get" the mood of the country and neither did Hilary. Mood is paramount among most voters and this is where the Democrats failed.
That said, I wish everyone would stop talking about 2020 and concentrate on 2018. Otherwise everyone's attention will be diluted and we will end up with another Republican House and Senate.
Keep the eyes on 2018 and speculate about 2020 when 2018 ends.
3
I am not commenting on whether or not Oprah would make an effective candidate. But I will say that the comparisons to Trump should end at their celebrity status, otherwise we do Oprah a grave injustice.
11
Governor Hickenlooper. Plenty of experience, good background.
3
She is popular, she knows - no , she feels, how to project empathy naturally - radiates it - and has espoused good values. I have heard (3rd hand) how well she treats staff. I have no clue how knowledgeable she is regarding economics, finance, the art of war or the environment - of how well she could lead in real health care reform. She'd be subject to scathing attacks, a toxic mix of gender and racial hatred: she'll have to want to do this badly.
Why use a celebrity to measure female politicians? ALL of them have had to fight and scrap for their political lives, making compromises for funding and party support. They have HAD to try to serve a "viewing public" that demands more than entertainment, and often demands even more of women, who are harangued because they aren't men AND because they are different from other women in their drive to win. Oprah can front for Weight Watchers and other products and make a fortune because she has branded herself so successfully, but not be criticized for selling herself for the money. Active political women cannot become paid endorsers, and so have to turn to donors, selling themselves in other ways
Perhaps Oprah COULD turn her multitasking head to the advice of experts to navigate the issues that face the President, while continuing to be the figure beloved by hordes of Americans - especially women.Could we find it in our heads to accept that imperfect but strong, hardworking women are out there already. She's good - so are they.
4
I think that the media share a large part of the blame for our current political nightmare. An ultra-wealthy celebrity with no experience in government gives a speech at a Hollywood gathering, and pundits react by speculating about her fitness for the presidency. We would all be better off if you guys spent more time discussing issues and less time speculating about an election that is three years in the future. Not to mention repeating every tweet that DJT sends -- which just means that he sets the terms of the conversation, and the media keep letting him lead them around by the nose. Terms in the House are only two years long, but speculation about the next election begins about a week after Congress is sworn in.
I understand that a headline with Oprah's name in it is likely to generate more clicks than one that actually discusses substance. But substance is what we need.
58
This country didn't elect the white woman and It's not ready for the black female celebrity. No matter how popular, charismatic, and nice O is, there is no appetite for additional identity politics, political correctness, and nanny state. This shall pass soon.
7
To many minds Oprah transcends "identity politics." She's a healer. My god, under her the Pentagon might not get it's usual $11 billion per week.
1
Or, you HOPE it does.
What is missing from this discussion is two things common to both: larger-than-life "royalty," not leaders and; with the first, narcissistic tendencies off the charts. I'll grant you that one is deeply more benevolent, caring and aware of the human condition than the other. But have we simply gone back to our English roots and now prefer Kings and Queens vs democratic leaders? Another example of the "alternate reality" we have moved into where "reality TV" personalities have somehow taken on the real universe. Anyone watch "Wall-E" recently?!
8
This article - like Dems' inadequate understanding of 2016 - misses why Trump won: He and only he owned the issues that swing state voters cared about: avoiding new wars, reversing globalism and ending illegal immigration. Trump's celebrity status was irrelevant. His voters chose him despite his obvious flaws because of those three issues. If an Oprah candidacy has any salience, it'll be because she takes the stance on issues that matter to swing state voters. Unlikely.
9
I don't think it's an either or.
She is a truly smart person, deeply connected to the average American through her 20+ years on television. But I, personally, much as I like her, would not vote for her. I'd rather have the next Clinton or Obama.
That everyone started talking about her just shows the desperation to find someone on the Democratic Party's side who is NOT Trump, but she is not a credible candidate, she's just another Trump but from a human side.
The Democrats need to find two things:
1. Viable candidates for the 2018 mid-terms
2. A viable, real, honest-to-goodness candidate for 2020
39
Meh. You know who I want as President? Someone who's smart and has dedicated years to public service, toiling away in state or national government, working his/her way up into prominence. If the Democrats think the lesson of Trump is to find a billionaire celebrity of their own, they are sadly mistaken.
50
Absolutely. That's why my dream ticket is James Comey and Sally Yates in either order. For starters, they could both repeat over and over to be among the first Trump fired.
Then they could each and together talk about their resumes.
They needn't look hard. Biden is the man.
With all due respect to Oprah Winfrey, I hope she realizes all the right reasons not to run for president, and instead puts her energy and resources into supporting a more qualified and experienced (even if not as glamorous and charismatic) candidate whose values are aligned with hers. Americans need to grow up and stop putting celebrities into the White House, and separate politics and entertainment. I never thought we would be dealing with the nightmare of having to say the words "President Trump," but I cannot take seriously the idea of "President Winfrey" either.
11
"Americans need to grow up and stop putting celebrities..."
Well, it happened once..
1
Never say never. She will try to run.
This sure shows the state of politics. The last three presidents, including this one, were not even remotely qualified for the job. To suggest Oprah should be the president reminds me of when a young Catholic girl told me the Pope should be president. But, if people are serious, why not someone who plays one on tv, or at least a Veep or SecState? At least they have some kind of experience.
Besides, while Oprah may glow in her popularity now, I don't think she will find it as much fun when she is under scrutiny by the media and her opponents. Did she ever call someone by a now un-PC name? Did she ever have a temper tantrum on her set? Is she sure she wants to release tax returns and have her opposition report her to the IRS for evasion? Maybe do something when she was a kid that wouldn't be appropriate as a grown up (b/c she will be judged as one).
This also pretty much shows why I haven't voted for president since 2008. If you think I'm changing my tune for Trump v. Oprah, just feel free to say I wasted my vote. In my own view, to vote for any of them is to waste it.
3
The Oprah Hooplah is a media hype - the public is not clamoring for her to run or for ANY celebrity to run, even if it happens to be a really smart and stable celebrity. We've had enough of that. We want someone who actually knows how to run a government.
10
The public is not clamoring, and I also don't hear Oprah putting herself out.
Of course the public is not clamoring, they only heard about this 24 hours ago. Sheeesh...
That is what has been the problem for over 60 years, we haven't had leaders, as leaders would of told the people that all policy that is advanced as legislation, passed by committee, voted on by both houses of Congress, and signed by Presidents should be taxed as well to pay for it. Starting with the build up of the Cold War in the Minute Man missile program, the Vietnam War, the great society, the middle east excursions, etc. were all made policy easily with borrowed money. If all of it would of been taxed, the voting public would of paid more attention, educated themselves, and decided what domestic and foreign policy was worth paying for by being taxed for all of it. Now, our country that last 17 years has been spending about 30% more each year than what we take in in taxes, and promising more in entitlements than what are being taxed for also. Only a realist, with the public aboard, really should run, and get elected. The public should face reality, and if not, will just get more of the same at the ballot box, back and forth between political parties, while the finances of this country get stuck in the mud, and can't easily be extracted.
3
Hillary did not spend time on cultivating her charisma. That's why she could not connect with people. Yes, we are born with different levels of "charm", but it can also be developed with practice. Oprah has got some natural charm, but unlike Hillary, she was also wise enough to develop it. She is dedicated to improving her self physically, mentally AND spiritually, plus she practiced, practiced, practiced through her line of work, her efforts to overcome pain and struggle, connect with her soul, etc. While all that is admirable and inspiring, it speaks to her ability to win votes, but not to her qualifications to be president.
2
Charisma is something innate , not something one cultivates.
But she was immensely hard working, with long experience in government, well versed in foreign policy, known to all world leaders, and had worked tirelessly for the things that make a difference in ordinary people's lives.
Bad leaders can have charisma also. But few can have Clinton's long standing experience and expertise in governing because that is not innate - it is the long slog of hard work and dedication.
2
Do we have to still talk about Hillary and 2016? Since you bring it up...
She would have done the country and herself a great favor by not running. There was some sort of underlying compulsion to fill the dream of "8 years of Bill, then 8 years of Hill" coupled with the necessity of proving a woman could be president. Otherwise, she gave the appearance of someone who didn't want to be running and was not lusting after the job, two vital components for anyone who makes it.
Joe Biden said she was reluctant to run when she discussed it with him. She should have followed her better instincts knowing there had been a decades long campaign to demonize she and her husband and knowing, as well, the rancid, never ending warfare that politics in America has become. She had to know she was not liked by millions, but instead of stepping aside, she became more controlled, more cold and managed.
Her campaign and those of the Republican wannabes who faced Trump all failed to take him down. They thought he was a joke. They thought, as I did, that Trump would finally say or do something so outrageous that no sensible person would want to vote for him.
Hillary and her campaign staff miscalculated on an epic scale. The national staff told volunteers from Iowa headed to Michigan just before the election to turn around, not necessary, kids. The campaign also thought they didn't need things like yard signs
In short, Hillary had more baggage than JFK airport during the recent snow/ice storm.
11
Beyond your indictments, HRC badly mangled her primary run against Obama. This should have given anybody a pause.
3
The reason always given for why she's "unprepared" is that she hasn't previously held public office — which goes against one of the founding principles of this country, that of the citizen-statesmen. The Founding Fathers never foresaw a professional governing class. But why is a woman who singlehandedly founded a major media empire that made her billionaire; who even her detractors (for president) admit is a superior orator who really reaches people; and who projects empathy be any less qualified than the governor of a small state, or a first-term senator?
5
If there is a single resolution we should all keep this New Year - please, please; please let us ALL stop treating the job of the President of the United States like its some high school class president.
This is the most important job in the world. The decision made by the president affect the very real lives of billions in places most of us have never heard of or intend to traveled to. This is a serious job, not the a selection for the next entertainment awards show.
Maybe if we all try to elevate this job above one great speech, the country will take the task of electing the next president more seriously and our choices will once again reflect the seriousness of the job.
17
Oprah has every right to throw her hat in the ring and make her case. Countless white men with far less to offer have done it countless times, and some have won. Keep in mind that women have been barred from the traditional steps to power, including political power. She has shown an incredible ability to connect, to succeed, and to listen.
9
That unqualified white men have been Presidents in the past and present is no convincing argument for a black unqualified woman.
Hillary lost the Electoral college, not the popular vote, so I wish people-men mostly-would stop saying she was not appealing to voters. Not to mention that what she endured from Fox News, Putin, Comey, and Wikileaks would undermine and undo any candidate-yes, even a man.
Oprah is not a way to make up for Hillary's loss, nor is just any other woman, unless she is qualified. I voted for Hillary because she WAS experienced, qualified, knowledgeable and tough, and as a result she terrifies the GOP, and Putin too. I did not vote for Hillary because she was a woman but I would have been thrilled none the less if she had finally put a woman in the White House, because she, above everyone else, paved the way for women and therefore had earned it.
Now more than ever, we need a truly experienced statesman or stateswomen who can competently clean up the mess that Trump will leave behind, and bring the country together-if that is possible. Joe Biden and other experienced people come to mind.
Oprah needs to stay out of politics but she can help by getting people involved and by supporting the DNC this year and the Democratic candidate in 2020.
9
No disrespect to Ms. Winfrey, but the United States does not need a second millionaire celebrity as President. We need an experienced public servant with proven abilities. If one can be found.
14
I'm really sick of hearing that Hillary lost basically because she was "boring"— as if she were running for prom queen. Once it became clear that her opponent would be a man who was at best unfit, at worst extremely dangerous, it was the duty of the DNC, Bernie included, to untie behind her for the good of the country. It was also the duty of the Media to point out what a menace he potentially was/is.
For years, the media has been covering Presidential campaigns as though they were just another another reality show, focusing on personality, drama, plot twits and turns. The difference is that reality shows have no consequences for the viewer, no matter what happens. Not so elections, as many of my progressive friends are finding out.
Rather than encouraging her to run, let's encourage her to support Democratic candidates for the Senate and the House. Taking back Congress in 2018 would be a real first step away from "reality TV" and a step back to reality.
16
Reagan said being an actor was the best training to be a president. In today's mediacentric world, where the medium is the message, that's true, for better or worse. The Democratic Party has become the fusty party of sincere & intelligent, but old & somewhat wooden, leaders. Consider how many people are pumping up Sanders, Biden or Warren for 2020.
1
I must be missing something. Elizabeth Warren is hardly old or wooden.She is indeed intelligent, and that should not be a disqualification. She is also perhaps the best informed person I know about issues related to how the corporations, banks are sticking it to individuals. Some have claimed that this might be the most important topic for both a successful presidential run and for straightening out our misfiring society. She could indeed be considered a wonk because of how deep her knowledge is on protecting individual incomes and rights. However, she can also articulate her passions in terms that make complete sense to all voters. Her major obstacles to succeeding for higher office is the quick dismissal many centrists have of her "wildly liberal" views. Supporting fair pay, equality of women, freedom from exploitation by banks and credit card companies, blocking of citizens united etc. are serious populist issues that should really help our economy. What is not to like?
4
@HKGuy: Ageism much?
Have you read or listened to anything Sanders, Biden, or Warren has written or said? Bernie and Warren bring the party back to its progressive, working class roots; Biden does not suffer fools gladly. He was an outspoken ally of victims of rape and sexual violence long before the #MeToo movement took off.
Age is irrelevant when it comes to what someone can bring to the political table.
It's all very well and good to dance the dreams of the 'perfect' democratic candidate in a mix and match of qualities of celebrity appeal vs. experience and knowledge, but sadly, it won't matter. I wish we had that option as a nation and as Democrats, but we really don't.
The frightening reality is that the Republican machine to remake America in the mold of the 19th Century Robber Barons will continue unabated. They have the money, the guaranteed backing of the red-faced, ignorant voter, and have had that power on the state and national level for generations. Even our brilliant "hope" President Obama was stopped in his tracks, and before we even get to 2020, the last of the New Deal promises for a decent life for the average American will have been crushed. Good-bye social Security. Adios Medicare. Hello Wall.
Winning the popular vote as Gore and HRC did will continue to be the meaningless norm due to the systemic landmines set long ago by the Far Right in gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Right judicial activism. Once you game the system, it belongs to you. The next election will most likely have a Democrat win the popular vote again only to lose to the Electoral ballot - again.
So, forget about Oprah, Bernie, or anyone of stature or seriousness, as the result will be the same. As a nation, we may hate the idea that “You can’t fight City Hall”, but in fact, you can't fight it, and the hard Right turn of a once-great nation is its saddest example.
20
Gosh Dan, let's all run over to the corner and slash our wrists. In 70 years I've found that it is never as good as it looks, but it's also never as bad. Good beats evil even if not as fast as we'd like.
Buck up buddy...donnie too shall pass.
1
You make an excellent point about the danger of nominating a candidate who piles up popular votes in blue states but loses the electoral count. That is one of several reasons I'm leaning toward Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown (assuming he wins re-election in 2018). He has a proven record of winning state-wide elections in a tossup state, while being one of the more progressive members of the Senate. Read what Senator Warren says about him in her recent book.
1
Oprah is definitely deserving of all of this "presidential" speculation. She's successful, nice, smart, attractive and personable. I particularly appreciate all of her nuanced policy-related positions like... ah.. umm... hmmmm.
4
If Hillary Clinton had all the positive attributes (many named in the article) of Oprah Winfrey, she would be president now. Voters would have turned out, in droves, fro such a unifying figure. Experience, coupled with approachability, and charisma. Hillary Clinton is a polar opposite of Oprah Winfrey. And, unfortunately, lack of experience will not propel Oprah Winfrey into the White House.
2
What are you talking about? Hillary Clinton has experience, approachability and charisma. She was a victim of propaganda and entrenched misogyny. Your condition is called willful blindness.
6
Although I voted for Clinton in the general election, I supported Sanders in the primary, and I still believe he would have won had he been the Democratic nominee. So I am as eager as anyone to see the party nominate an "un-Clinton." But I think there are far better potential candidates around that fit that description than Oprah.
What's more, I believe quite strongly that the very last thing we should be doing is encouraging this notion of the presidency as a reward for celebrity. And if it's all the same to you, I'll take a pass on any more billionaires as well.
21
If nothing else, Oprah would be better than Hillary was in two very important ways:
1. She'd be able to connect with ordinary people better than Hillary did, simply because she's been around ordinary people much more than Hillary has on account of having ordinary people on her show so often. That by itself could make a difference in states with large blue-collar populations. Don't forget that before defecting to Trump in 2016, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa all voted for Obama twice, so race, while always present to some degree, need not be a deciding factor here.
2. She's already shown herself to be a better politician than Hillary was. I will NEVER, EVER understand why the Democratic establishment was so insistent on pre-emptively crowning Hillary for 2016, to the point of even discouraging Vice President Biden from running, when they already knew, not just from her defeat to Obama in 2008 but also from the fact that so many of them (including Harry Reid, Bob Casey, Robert Byrd, and even Ted Kennedy and Claire McCaskill for cryin' out loud) endorsed him over her back then, that her political skills were questionable at best.
6
NO! I respect Oprah Winfrey; however, she is not presidential material....yet. She is tops in the character spectrum, but competence is gained by having government experience. The past predicts the future. The best service Oprah can do for the nation is speak common sense. Character counts, listening matters, but experience in government at the highest state or federal level matters. Look for those w/ strong resumes that indicate competence NOT star power.
3
Very well put.
Maybe we should all take a step back on the "likable" thing. My son asked me if i liked my doctor. I only like him if he can successfully treat what my medical problem may be. And I don't want an actor who played a doctor on TV. That, in my humble opinion, pretty much sums up Oprah.
11
Given the complex challenges America and the rest of the world face in the first half of the 21st century, it hardly seems the time to be treating relevant education, experience and demonstrated competence as disqualifying qualities in candidates for high government office.
Yet here we are. This reality tv show is not destined to end well.
2
Individual happiness versus social harmony.
Oprah showed by contrast how superficial and contrived Gilibrand's understanding has been of the sexual harassment problem, and could beat her easily in the Democratic primary. She is the un-Gilibrand, and so Mr. Bruni and other Democrats have to start discouraging her. The bench will be shallow enough, but 2020 is so far out yet.
9
I too despise Kirsten Gillibrand, who couldn't find the moral outrage over the GOP's trickle-up tax bill that she could to drum Al Franken out of the Senate. But from that it doesn't follow that Oprah should run for president. Being an ostensibly wonderful human being and a successful TV star/entrepreneur doesn't mean you have good political and policy judgment about health care or energy or foreign affairs.
8
"The party put its chips on the wrong candidate."
The people who voted in the Democratic primaries chose a candidate with deep knowledge of the issues, an extensive menu of policy proposals, who had worked her whole life with a focus on improving opportunities for struggling families, starting with unheralded civil rights work right out of law school, who was elected and re-elected to the Senate, served as Secretary of State with an emphasis on American "soft power" and improving lives around the world.
If Bruni and many voters found her booooo-oooring, and the political press could not be bothered discussing policy, caught like deer in the headlights of a man whose policy announcement had the depth of "you're gong to love it, believe me", perhaps it's time to question how the campaign was covered, and what information the voters focused on.
Do we need glitz, or do we want knowledge and the interest in diving deep into policy, a trait that may not be found in self-promoting celebrities?
Let's stop attacking a woman who announced her candidacy at the FDR memorial, devoted the time to work out and propose an important set of policies designed to tackle a broad range of important problems, and who would have been a far better President than what the Republican electors (and Jill Stein voters) stuck us with.
87
"The people who voted in the Democratic primaries" was into many place, like New York, a group contorted to favor Hillary as badly as any Republican ever kept out the other side's votes.
9
Agreed. Competence is not always entertaining and inspirational. Americans are too easily swayed by glamour and glitz and too little concerned with intelligence and depth. We have seen the result all too well.
7
Reply to Mark-
1) Hillary Clinton was elected and re-elected Senator from New York. While I disagreed with her vote to authorize force in Iraq (I also disagreed with Bernie's vote to protect gun shop owners from lawsuits and his vote against Teddy Kennedy's immigration plan, and against both of their votes for invading Afghanistan, so no one is perfect) she did a very good job representing New York, from fighting for funds for those harmed by the 9/11 attacks to helping small businesses upstate
2) Anyone who checked the box "Democrat" when they registered to vote was eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. Nothing was rigged.
4
Whether we like it or not, the part of the population that decides elections is the 30% or so that has never read a book as an adult, and could never have done calculus even if an all out attempt had been made to teach it them as a child. For this segment, a dope who says he is a genius is way more preferable than a real genius. A real genius would have to be so much of a genius that he convinced the dopes he was a dope too.
7
That does not describe the Independents who actually do decide elections. That is just an arrogant assertion that those who disagree are ignorant. They'd many of them think the same of you.
12
"Is Oprah the Un-Trump, or the Un-Clinton?"
Neither: she is The Oprah, a woman who had very humble origins, believed in herself, made something good happen (without declaring financial bankruptcy multiple times, or even once?), has faced sexual and racial discrimination and overcome them, and more.
If she does not run then I hope the DNC can find candidates who would warrant her full support. Fight On !
15
I'm all for her being part of the political and cultural debate. That is different from running herself.
Well, if we elected Ms. Winfrey, at least we'd be sure our new president was a reader.
21
We would have no question that the president could actually read both books (!) and position papers. When Reagan was president, they offered him one page reports on massive, complex problems. With Trump, one page is far too long, which has pushed his basic literacy into a subject of debate.
Oprah for vice president, an ambassador of good will for the next administration and time to learn the ropes, too. Heck, let's just turn the whole presidency thing into a talk show.
2
Of very mainstream stuff requiring teen literacy. Obama is a reader of much wider and deeper tastes.
And was kind and compassionate and not a war-monger.
Nothing will galvanize all those disenfranchised white-working voters, whom the Democrats have ostensibly been wringing their hands over, than an Oprah candidacy. An Oprah candidacy WOULD be a replay of Clinton's because it would also assume that women and blacks, to the exclusion of everyone else, would carry the day.
Trump is a gift to the Democrats and once again they're blowing it. Why? Because any truly progressive agenda would discomfit their wealthy donors. Clinton was supposed to kick the can for a few more years and when that went South, they had no Plan B. Why don't Schumer and Pelosi take a few weeks off from tsk-tsking Trump and come up with an actual vision for the nation and not more impenetrable boilerplate, buried online in a dozen whitepapers, a la Hillary?
8
It would be a replay of some of what Hillary tried to be, but not of what she actually was seen to be by those who did not vote for her.
4
Stan and Mark - thank you for Trump. You two are the Un-Glue that holds the country together.
Clinton was a terrible fit only because Fox Republican propaganda painted her as such over a period of decades. And the Sanders folks repeated and bought into that same propaganda which said she was not only elitist and an insider but also a crook and a war monger. The motivating force behind the propaganda was nothing but misogynist. It was misogynist on Fox and it was misogynist when the Sanders folks parroted Fox at the Democratic party caucuses.
In some ways, Winfrey is the anti-Clinton. For example, she is brilliant at working a crowd whereas Clinton would have been brilliant at working a government. In others they are the same. Both are self-made, from working class roots. I can see why people are excited about a Winfrey presidency. But working a crowd is not what we need right now. Fixing the Trump debacle will be one of the largest challenges that we have ever had. For president, we need somebody who can work a government.
The Democrats must go high when the Republicans go low. They must continue to be the adults in the room, in resistance to, as one Republican senator said, the Trump Republican "adult day care center."
28
Take a step back, Democrats. Last election i came to the unescapable conclusion that the Dems have become a party of starfudgers, as they no longer seem to have the remotest clue what they stand for or who their "base" is. So go ahead and try to run a likeable billionairess, and hope that enough of the electorate is as cheap a date as the fawners are. Or you could do the hard graft of hammering out policies and platform, and cough up an action plan, and put the voters before donors. Or you could run better candidates at the state and federal level to come up with a better bench and farm team. (I'm not saying none of them are good enough for me, but they don't seem to be good wnough for the party.) I'm not holding my breath here.
I hold no brief for Al Franken, and i'm not bereft to see the back of him. But i will give him that he at least had an undergrad degree in poli sci, so at least he had some idea how it all worked and what was involved in the job as opposed to going in cold.
5
Qualifications for the Office of President
White America cannot lecture African American Males or Females about who is qualified to be the President of the United States and who can run for that office. After all White America, more than 65% chose Trump, the least qualified individual ever to be President. While African Americans chose the most qualified candidate for this position, Hillary Clinton, with over 95% of their vote. Which group has the best record of voting for what's good for all of America rather than what's good for only White America. Article II, Section One of the US Constitution says Oprah Winfrey is qualified to run and be President of the United States. That's good enough for me. If you want to run Oprah, do it! It's your Constitutional right.
10
My god, what planet are you living on. This is just what Planet Earth needs: race-based cheap shots. Satisfying one clause of our Consitution might be good enough for you, it's not for me.
FYI: White America has the right to speak out. I don't think anyone is trying to lecture a racial segment of the population, but you have construed things this way.
Get a grip.
1
Unlike many NYTimes columnists & commenters, I used to watch Oprah back in the 1990s. She is brilliant at demonstrating empathy and has inspired millions of readers with her love of books. I would agree that she is a National Treasure.
However.
Episode after episode was about encouraging women to BUY things to feel better about themselves. Crackpot diets, exercise programs, designer clothes, candles for home shrines, sexy underwear....As she got richer, she started giving her live audiences gifts, but those show were still an hour long ads.
Even worse, whenever she had doctors or scientists on the show, she seemed to invariably to favor the charlatans and silence the actual academics. She repeatedly hosted anti-vaxers and gave the world Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz, both of whom spend most of their time shilling their own dubious products.
We do not need another scientifically-illiterate president. Not even a warm, charming, inspiring, beautiful black woman.
52
You are so right on, Oh Please. Oprah Winfrey said he became who she is by "divine intervention," and doe snot believe in "luck." Her new age Christianity is weird. She even thought well of Trump in 2016. Kurt Anderson's Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire over 20 pages on Oprah's pals like Shirley McClain, Dr Oz and others.
4
Well said! Thank you.
1
Would you vote for someone who descended, vulture like, on Sabbathday Lake, and bid 3 million dollars for a genuine Shaker chair?
Oprah can be the un-whatever she likes, as long as she is the un-candidate.
6
I have to wonder if there is a dog whistle hiding in some of these comments, including this one.
What on earth is the issue? Somebody owned a Shaker chair, and decided to sell it. It was sold at auction. Somebody had to be the high bidder. If Oprah won the chair, then somebody else was willing to pay very nearly as much.
Is the seller vulture-like? Did the second, third, and fourth highest bidders descend "vulture-like" upon the auction? If so, isn't that what the seller wanted? Whatever Oprah paid for it, if she had offered much less, she wouldn't have won it. Would she have been vulture-like, if she had watched forlornly as someone else bough the chair with a higher bid?
I haven't heard any suggestions that Oprah acquired her wealth through nefarious or secret deals. It's her money, if she chooses to spend it on Shaker chairs at an open auction there is nothing "vulture like" about it.
4
What about Trump's purchases? Oprah earned her money and can spend it how she likes. She doesn't need to apologize. Does Trump?
1
Consider your words the next time Opie gets all gooey about compassion for those less fortunate. And yes, all those bidders were vultures, circling the last remains of the Shaker movement as it slowly dies out. But only one of them is being touted to take her elegantly posed decolletage to the White House.
Why not resurrect the show Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous and pick our next president from the cast? Just to thought of Oprah's name being floated for 2020 tells me we really need to lay on a couch and talk to a therapist about our Star Envy. 45 is making folks yearn for low Energy Jeb Bush or Little Hand Marco. Oprah did a great job on her talk show but how does that translate to being leader of the Free World.? I wish we could find someone who knows what it is to have to decide what bill has to be paid first at the end of the month.
14
Like your style, Steve!
1
All I can say is please Dems, don't latch onto Oprah for president. Not a good choice. Best get someone more presidential material with more world views and very clued in on the constitution. We don't need a repeat of little hands. No, Oprah, don't run.
7
Oprah is the last person who should be running out of the Democrat's list of listless candidates. Her out of touch millionaire style will discourage the liberal base from voting, while her race and representation of the "liberal snowflake" stereotype will furiously energize the conservative base.
Democrats need a mean, nasty, take-nothing-from-nobody liberal in the LBJ, Anthony Weiner, or Eliot Spitzer mold. People didn't vote for Trump because he's a celebrity, they voted for him because he turned the election into a daily WWE match. Let's get ready to rumble and show the country that Democrats have fighters too (now let's just find one not mired in scandal)
4
Please, we had two nasty candidates vying for the presidency last year, Trump and Clinton, and the voters stayed home.
Democrats want fair, government, not mean government.
Sanders 2020.
1
You've made a very underappreciated statement, people like Trump because he claimed to bring law and order to our out-of-control system. We should never have believed he could or would do this, but we did. I like your WWE analogy.
Rahm Emmanuel it is then.
(I'm with JRS.)
1
If we want someone "brightly inspirational" who will "radiate empathy" but with more firsthand knowledge and experience of Washington's ways, we could do worse than try to persuade Michelle Obama to run.
3
Please. We don't needhetoric without a track record of public service. And a few years as an 'organizer,' a career as an elected politician, isn't the same as a career of public service dedicated to the commone good. We've lost sight of what public service should be about.
Oh, and being the First Wife really dousn't count as a serious qualification for the presidency.
2
I think Oprah is really great. She’s a woman. She’d black. She is a real billionaire. She came up from nothing. She’s personable. And her political positions! Wow. I just love her position on Iran. And her thoughts on health care? Out of this wold! Take her position on how to handle trade policy . . . and create jobs. Pure genius. What’s more, she’s a really stable genius. And how about her position on Dodd-Frank? Inspired. And then there’s her clever ideas about big pharma — very effective (if you forget the part about vaccinations causing autism). And that dress! Simply scrumptious. What could possibly go wrong?
On the other hand, there are women like Kamala Harris (and others) who actually have experience in government and relevant educational training whose policy positions we actually know something about. But then why would we turn to them? This is the glorious age of quick answers, know nothingism, and throw the rascals out. My ignorance is as good as your knowledge. My Trump is better than your Trump. Go for it, Democrats.
Make America (even) Greater Again!
3
Kamala Harris is just Hillary all over again. That already lost. Republican Lite pretending to be something else just long enough for an election is not going to be the enthusiastic votes needed.
5
Mark Thomason you don't know what kind of leader Hillary would have been. She had a progressive platform before Bernie started denigrating her for the republicans. Hillary didn't have the luxury to carry on like Bernie. Was she supposed to go against the sitting president in her party?
2
AM -- We do know some of what she would have done, what she publicly said about specific things. She'd have done the TPP after the slightest cosmetic changes. She'd have enlarged the Syrian War, and taken the US into fighting in Libya and Ukraine at least. She'd have given something back, whatever she promised in secret in those Wall Street speeches she hid. She would not have done single-payer, and her opposition would have prevented the present drive for it. We know enough.
If commentators like Mr. Bruni were to note the fact that Sec Clinton received 2.87 million more votes than Trump and 3 million more than Sanders and then tried to explain the significance of that fact away then at least they would be intellectually honest. Instead this fact is ignored and we get this repeated narrative that she was not "goosepimply". If we did take note of Ms. Clinton's vote totals then we would have to go into issues of how the electoral college now gives each resident of Wyoming the same voting clout as 6 voters in California ( one of the reasons Trump never visits our most populous state) and that would get in the way of the tabloid frippery of this piece.
21
I can't vote of course, but I can have an opinion. I have long found Oprah to be a very annoying leader of a cult-like multitude of magical woo thinkers (remember, she introduced the world to Drs. Phil, Oz and Chopra). I've never bought her schtick and I would find it very difficult to vote for her.
Nevertheless I would, that is how objectionable and despicable I find Trump to be.
10
Trump won the Electoral College less because of his "charisma than because Hillary Clinton was a historically poor - and mismatched - candidate: the evasions about her emails, her sloppiness about conflict-of-interest issues, her behavior with regard to her husband's sexual misbehavior (which mooted Trump's), her paucity of accomplishments as senator and secretary of state, her smugness as the presumptive candidate (and winner), her disdain of Bernie Sanders, and the overriding fact that she was . . . Hillary Clinton. Oprah is Oprah. Other than their oft-sworn fealty to feminism, they have nothing, really, in common. Whether Oprah should run for president is another matter.
2
An excellent description of why Clinton lost, rather than Trump won.
It constantly amazes me that our media professionals spend so little time discussing the subliminal emotional reaction of the electorate to the candidates. If competence determined, Gore and Kerry would have won over Bush easily. But neither of them was relaxed and confident enough in the spotlight. Obama was, and he won twice. Clinton was horrible, and managed incredibly to lose to Trump.
But the Dem field has no charismatic candidates. Capable, learned people who are also charismatic on TV are exceedingly rare. Bill Clinton could do it, as could Obama. I would argue that Reagan was not capable, but he certainly was charismatic and he had been governor of California.
You have to counter a Trump with another Trump. He appealed to voters most base instincts: racism, nationalism, xenophobia and false nostalgia. Oprah appeals to their best. That is why they are different. (Oh, and she's a real self-made billionaire, not a fake one. Love to see her show her tax returns and taunt Trump to show his.)
Should the president be a celebrity? No. But somehow we are here. Decades of entertaining but not educating the public have brought us here. The Republican strategy of facts don't matter, distract with wedge issues, and keep the electorate dumbed down is how we got here. We are fools to not play their game. (If Pence is the candidate instead of Trump, we may not have to.)
1
I am sure I would disagree with 90% of Oprah's polices. But having people from the business world such as her and Trump is a welcomee development. The fewer the politicians we have the better. Bureaucrats and technocrats can implement policies. But the policies are the important part.
P.S. Still can't believe that the Dems nominated Hillary Clinton. Trump should be on Mount Rushmore for saving the country from the ever so capable, experienced, prepared, brilliant, qualified, etc.. Hillary who did not even campaign in Mich, Penn, Wisc. Whew that was a close one. Talk about dodging a bullet.
5
Uninformed and opinionated just like Trump.
Clinton didn't campaign in Pennsylvania? The Democratic Convention was in Philadelphia. Clinton and Kaine headed out from the Convention for a one-week jobs-focused bus trip across Pennsylvania.
Just because you ignored everything she said, doesn't mean that she didn't say it, although I do understand if you didn't hear about it because email email
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/an-economy-that-works-for-everyone/
1
Since bush 1, we've had: a serial womanizer and liar with good political skills, a rich, privledged, former drunk and coke addict, a nice black guy with zero experience and accomplishments and a celebrity, reality star who thinks he's the center of the universe and maybe a pawn of a hostile power. I get that we've shown over the last 25 years ANYBODY can be president, and the country will survive, and who doesn't love a celebrity, but can we at least think about going back to boring, experienced and somewhat competent?
5
Oprah is neither the un-Trump or the un-Clinton. She’s the “UN-QUALIFIED” !!!
7
Michelle Obama before Oprah!
5
So President Winfrey isn't your cup of celebrity?
Who are we to poo-poo the charismatocracy?
If Mr. Ed can be President, isn't Oprah a step or forty up, or at least out of the manure?
Aren't Americans really just interested in electing someone--typically a tall, white man with a strong jaw-- they like to look at and listen to, who doesn't bore them or make them feel too dumb, seems kinda fun, nice but not too nice, seems strong and will keep them safe, and number one... and is cool with Jesus?
What if, instead of soundbites and attacks during watered down "debates", candidates were seen engaged in prolonged role play exercises in crisis scenarios? We'd see how they think, how they joke, how well they absorb and use information, how they make decisions, relate to others, what their first concerns are, what questions they'll ask, how smart and wise are they really?
What if we took the process significantly away from for-profit media?
Have journalists plus teams of world-class experts in important fields; the sciences, history, economics, law, etc. run it, inteview them, discuss with them--and the viewers.
What if we attempted to hire professional leadership, not carnival barkers, TV stars, religious fanatics, billionaires, opportunists, corporate shills, and lunatics?
Ok, I sound like some kind of kook.
If countries get the government and leaders they deserve, we should all look under our seats...and the inspections should continue up in that area until we find our heads.
3
One must fear for democracy when so many voters are so easily misled.
Hitler came to power by sucking up to the aristocracy and the military, while making grandiose, unfulfilled, promises to the working people. He scapegoated the Jews, the Poles, and the Czechs. He pandered to the thugs of Germany. Trump has done the same thing with all his MAGA malarkey. He had the support of much of the business community because he could guarantee them lower taxes. He promised big military expenditures. He created scapegoats of the Chinese, the Mexicans and the Muslims, and peddled his lies to an unsophisticated electorate for whom scapegoating resonated. Trump had no previous government experience, and it is now apparent that he had no managerial expertise, either. We cannot afford the luxury of inept dilettantes.
If we are going to recover from the 2016 debacle, we're going to have to find people with the expertise to get things done. Government service requires a wide range of skills that are too often sadly lacking. We also need to either educate the voters, an unlikely scenario, or demand integrity from our candidates, perhaps also unlikely. But we're not going to survive by fooling some of the people all the time. And a warm, fuzzy demeanor isn't going to get the job done.
Please, Oprah, leave this to professionals. Why subject yourself to the nastiest pit of vipers on the planet? You're a rich, likable person with a large fan base. Leave it alone, for your sake as well as ours.
5
Besides all the things you said about Clinton's faults, there is the issue of her corruption, the fact that she got ahead not on her own but on the back of her husband, and that her campaign was a put off even to me ( a 70 something professional female from the east coast)- " I'm with her"!!! can there be anything as narcissitic and politically stupid as that? How about I am with you? absolutely nauseating.
5
I find it interesting that qualifications only matter when its a person of color running for the highest office in America. I hardly call the slew of White Males who have won the Presidency extremely qualified or equal to the tasks. Many of them have run the economy into the ground, tacitly or openly supported slavery, Jim Crow, and white supremacist groups and have started unnecessary wars that the nation had to be embroiled with for many years. They do not care about the environment, the poor, education, equality and opportunity for all. Things that make the nation greater than when it was created. Oprah is educated, well travelled, well versed in a lot of topics. Also, she would only surround herself with competent and capable people if she were to run the nation. Right now we have a President who embraces Nazis, Alt Right, KKK and other hate groups. He is a no nothing and do nothing. All he is a White Man with a pulse...I guess that makes him qualified...That's why the nation is in such peril and will continue to be.
2
Oprah is another Obama - paper-thin resume with modest/no accomplishments who can give a heck of a speech and would pair perfectly with Beyonce for VP.
Though I haven't heard her Al Green chops yet I must admit.
1
Cory Booker
2
Oprah should run because she might be able to win and, if she won, she would be respectful of the nation and its citizens. Now, that would be a big change.
She should not run because she is not prepared to be president, nor could she become prepared over the next three years. Preparing for the presidency is fundamentally a lifetime job. I would argue that such preparation is 60% mental and perhaps 40% experiential. You have to think far in advance about how you would handle certain problems and have the capacity to think 20 chess board moves ahead and then to imagine what is beyond those moves.
Scholars of the presidency have long noted the rapidity and the sheer volume of problems that pass through the White House, like trying to drink from a fire hose. Then, something much bigger will arise, something that involves the well being and lives of perhaps millions of people.
G.W. Bush stubbed his feet on Katrina because he and his staff didn't understand the importance of acting, didn't grasp the scope of the problem and failed to comprehend how a failure to act decisively would look here and around the world. This kind of flub, though not as grandly perceived, happens to presidents all the time.
There is no reason to believe that Oprah is prepared for the difficulties and complexities of the presidency. She would be a good, inspiring speaker, a great symbol of a presidency, but she would likely get cut to pieces by the opposition and frustrated in the job.
2
Oprah would be pilloried by the right as a new age guru. And she provided the justification for such a characterization by getting just one word wrong in her Golden Globes Speech. She said the boldest thing one can do is "speak your truth." YOUR truth? How about THE truth. We are being inundated daily by those speaking their truth, Trump, Bannon, Wolff, the media talking heads, even Oprah herself. We need someone who will look squarely at our world and tell us THE truth about it.
3
"None of this is an argument for her candidacy, which would be a mistake in many ways. How effectively could Democrats disparage Trump as a political novice who got in over his head if they were backing another novice, no matter how much more serious-minded she was?"
It would be hard to write a more logically fallacious paragraph it that is what you had originally set out to do.
Nobody cares about anybody being a "novice", and that was the least of the concerns or arguments that any Democrat had concerning Trump. The idea that the GOP is going to be able to successfully club us over the head with that argument is laughable.
Oprah would not be my first choice (A Sherrod Brown/Kamala Harris ticket is), but is Oprah a fascinating and exciting possibility, and one that could win?
Absolutely.
3
Yes, we like inspirational, but not realistic. We refuse to really discuss taxation policy as citizens. We refuse to talk about underfunded pensions and elderly with inadequate savings and social security. We refuse to talk about a good, humane and even affordable public housing effort. We refuse to talk about community and compassion and equality as reasons we don't want billionaires and poverty. We like Oprah and Trump. They don't do specifics. We love democracy and hate citizenship.
2
But why did't the smart, experienced Clinton connect? Because basically she didn't really care about her duty to the citizens. She was after her own prestige,power and money. That's how its always been with the ethically challenged Clintons. Sure they're way, way better than GOP---what a low standard to beat.
Oprah talks plain, simple, emotionally. But please---let's get past this hoop la. She's not the one to negotiate with Putin, and other world leaders, of course.
Anti elitist is not anti erudition. Erudite? We don't need erudite. We need realistic, plain communication on the issues affecting all our lives.
Any democracy must be anti elitist. But US politics/policy is now driven by elites, in case you've noticed, Mr. Bruni. The profits/power of elites multiply as they pay for our elections and set policy limits for congress. . And our media pundits never discuss antidotes, or comparisons--- such as other democracies who use more public funding and ban big money campaign ads that flood our media. That topic is off limits it seems.
Elite control of our politics,despite our ideals, is what's caused our downward mobility and and weakened middle class. Enter Trump. Now enter Oprah? We ARE desperate.
Please write a column on elite vs anti elite that makes sense.
3
One problem seems to be that we persist is seeking candidates who can win, rather than candidates who can govern.
6
Eyeroll. Another "think piece" trying to pit Oprah Winfrey - a performer - against Hillary Clinton - a public servant. I have no regrets about my 2016 vote. I have a great deal of concern about voter suppression and other forms of disenfranchisement, which I firmly believe lost Clinton the Electoral College. Please stop making women into opponents and "opposites" when they are not.
10
We don't need Oprah we need a return to normalcy.
Trump has made himself toxic enough that if he's still president by then I think whoever the Democratic nominee is will win in 2020.
2
Here's an essential truth of Presidential politics: editorial writers like Mr. Bruni (rightly) focus on the policy and experience of candidates, and many voters (rightly) pay attention. But many voters don't understand policy and undervalue experience, focusing more on the personal demeanor of the candidates. We tend to think of this as a product of the television age, but it's always been true on some level.
These voters aren't simply wrong. Personal charisma is inarguably a significant part of Presidential leadership. We've been fortunate that up to this point in our history, Presidents who have been long on charisma but short on other qualifications have (by and large) understood their shortcomings, surrounded themselves with advisors that could make up for them - and most importantly - listened. Unfortunately, such is not the case with our current President.
Ms. Winfrey might be capable of constructing such a team, but thus far, there is no evidence of that. And the Democratic Party cannot field a challenger to the President whose bona fides are limited to celebrity and wealth, or they will surrender what little moral high ground they currently hold.
If Ms. Winfrey really wanted to be President, she has already missed her best chance: divesting from her business empire to run for Congress during Obama's first term, and running as an heir to Obama's legacy in 2016. If she had done so, she might be President today. Perhaps even a good one.
3
I did not hear Oprah's speech at the Golden Globes. But, I did just now read the full text. What strikes me is that although she did touch upon the value of a free press, which was expected given who was giving out the honors, Her speech primarily addressed racial and gender injustice. No one should doubt the importance and urgency of these issues. Nonetheless, one can make a case that the speech continued progressive's narrow focus on identity-based issues, which can only lead to divisiveness and defeat.
3
I prefer to think that we now have a more involved, and more educated voter and we can thank Trump and his cabal for that. He broke through the complacency that many Americans shared thinking that their president and their Congress would always represent the people and not special interests, or be in the pay of wealthy donors who are dictating our legislation and our foreign policy. They are changing America to make it all white and all wealthy.
Oprah is the 'stable genius' that Trump claims to be. She is also an involved citizen with a great deal of empathy and compassion for others. However, she cannot be considered a serious candidate just because she is personally the antithesis of Trump.
Voters need an informed, educated, experienced, qualified candidate. I think Trump's impersonation of a president and his alternate reality show will not get a makeover but a complete cancellation, with no future programing to be considered, not even from OWN.
1
Politics, despite the evidence before us, is a profession. It starts out with local election and progresses through the stages to higher office. That experience builds confidence, competence, contacts and constituency. And that is what makes success in high office.
Oprah wouldn't turn her company over to an inexperienced CEO. Charming as she is, politics is not her profession.
4
Politics was never meant to be a "profession!" In fact, the opposite. America was supposed to be a place where citizens — merchants, farmers, professionals, clergy — served in office for a limited office then went back to their jobs.
At 58 I've never voted Republican, but in this past campaign, the person I was most drawn toward personally was John Kasich, who seemed sincere, dignified and thoughtful. (Though his stance on abortion was a concern, he seemed genuinely willing to consider another person's viewpoint.)
At this stage in my life as a citizen, I think that an inability to give a rousing speech is a positive qualification.
3
As many people realize, but have to be reminded of, there is a difference between campaigning and governing. In an age of social media,billionaires who are tired of making money, and people who desire celebrity in their own lifetimes, the gap is widening.
Hillary, as you suggest and she admitted, was not as talented a campaigner as her husband or Barack Obama. But she would have been a better president that either--more restrained than Bill and more experienced and more willing to schmooze with fellow politicians than Barack.
The factor that kept her from winning the nomination in 2008 and the election in 2016, was that people were upset about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States is still the strongest nation in the world, militarily and economically, but its citizens have lost confidence in its ability to shape world events. They want the U.S. to withdraw from the world stage, and focus on strengthening itself and themselves.
Hilary Clinton is a liberal internationalist in favor of free trade, low tariffs, and intervening, if necessary, in foreign crises that strike her and her advisers as crucial to our national interests. That is the main reason she lost, especially in the states of the upper mid-west, which have traditionally been isolationist.
This mood of neo-isolationism and "making America great again" will not pass soon, and any Democrat hoping to win in 2020 would be wise to adjust to it.
3
Oprah is an amazing person, and her voice is well worth attention. But she is an amateur at politics, and another presidential amateur is the last thing this country needs.
When this started, though, the first thing I thought was about us. When did we turn into a country where huge numbers of people are content, and even glad, to grasp at straws and hope for the best?
2
Oprah could be elected to relatively high office if she ran but she would win because she is a celebrity, not because of her good ideas and preparation for accomplishing what she might advocate, and that is the problem. We are electing people based upon our emotions about them, not because we know that they will act according to our wants and needs, which means we are not using our rational faculties to choose our representatives, and that is why we are becoming more and more dissatisfied with our government and it's ability to address our needs, satisfactorily.
Oprah can help the Dems identify a candidate, and win. It should not be her, for the reasons outlined in the essay. While the country does benefit from a kind-hearted, empathetic, charismatic leader, that leader also needs to be highly knowledgeable about government, the constitution, and have, at minimum, a working knowledge, if the law, economics and foreign policy.
1
We Democrats do not need a mega celebrity like Oprah as president. We need a deeply empathetic man or woman with a profound grasp of the issues most people care about — jobs, education, a secure retirement, health care, and more. This person doesn’t have to be glamorous. And though I think the world of Joe Biden, it’s time for a younger person to step up.
1
Oprah Winfrey shouldn't run for president because the job would be beneath her. Why would she want to get down in the mud with Republican operatives who will scrutinize every word she's said over the last decades, cherry-pick items that didn't go completely according to plan, and play the race card even more venomously than they did in 2016? There would be innuendoes about her sexual orientation, her business enterprises, whether or not she's had an abortion, and what they can't find they'd make up or take out of context.
Oprah is in a class by herself, arguably the most famous woman in the world, a female version of Muhammad Ali. But Republicans would work overtime attempting to bring her down, as well as some Democratic presidential wannabes who realize that if she decides to run the nomination will be hers. She doesn't need the agita, and I hope she wont' run.
3
Oprah Winfrey is talented and a genius in communicating via television. She has a brand as a spiritual mentor to her audience and a provider of information about how to live your best life.
Why would she trade her very successful brand for a political run where her opponents will seek to diminish her in every way possible. She has seen what was done to the Obamas, the racial and personal attacks, does she want that on a daily basis and most important of all would she want to lose her stature as a spiritual and moral leader which in this very nasty and polarized moment in our history is a very distinct possibility.
Right on! In addition to being "brightly inspirational" we Dems MUST nominate a competent political executive, preferably a current or former governor who has proven that he or she understands and can handle the job of being the chief executive officer of the most powerful nation on earth that was once the leader of the free world. America will rush to competence even more enthusiastically than it will to inspiration. Oprah would lose influence as a candidate. She has a breathtaking level of influence in our society which I for one hope she will use to help us restore our confidence, dignity, and self respect. But most of all we need someone in The White House who understands what government is, how it works, how to make it work better, and who thereby can bring back some level of stability to the nation and our spirit.
We have several really excellent women who are now currently in politics, any one of whom would make a terrific candidate and a savvy, effective president. But — SURPRISE! — they're women, and thus wide open to being savaged by — GASP! — men. Even if their credentials were 99% impeccable, they will be faulted for even their slightest missteps. And She would be up against Trump, whose record for disparaging all other human beings is, in my experience, unequaled. But Oprah could take him on and make mincemeat of him. She is a highly intelligent woman who loves to learn, and can and will do so. She also knows how and when to ask for and take advice. She's an excellent judge of character, so I think she'd make good choices for her team. Yes, she is a celebrity — but I don't see why that should be a stumbling block. If another woman appears on the scene who can project the smarts, empathy, intellectual curiosity, and general appeal of Oprah, great; she'd get my vote. But I can't see anyone like that on the horizon. So I hope that Oprah will become a candidate and show her mettle. And FYI, I'm white, a preppy to the bone, and over 60.
1
How about all of the above? The past four presidents have ranged from sub-par to disappointing. It's time the country should at least have the opportunity to elect a strong person who understands business as well as she does the human factor of success. By birth, she is not an elite - and this works in her favor if she will allow it to do so. If she does not, she won't be elected.
I don't want charisma and charm. I want brains and competency. Clinton was a great candidate and I miss her.
20
Frank, you say, "That person may not be Oprah. But he or she will be Oprah-esque." And, pray tell, who might that person be? We know all of the players, don't we? Who is this Democratic Savior and will s/he fall out of the sky? I agree that Oprah is not the right person to put forward as President, but I don't see anyone close to her persona or spirit who can inspire as brightly or empathize as radiantly.
1
One inspiring speech does not make a presidency. Oprah handles weight loss, broken hearts, difficult parent-child relationships and other personal issues/challenges with compassion and amazing listening skills but it is really hard to imagine her dealing with Russia, China and North Korea. Or balancing the budget or formulating policies. In short, any matter to do with governance. One last note, the press might not be so "friendly" anymore. Their demand for transparency might not fit well with Oprah's desire for privacy. So, Oprah, please don't run.
4
As much as I appreciate this editorial and share Mr. Bruni's views, please let me make one very important correction. We Democrats don't despair over picking Hillary Clinton in the least; we despair over the fact she was picked FOR us and thrust into the role for which no one outside her circle was clamoring!
Clinton's nomination and ultimate failure falls squarely on the shoulders of Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the DNC, whose anointing of Clinton opened the door for the rogues' gallery of Putin, Comey, and Facebook to become players in our election. Trump states in the general election had been Bernie states in the Democratic primaries.
What is most insulting is that media and powerbrokers from New York and Washington mock the idea of a "coastal elite," but demonstrate it is alive and well by continuing this charade in which Schultz is removed and shielded from all criticism. Moreover, she is still treated as a legitimate political entity, while Donna Brazile's lament for the DNC went largely ignored.
Mr. Bruni is right. Oprah is the opposite of Clinton, but she is also the opposite of Trump. She came from nothing and built a media empire. She is the poster child for capitalism as much as the cult of charisma. But a revived Mahatma Gandhi couldn't get the Democratic nomination as long as Inner Beltway insiders and coastal media refuse to hold the DNC accountable for thrusting us into this disaster in the first place. Cue the exile of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
4
She wasn't anointed. Nothing was rigged. The real Democrats who voted for her don't think she was picked for us. We considered her to be the most qualified candidate and still do. Bernie supporters do not represent the majority of democrats. Still Berning. Still full of hate.
Actually, I am not a Bernie lover. I felt he was too focused on domestic policy. I wanted Elizabeth Warren and still do. But when it was clear the DNC had made up its mind Hillary was the chosen one, Sen. Warren and all other viable candidates stayed out of the race.
I voted for Hillary, and I think she would make an excellent President...in a perfect world. A world where she and her husband weren't dismissing the appearance of impropriety, and where Republicans weren't hellbent on investigating her every move.
Had Hillary been elected, we'd be watching the stalemate in Washington right now, which I grant would be better than the lunatic asylum it currently is. But those didn't have to be our only two options.
To me, this seems to simply embrace the current populist-at-the-expense-of-known-competence politics epitomized by the "great" one. Sure, a person inexperienced in governing may do well, but to me, that does not reward our public servants who have worked hard and well to develop the skills, and above all, the judgment necessary to be good leader.
I believe that we need to take ourselves seriously as a country, including our responsibility as citizens and voters to make sure we stay well-informed about the issues of the day; all issues, not just the one that affects us the most. That includes keeping up with the people who have stood up to represent us in government.
My opinion is that a president should have some history in public service and demonstrated competence in their functions. Oprah might be the best president ever, I mean the second best (I guess I have to say that given that we apparently have the best president now according to self-reviews), but do we really want to send that message to all of the public servants with track records in government? What does that say to them? These people, the humble serious ones, are in it for us and have put in the time to learn, collaborate, and make laws on our behalf.
I don't think that is a trivial resume when considering candidates for president of the US. Or, we can go the People magazine/TV show route and continue to show the world how we are slipping into mediocrity as a country that the world wants to look up to.
2
Oprah is enjoying this bump in popularity because she eloquently told her like minded supporters what they wanted to hear.
Perhaps American voters should pay more attention to candidates who are not saying what they want to hear. Like the consequences of running up $20+ trillion dollars of debt and the budget cuts and tax increases needed to fix that deficit. The costs of doing nothing about climate change. The difficult changes ahead for our workforce as technology changes our life. That’s not even touching healthcare, social justice and military conflicts.
The candidate who can bluntly lead us into that conversation is the one worth listening to.
1
I like Oprah and I respect her views however she is not a quantified candidate for president. She lacks the experience, skill and political knowledge to manage the executive branch of government. She has no formal training in government or law and no experience in state government or other institutions of elected and appointed officials. Becoming president requires more than popularity and strong liberal views and good intentions. It requires knowledge of international affairs, knowledge of how state and local governments operate and deep understanding of rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. Oprah would have to rely upon the skills and experience of others to navigate and take the helm of our ship of state. That is not what we need or want. We want an experienced helmsman or helms-woman. There are many well qualified governors, senators and members of congress who are prepared and who share liberal and progressive views.
After the fiasco of Mr. Trump we should be very wary of more TV and Hollywood stars as leaders of our nation. Many representatives within the state legislatures are also well seasoned and qualified.
This is a time for serious candidates with years of experience. The presidency is not reality TV. The White House is not a stage set for actors. The challenges of the presidency affect America, American Citizens, our friends and allies, and the rest of the free world. National and world affairs require more than actors. No thank you Oprah.
2
I want Oprah to continue to uplift, empower, and inspire us all. She is a powerful intellect, and a force of human spirit.
But I don't want her as my president, any more than I want my family nurse practitioner taking out my gallbladder. Yes the NP shares some qualities with a surgeon.....but they are still not qualified to operate.
My first reaction yesterday was please, Oprah, we don't need another TV celebrity president. I don't want the U.S. to turn into end-stage Ancient Rome where popular gladiators were elevated to Caesar, just before the whole empire took a permanent dive. But today I thought about the current, exceptionally uninspiring cast of potential Democratic candidates who are beginning to surface. The usual suspects. Suddenly Oprah started to look good, really good. What the Democratic power brokers don't seem to understand is we need a candidate who can inspire us, who we like, who doesn't talk like a politician because we've had enough of old-timey politicians. No one really knows how to be president until they're in the position. I would bet on Oprah to do the best job ahead of any of the others at this point. We'll see what happens.
Back in 1999 when Trump made a tentative, short-lived run for the presidency, he considered Oprah to be his dream running mate:
"I tell you, she's really a great woman. She is a terrific woman. She is somebody that is very special," Trump said.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/01/08/donald-trump-floated-the-ide...
Today Trump has become the standard by which his challengers will be measured, compared and contrasted.
In 2016 he won the Republican nomination against tremendous party opposition and correctly sussed out the mood of the country without the use of expensive polling.
And now he sits at the hub of the political wheel of fortune -- the Skylla and Kharybdis through which the 2020 odyssey to the presidency must sail.
And we cannot agree that he is a political genius?
Stable? We hope and pray, but there's no denying he pulled off the unimaginable ... and 20 years ago he understood something about Oprah that Golden Globe watchers figured out only recently.
1
If Oprah, or any other celebrity, have political ambitions, they should WORK at politics. IT's not a game, and it's not showbiz. And I'm really sick and tired of 'soaring' speeches. There is far too much emoting in American public life, and too little real discussion.
4
Precisely why should we exchange one commercial celebrity and billionaire, who has never previously held elective office, for another?
Here’s a novel idea: why don’t the major parties nominate someone who is intelligent, accomplished in public service, humble, magnanimous, kind? Someone who doesn’t presume to know everything, but wise enough to find the people whose skill sets for their charges are appropriate to the administration of the country. Someone whose daily emphasis is what is best for the United States and all the people in it, not her or his own interest. Physical appearance, celebrity, charisma and wealth should be least important qualities for the job. In fact, how about a candidate with all the requisite qualities, but whose total net worth is the median of American families? Is that too much to ask? Really?
1
It's shocking how popular it is - especially among Democrats - to bash Hillary Clinton, especially now in light of the speculation around Oprah.
It's not unusual for people to want theatrics and change when voting for a president. Trump checked these boxes magnificently in 2016. And Oprah would surely do the same in 2020 if she ran (but on a much more competent level).
But it's staggering to what degree voters - and the press - discount true competence and skill. Yes, Hillary has been around a while and yes, she yearned to be President. But so what?!
When hearing her interviewed the last several months on any topic, it's hard not to realize what command she has of issues and how she would have been one of the smartest, most qualified leaders ever to run for office.
But in the eyes of too many, I guess this doesn't provide a good story! So look what we got instead.
4
If Oprah and Trump are the nominees, we will never have serious government again. Depending on the state of the world in 2020 I am not sure I would even prefer electing her over Trump. The cost of fully celebritizing the presidency, while also consolidating its powers, is too high. If we want monarchs or mascots, let's do that and take away the nuclear button. If we can keep Trump as a unique disaster and go back to serious policymakers and public servants for future presidents then we might have a chance.
Nope. I'd like a candidate that's qualified to run the government and lead the country, not another PR - expert celebrity, regardless of how nice, well-meaning or correct he/she is.
Anyone can talk a good game, but we need people who understand the process of government and the people in it. Not another movie-star, TV reality show actor, or business tycoon who got his/her start from Daddy's millions. Nope. Done with that.
Listening to Oprah’s speech on Sunday, her delivery and determined tone were reminiscent of President Obama’s. There are good reminders of President Obama in Mrs. Winfrey, such as her early endorsement of his candidacy as ‘the real deal,’ or her interview at the last Christmas in the Obama White House.
The catch is, she can’t be President Obama. Oprah has not even dipped her toes into politics. She has not endured opposition attacks. She has good values and visions, but that does not translate into executing policy.
Never mind Oprah not being Trump or Hillary Clinton. She would have a weight on her of stirring nostalgia for President Obama, which she would not be able to fully live up to.
Can we please, for the love of Country, stop talking, writing, blogging, thinking about the presidential election. It is two years away.
This year we are in midterm election mode and every breath that is not spent in convincing people to get out and vote (and vote D) is a waste of oxygen.
t rump is really still just a symptom of the disease (albeit a very, very bad symptom); the disease is the republican party that has declared war on democracy. Without showing every republican in office the exit this year we cannot mend our Nation. We will not get our government back from oligarchs like the Kochs, the Mercers, the Adlesons without a massive defeat this year for republicans who control Congress, State Houses, governorships, and dog catchers.
It is not up to the Democratic Party, either. This must be done by We the People. 2020 will be too late.
2
Voting for personalities rather than political ideas is what got us into the mess we are in now. Unfortunately, our presidential elections have become nothing more than a popularity contest. Substantive political ideas and policies have become mere afterthoughts. How about electing someone the world could take seriously? Where is our Angela Merkel?
1
The problem with Trump is not that he is inexperienced. Maybe not quite so, but Obama was inexperienced, too, and he was the best president the US had in a VERY long time. Trump's problem is that he comes from an angle that in principle doesn't like government at all if it does not serve the purpose of, yes, Trump. Trump has put every mechanism into play to destroy government. Relationships, institutional knowledge, trust, leadership, compassion have all left the government. For Trump being erratic is part of the system. One day he sidles up with Democrats only to betray them the next move. Allies are transactional. They put him in the White House, and then they become loosers.
Trump incites division as in Divide et Impera. While we are focusing on his meaningless Tweets, he dismantles the foundation of our country. For him there could have not been a better diversion then Wolf's book about Bannon while he is pulling the plug on 200,000 legal San Salvadorians. Playing with North Korean fire was only interesting as long as he and his GOP henchmen tried to push through a Tax Cut For The Rich.
Nation wake up. We have to be in the Room Where it Happens, and not be glued to our screens to get one heart attack after another over some silly tweets.
So this is what my country has come to? I feel surrounded by an uneducated and uninterested electorate. Oprah gives 1 single inspiring speech and she's ready to be President? Haven't we seen this before?
Sigh.....The late, once great, United States of America. Thanks, it was awesome.
4
"And she had spent so much time at the center of so much controversy."
But, Hillary Clinton had not placed herself at the center of so much controversy. Whether it was Whitewater, or Benghazi, or her email server, Republicans spent decades manufacturing charges against her.
And don't trust, for one minute, that the same would not happen to Oprah, too, should she toss her hat into the ring. Because Ms. Winfrey has been a cultural figure, she has largely avoided being smeared. But should she try to become political, she would be hit with innuendo about everything from the problems which plagued the girls' academy she started, or bad rumors about her business dealings, or what not.
The example of Hillary Clinton shows that character assassinations don't have to be true for their consequences to be real.
10
Not to mention that anyone who has run a multi-billion dollar empire has got to have some financial skeletons in their closet. Tax dodges, questionable investments, lawsuits, etc. would be bound to come out, and the right-leaning voters would not ignore them as they have for Trump.
1
Oprah would try to fulfill the responsibilities of a President, unlike Trump, but the challenges that this nation faces demands an erudite person who can work through the very tough problems quickly because that person actually knows how, not because of a display of alpha type behaviors like Trump.
I think that Oprah is a very intelligent, caring person with excellent oratorical talent. However, I would not, (speaking as a Democrat}, want to see her run for president. On the other hand, hopefully the Democratic Party will choose a good candidate and then Oprah should use her considerable talents to go out and campaign for that nominee.
I do not think we need to elect someone else who has zero knowledge of the government and zero knowledge how to actually govern.
The current situation will become untenable and require an experienced thinker to fix it....
1
While she puts her money where her mouth is, it's not enough. Social consciousness is not enough. And you are spot on about this would be a peat/repeat of celebrity presidency and not in a good way.
If Ms Winfry is serious about going into public service, let her begin with a run for Congress...either House or Senate. There, she will learn about the art, craft, and real work of governance. If, after spending a decade there, she still wants to run, then go for it. She's no longer a hairdo.
Oprah may be a tour de force, but she doesn't yet have the credentials We, the People, need in our CEO.
https://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
1
So, we're looking for an experienced insider that has outsider appeal, visionary lefty-cred with big appeal to the masses. It would help if they were the most popular politician in the country, a politician that can win-over Trump voters in a deep red state like West Virginia, by advocated policies for the people. We need Bernie in 2020. No one else is even close.
2
As unqualified as Oprah is to be president it still makes sense.. I'm not sure people are going to want or even be able to whiplash back to a 'normal" presidency. I think we're going to have to retreat in steps and Oprah would be a decompression from Trump... somebody familiar and part of the nation's public discourse for decades who can serve as a balm.
What happens after a theoretical Oprah presidency would be anybody's guess, but the Democrats do need an inspiring choice who is not going to be seen as another run-of-the-mill politician -- even if they are fantastically qualified and talented like a Kamala Harris for instance.
As someone who votes Democratic but is loathe to identify herself as one anymore, I can definitely say that Winfrey as president does not excite me. Too untried, too inexperienced, too soon.
That said, I think she has potential to be a political leader, and she should take a cue from a fellow Illinoisan and work on the local and state levels and then make a run for Congress. She needs to show me that she is a serious candidate with a vision and message; not just one more celebrity seeking a new gig, or one who is attempting to be the “anti” anything — a candidate who can transcend her force of celebrity to effect meaningful change.
We are starting to think of presidential elections as knee-jerk reactions to those we don’t like, so we hurry to vote for their opposites, no matter their qualifications or experience (or lack thereof). It seems that being a pop culture icon is a bonus, too. Oprah 2020, which arose out of *one* well-written and well-delivered speech, would continue this trend. Such is necessarily not the material from which effective and successful presidents are made.
Couldn't we ask these celebrity presidential wannabes to run for a lesser office first? I'd be happy even with dog catcher. Just a while ago some were suggesting the Dems run Al Franken. Look what happened to him.
We need to respect vetting processes - let's ask the Oprahs and DJTs of the world to do a lesser job first. Let's first see if they have the staying power.
For next time around - I'm hoping for a candidate who has at least some experience working in a political arena where they had to negotiate with a range of other elected officials. People love to hate Lyndon Johnson, but he could get bills like Medicare and the Civil Rights Act through Congress because he had deep political experience.
1
"(HRC) was a terrible fit for the times, which were anti-elitist, anti-erudition, anti-Washington. To many voters, she was a career politician who had been pining and plotting for the presidency her whole life. And she had spent so much time at the center of so much controversy. She was exhausting."
Tell it on the mountain!
Hopefully, with the popularity of liberal individuals such as Oprah, the Democrats can move beyond the meme that HRC lost because she is a woman. HRC lost because she is HRC, with all the baggage that entails.
I realize people may question my logic or my liberal credentials or whatever, but the truth is that in my 55 years alive HRC was the single worst Democratic nominee FOR THE TIMES that we have ever put forward. I agree with so much with what Bruni observes in this piece. The correct person, male or female, can win the presidency as a Democrat in 2020 with the enthusiastic support of both coastal States and so-called fly over States.
2
I have to see Oprah's platform first, but the notion that she might not be able to surround herself with experienced people, not flunkies, or be able to think ethically and morally, say, as Truman could, is ridiculous. Trump is not persuasive with any but dedicated followers, "gut" voters who act out in anger and pernicious glee, or look forward to Armageddon.
It is too bad to have to think about the future as anything
but Trump world, which would make Mr. Magoo as better
President, but it is what it is. I'll give Oprah a chance to
say what she intends to do and how she will do it, short
of constant and ill-conceived Executive Orders and Tweets.
With all due respect for Ms. Winfrey, our democracy, and by extension the Democratic Party, cannot afford a political neophyte male or female in the Oval Office. As much as I detest current day politics and the politicians it has spawned, we need an experienced politician in that seat. Social media entertainers are better suited for congress. The current Genius-in-Chief should have been barred from politics at any level.
2
Oprah didn't ride any man's coattails into politics, so she didn't have the advantage and connections to gain political experience. Remember when we were told not to vote for Obama because he didn't have experience? The Big Dog even dissed him by saying he was the 'biggest fairy tale'. Dems should get over their blind faith in a meritocracy of political experience. It doesn't win elections!
Good judgment is far more important, such as how you run a campaign, a charitable foundation, or a business (and who you run against). 'The Most Experienced Candidate Ever', advised by her ex-President husband and a well-paid professional staff, chose not to campaign in 3 key swing states. As a result, she flunked out of the Electoral College and didn't graduate to become President. Judgment is revealed in actions, not words.
Dems also need to get over the idea that only Ivy League trained lawyers experienced in politics are fit for office. They're the ones who messed up this country by selling themselves to the highest bidder, only to leave office to work as lobbyists and Wall St.
No one has more strikes against them than a Black woman raised in poverty and exposed to abuse, yet Ms. Winfrey overcame that to become a self-made billionaire. She earned it the hard way with intelligence, diligence, commitment, and the help of well chosen team. In other words, solid good judgment. Those are the ingredients of a winner - which she already is.
1
Un-hinged? I can see Oprah replacing NIH with the Department of Faith Healing and the Department of Health and Human Services with the Department of Positive Thinking and Telling Your Truth.
It's hard to imagine a more apolitical person becoming president, except maybe the current one.
4
Last I checked, there is no politician degree. It’s about leadership, connecting with people, and principles, at least that’s what it should be.
Oprah passes the test with flying colors, which in no way guarantees a victory.
very simple to me:
Clinton was 2008s candidate. She should never have run again in 2016 and the Democrats shouldn’t have rigged their primary in plain sight. Horrible candidate who couldn’t even beat Donald Trump.
I like Oprah but she would be the populist trump of the left. Democrats should resist the idea.
We need someone with real substance and experience to come forward. Martin o Malley or John Kasich would be my idea of candidates with the right experience and political positioning.
1
Why on earth does a great speech suddenly make people think someone should run for president? This is nuts. President of the United States should not be an entry level government position. There are important skills needed in governing including balancing wants and needs of different constituencies. It is the farthest thing from a business - especially one that is privately owned (like Mr. Trump's, like Ms Winfrey's). No one should be elected to high office who has not served as an elected official at some level before. Whether serving on a school board or local council, one learns to work with the public, business, budgets,and the press. Can the person address problems appropriately using the tools of government? Do they grow in the job? Do they have a tolerance for the dull aspects of governing - the tedium? Prove your fitness to serve in government by serving in government. Then talk to me about running for President.
2
A brilliant, charismatic woman. But I'm hoping she's the un-candidate.
1
How about this time around in 2020 that Oprah comes out and fully backs the Democrat's nominee. She should not run for president, but would be great making speeches for the candidate. Oprah seemed to be absent during the 2016 election. She could of gotten the Black vote out for Hillary. Like her or not Hillary Clinton was qualified to be president. We as a nation have to grow up and stop voting like we are voting for high school class president. The outrageous popular kid should not have been elected president and the smart, not so well liked nerdy girl should now be in the White House. People want the kind of inspirational speeches that Oprah can deliver, but we as a people need a smart and competent person to run the country. Someone who know how Washington works.
4
Oprah would be the un-President. The Progressives would lose even more seats in the mid-term elections, and she'd end up like Bill Clinton, only getting stuff done that Congress allows.
1
NO! No more celebrities or so-called business leaders. Absolutely not.
I have enormous admiration and respect for Ms. Winfrey. Her speech at the Golden Globes put the oratory skills of most politicians to shame. Her ethics, morals, and intelligence are clearly superior to the nonentity in the Oval Office.
However, Americans must get past this childish expectation that inexperienced stars (the equivalent of fantasy superheroes) will rescue us. For starters, we need to rescue ourselves by voting thoughtfully in EVERY election, rather than throwing tantrums or lazily staying home when the candidate isn't perfect.
I'm sure there are many quietly competent men & women with actual experience doing the boring work of running towns, cities, and states. Democrats, identify them & get busy grooming them for higher office. See that they have financial & practical support to succeed at increasing levels of responsibility. See that we have several quality choices. If you have to cram 1 candidate down a voter's throat, you're doing it wrong.
I am sick to death of political candidates marketed to me like cheap disposable junk at the dollar store. I'm looking for a choice among principled leaders with government experience and significant quantifiable accomplishments. We should settle for nothing less.
Grow up, Americans. Get busy Democrats.
3
Frank Bruni writes, "...nearly all of the Democrats I know maturely admit that one factor can’t be dismissed, and their regret about it intensifies over time. The party put its chips on the wrong candidate."
This from a man who backed Hillary Clinton throughout 2016. All of the Times's columnists backed her, even though all of her liabilities, which he mentions in this column, were just as evident then as they are now.
Mr. Bruni has written two pro-Oprah columns in the past two days. He insists that he is not backing Oprah, but tells us that the Democrats need to nominate someone "Oprah-esque." I will admit that it is appealing when political candidates seem empathetic, have a compelling life story, and can give a good speech. Ultimately, though, being president entails so many other skills, which are being ignored amid all of this Oprahmania. Voters' foolish desire for a celebrity president dates, I think, to JFK, and culminated with Obama (whom I supported) and Trump. But this silliness needs to stop, now, and Mr. Bruni should not encourage it. I am only one voter, but if the Democratic Party nominates Oprah Winfrey, I will vote instead for some obscure third-party candidate in 2020.
3
I don't think the United States would be in any better of a position with Oprah Winfrey as president. Experience in politics and how government functions is absolutely essential.
Didn't the media learn anything from the last election? It is the NY Times responsibility, as well as every other media outlet to look seriously at her as opposed to putting on a circus.
For an example, take a look at Maureen Callahan's column in the NY Post.
1
So if I understand your viewpoint correctly, any individual who is qualified to become president would be too intelligent to run. Or as Groucho Marx said, "I don't care to belong to any club that would have me as a member"
1
Settle down, country! Oprah is a good person, she's bright, she reads and she's done a lot of good for a lot of people. Those qualities alone position her well above the current occupant. Last November, the country elected the class bully president. Might have been done as a joke, a statement against the system, or, most likely, out of sheer ignorance. Now, we are in trouble. But, is the answer, replacing a mistake with the homecoming queen? She would be a better president because she's a much better person. The presidency doesn't lend itself to on the job training. We see that everyday of this nightmare. I hope the democrats do nominate a woman and there are several in the system would do a great job. None of them would make a good talk show host and I have doubts about a talk show host, good as she is, running the country, given the Marshall Plan like reconstruction effort the next president will be faced with. The focus now is on November 2018. We don't get that right, 2020 won't matter.
1
I wish these think pieces would stop! We are not in high school and the presidential race is not like voting for homecoming or prom king/queen. Grow up and stop treating the presidential race like a popularity contest. Clinton was fine to those of us who appreciate knowledge, wisdom, patience and prudence. She would have made an excellent president.
Oprah is a self-made billionaire with more class and empathy in her pinky finger than Trump and all of his supporters. I hope she doesn't run for president but continues to influence the world just as she has done for the past 30 years. It is time for White Americans to clean up their mess instead of letting others do it for them (e.g., Barack Obama after George Bush).
1
First off an Oprah Presidency would be awesome just for the inauguration speech alone - "My fellow Americans, you get a car, you get a car, you get a car.." The crowd would go wild. But I do agree with the article that Clinton was totally the wrong candidate. The self-assured guaranteed win the Democratic party thought it had with Hillary's purchase of the party doomed it to defeat. And I love how everyone thinks the electoral college is a horrible idea now but is just fine with super delegates. Those totally make sense. But we lost the electoral college so that's bad. Time to get over yourself people and clean up the Democratic party first before we move on to bigger things. If you really care about people's votes counting for something then the super delegates need to go. Oh, and Oprah is way too smart to run for President.
Oddly, perhaps, I don't think I have ever watched more than a couple of minutes of an Oprah interview. I simply have no interest in that realm. I am sure she is a very talented woman. And her success as a black woman in America, is unassailable. But, she is a brand, much like Trump. Her brand is that of a warm, thoughtful, generous, curious person. But is she? Neither you or I have any idea....
109
There are plenty of thoughtful, generous, curious people in the US, but that does not a presidential candidate make, even if on top of that, they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, are well-spoken, etc. There's a bit more to the office. ;-)
#OprahIsNotGod
2
Unlike Trump, she has a long history of civic engagement that verifies, in the main, her authenticity not only as a person who cares, but someone willing to put her money and her time where her heart and mouth are. As an empathizer-in-chief, she would have no peer, probably throughout the whole of American history. Is this enough, along with some other qualities to make a good president? No, but its a good start.
2
Well, certainly if you refuse to watch and learn you have no idea.
1
The last two presidents have been:
1. An upper-class black man with little political experience
2. A celebrity with no political experience.
I suspect the voters have started to develop a considerable amount of scepticism about these types of candidates.
17
When Obama became President, he was successful, yes, but upper-class, I hardly think so. He'd been an organizer, and a junior senator. That's not get rich territory.
1
Once you have been bitten by a snake you become afraid of a rope.
Obama, upper class? Wha'd heck does that mean? Because he went to Harvard Law? Obama also had 12 years political experience prior to becoming president. In contrast, G.W. Bush had only six years in any office, the relatively weak (by design) governor's office in Texas when he started running.
All life experiences can play into the value a person takes into the White House, not only political and governmental. I would argue, further, that it is what the person does with those experiences, how they learn and develop wisdom, that is the most important factor.
6
Many Americans might not consider it an important factor, however, like it or not, in this Presidency, Trump has unleashed a rather significant and ugly underbelly in America and brought it the surface to the point it has become almost acceptable to many and for that reason, I am fearful that no matter how qualified she might be, Oprah Winfrey is a woman and black and given the nature of Trump and the Republican Party, in a campaign and given the nature of social media, the onslaught of hate directed towards her would be, to say the least, rather regrettable.
When it comes right down to it, I am sure Oprah is smart enough to recognize that fact.
17
So a charismatic person, this time a nice one, feels that being able to communicate while winging it with no experience in governance is somehow qualifying for the Presidency. No formal education, no military experience, most importantly never even served on even a city council but Oprah thinks that she is prepared to take over the most powerful military in the history of mankind? One of the most complicated economies?
Right, she will chose talented people to advise her and we will hold our breath as she learns on the job...
Sally Yates and Joe Kennedy would make a bright ticket for the Democrats. A Southerner and a New Englander. Plenty of charisma, experience, intellect and geography in that ticket...
23
How I'd love to see Yates on the ticket, but she says political office isn't in the cards. I'd love to see Oprah Winfrey use her skills as an interviewer and her connections in the media to broker a New Ideas/New Solutions/New Voices series--a kind of Book Club for those of us hungry to hear what progressive governance could look like. Many attractive pols at all levels of government have experience of and interest in ideas we rarely get to hear about in the mainstream media. Give them a platform Oprah!
I don't think Oprah necessarily thinks any of that. She hasn't declared her candidacy - others speculated about it.
1
Try to pay attention. She never said she’d run. That’s others speculating.
1
What is it that's wrong with "celebrity?" Is it because, by definition, they're not a career politician? Is it because she "came from nothing" and lived "the American dream?" Is it because she obviously is "very smart" and is a true self-made billionaire? Is it because she's not "charisma-challenged" like Sec. Clinton and other would-be Democratic anointed insiders Like John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale? If there's to be a serious conversation about Oprah Winfrey, it should be what does she stand for on health care, trade, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and the issues that she'd confront. If she wants to run, those are the questions this lifelong Democrat needs her to answer. Until then, I remain Un-convinced.
16
Oprah hasn't devoted her career to any of the issues you mention. She has devoted herserlf to building a brand and a company. And that's fine. But the celebrity she has is connected to her brand and her media exposure, none of which qualify her for high office. Do we really want a warmer, not-mentally ill version of Trump?
1
I think Bruni's missing it, here. The argument that Americans want a president brimming with charisma doesn't ring true with me. That sounds like wish fulfillment coming out of the Hollywood and media elite. Trump was successful not so much because he has charisma, but because he so obviously was not a member of, or approved by, the elite. Trump said the sorts of things that would get said in a bar after 3-4 drinks when Joe Sixpack turned to politics and America and how to fix the country. Trump was rich, but did not behave like an elitist. Oprah is rich and charismatic, but if you put her on a campaign tour, she would sound just like a member of the liberal elite. In short, I don't think Hilary + charisma necessarily adds up to success. Too ivy league, too politically correct, too disconnected from everyday life.
.
The party would do far better going with somebody like Hickenlooper. He had an actual job working as a geologist, and got laid off before starting a business making beer. In Denver, which is not on a coast. He has executive experience as a mayor and a governor, with a track record solving problems. America doesn't want another high-minded legislator like Senator Clinton (or for that matter, Senator Obama). He is the anti-Trump because he is all substance, and no show. He is also not the spouse or son of anyone famous. America will be ready for competence in a non-elitist package after Trump.
44
Readers who consider Oprah as unqualified as Trump are rushing to demonize her just because she shares celebrity status with him. She has obviously shown a knowledge of government, civic affairs and American history that Trump will never have. She has also shown an intelligence, curiosity and empathy of which Trump is completely devoid. And Democratic-leaning readers who trivialize charism as an asset in 2020 are seriously misguided. She could run as an inspirational but pragmatic populist and beat to smithereens Pence, Cruz or any other GOP ideologue.
15
The classic. a fan mistaking an actor's role with the actor herself. Than again, I have never forgiven Tony Curtis for murdering his brother, Kirk Douglas in the movie the Vikings.
1
Why not Oprah for VP ?
1
The problem was not Hillary Clinton, the problem was the system and the uneducated voter. Ultimately it is a problem of our educational system. Hillary is a better politician and a better candidate than both Teresa May and Angela Merkel, but all three would never get elected in the US. Oprah is just a better Trump - she would govern pretty much like Obama, but understand policy far less - there would really be no progress, but also no disasters.
18
That we only had a candidate like Merkel!
The way Hillary has behaved in the wake of her loss is a strong indicator of her lack of readiness to be POTUS. She has bathed herself in self-pity and has tried to hold on to her celebrity to the point of humiliation. But then, she stuck with a man who serially humiliated her for decades, so maybe she's internalized this as the way life is. I'm not a Trump fan, but Hillary would have maintained the stale status quo. Not acceptable.
1
Dude: the problem WAS Hilary. And the Democratic Party elitists--of which Oprah is one--who shoved her down our throats.
1
The democrats had an inspiring uplifting candidate who gave goosebumps: Bernie Sanders!
Had the primary not been rigged for Clinton (and yes it was rigged with superdelegates), we would have President Sanders. Then, it would be the republicans wringing their hands with angst.
87
No, please, I can take almost anything at this point but I'm no longer willing to listen to this.
Believe what you want but don't be quite so sure that in some alternate universe there is a Bernie Sanders sitting in the Oval Office.
5
The right wing media would have been harping non-stop about the non-Christian socialist from Brooklyn if Bernie had been the nominee. I can't imagine many of the rural Trump voters switching over for him.
4
Move on. Nothing to see here.
3
Oprah would in all likelihood be a viable candidate in our celebrity billionaire obsessed culture.
5
I hope Oprah does run for all the reasons that Bruni cited, but the main reason for me, a Democrat all my life, is that I think she could win. She's the un-Clinton and the un-Trump. She is genuine.
7
And exactly how do you know she is "genuine" and, if so, genuine what? Have you worked with her, hand any conversations with her? How long have you personally known her? Oh, you've seen her on TV. Wow, Try not to be like a teenager who thinks that a rock star could be her Best Friend Ever.
3
Well Frank, I think you pretty much nailed it. As much as some would like to blame Hilary’s loss on sexism, that is not the reason she lost. She lost because she represented so much of what is wrong with the status quo. Additionally, as Jon Allen and Amie Parnes noted in their book, the Clinton campaign was beyond flawed and basically without real leadership. Berating people and assigning blame to everyone else is not effective leadership. Finally, the effective Clinton campaign mantra that knowledge is power and that know.edge shared is power defused just about guaranteed defeat.
5
"As much as some would like to blame Hilary’s loss on sexism, that is not the reason she lost. She lost because she represented so much of what is wrong with the status quo."....And Trump doesn't represent the extreme of what's wrong with the rich and powerful Republicans?
1
I think it was more that America could not stomach another day with the Clintons. We simply had enough. Or rather, more than enough.
It is a sign of desperation, but a bright spot is that it is also an indication of how well the current crop of Democrat leaders are thought of, the ones who led the Democrats to their current position.
5
Even now, when I consider and accept the wide range of things that led us to disaster, I have never felt the need to lacerate myself for supporting Clinton or her for being Clinton. Remember, she won the nomination by something like a 56%-44% margin (and a clear majority of the pledged delegates) against a strong opponent. I, and many other people made a good faith decision.
And, no, the primaries were not ‘rigged.’
Mr. Bruni: if the mark of a good politician is to ‘overflow with charisma’ the mark of a good columnist is ‘to surprise and delight,’ at least occasionally. This is just another column that reheats yesterday’s meat loaf. I wish Clinton had been more authentic in the same way I wish you could be more unpredictable.
70
The individual primaries weren't rigged, but the primary system was. Clinton supporters created the superdelegate system to ensure that she got the nomination. Ultimately she didn't need it, against Sanders.
But the rigging of the primary system may have scared away other contenders who might have been better general electoral candidates. Democrats who don't like Clinton were trying to tell Clinton supporters for years before 2016 that she wasn't a great general election candidate. Now, more than a year after her catastrophic defeat that handed the country to Trump, some Clinton supporters still don't agree. It's funny that these same people probably criticize Republicans for not paying attention to science.
1
The problem here: It's very clear we should not go down the rabbit hole of 'celebrities only' for the presidential office, YET: It has become a reality that to be electable, a candidate needs to be likable and popular. Arguably too much so, but that's where we currently sit.
We NEED competence and experience on the job, but to be elected one needs charisma. Obama had charisma in spades and at least a starting level of relevant training (law) and experience (senate). But the reality is that most politicians - heck, most of us ordinary people - however qualified for their job, don't exude charisma.
What's really needed is for the broad American public to value experience and intellect over being "likable," but I fear there's no way to get that horse back into the barn. To continue the metaphor: The media loves the sight of wild horses running free - or, alternatively, of them being in a horse race. This is exactly what we DON'T need, yet again, that's where we now sit.
I suggest Oprah or an Oprah-like person as the VP candidate, backing up a less charismatic person with real qualifications - Elizabeth Warren, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, etcetera. Then the VP gets four to eight years of on-the-job training and can run themselves at some.
6
As much as it pains me to say this in the company of so many men, I agree that Oprah is not the right choice. Not because she's a woman, au contraire. I believe she would surround herself with the best and the brightest this country has to offer (unlike the ilk we have now) who know their field and would be in touch with the reality of what is going on in this country, and work to improve and repair it. But because as has been stated, her lack of any political experience nor international policy exposure (hello North Korea) would be more of the same. We can not repeat history in 2020. Please.
2
Oh, she would send Dr. Phil to N Korea to solve their emotional needs, and hand out his weight loss book (and from a man who certainly looks in shape). And then send Dr. Oz to prescribe whatever product he is shilling for this week.
1
I suggest the Democrats think long and hard about a candidate with real solutions to real problems and how they can be achieved. Personality is secondary. It's important only to the one-trick pony party, the Republicans with their lower taxes for the rich. If Democrats fall into that trap they will lose again.
4
Again, comparing everything and everyone to Clinton, and she comes up short. Winfrey is the epitome of elitism, from her multi-million dollar estates, to her flying in "special" sweet potatoes from Georgia (reported on her show). The issue isn't "could she beat trump", as she certainly would. The issue is whether the cult of personality should "trump" experience in basic governance. Having PAs cater to your every whim is not governing, no matter how "nice" and introspective the "queen bee" may be. Plus, the Oprah push this early undermines the possible candidacy of women who have paid their dues serving Americans through the trials of actual governance. I've never bought into "Hollywood elite" as a pejorative, but after this week, I just may.
8
I am not in favor of the inexperienced as President, but she does more than boss around PAs. She runs a huge business and, unlike Donald, she didn't inherit it.
1
I agree. I think Oprah cares more about her celebrity and all the accoutrements it has afforded her, than actual people or issues. I mean, could she be any more self-promoting and aggrandizing... Oprah's Pick's? Who cares what Oprah thinks is the best chocolate chip cookie in the world? From her severe weight loss regimen (sometimes she looks too skinny for her frame) to her magazine where she's on every cover, her stylists, etc. .... it's all a cleverly crafted performance.
2
''Winfery is the epitome of elitism"
from wikpedia 'Winfrey was born into poverty in rural Mississippi to a teenage single mother and later raised in an inner-city Milwaukee neighborhood. She has stated that she was molested during her childhood and early teens and became pregnant at 14; her son died in infancy.''
Sounds like the childhood of everyone a Brown, Harvard, and Yale.
Frank,
I think your main point is Oprah's dearth of political experience. The Trump disaster is partly from HIS dearth of political experience.
2
In 2008 the global economy collapsed from histories largest engineered fraud. It's captains profited immensely in the run-up and even more so on the ashes of the American Dream. This con was hatched during Reagan, made possible under Bush the First, perfected during Clinton. It ran more amok under Bush II, and the "Change We Can Believe In" candidate won the presidency promising to remove this invisible yet as plain as day grip on power. He failed! Hence where we are today. Will Oprah confront the truth as she has all things inherent to the African American Slavery/Jim Crow experience or will she like her protege/champion, Mr. Obama, forge her path with the puppeteers, from whom I'm certain to have benefitted her immensely? My guess, the affable Ms. Winfrey was too busy selling media of a different kind to understand the one truth that seems to elude everyone.
3
Character. Content. Charisma. A successful president who has to serve as both head of state and head of government needs all three. Example: Trump 1, Oprah 2, Bernie all three.
9
Minus Trump period!
The title content of this opinion are some of the most offensive I have ever seen. The anti-Clinton? Hillary Clinton spent her life serving the public's interests. More Clinton bashing. More dismissiveness of the misogyny that was in play during the last election cycle: she was a "terrible fit for the times". Whatever happens in this culture of ours we seem to have a penchant for circling back to using Hillary Clinton (a woman) as a punching bag and fodder for weak populist arguments. Oprah chose to spend her life in the entertainment business. We have proof that this doesn't translate into governing capabilities and yet here we are again insulting every hard working politician that has spent their lives in the trenches working to make positive changes for society as a whole. If Hillary Clinton had a magazine her picture would not be on the front of every cover. She doesn't have time for photo shoots.
104
I would never vote for HC but it’s in large part by rejection of neoliberalism and another part by realizing the persons smugly waiting for their spoils in terms of office and then moving to lobbyists. Hillary was the whole package ofobjectiinal grifters.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Well said.
1
"...But he or she will be Oprah-esque." Oh, I wish. But no one is. Do any of the Democratic or Republican or Independent contenders even approach that? Well, maybe Bernie. Anyone else?
3
Oprah can choose a running mate with more government experience. She can hire other experienced people. She has what America needs most right now - a big heart and high intelligence. She is a "mover and a shaker". She could change the the US and the world in many positive ways.
4
Alison is exactly right, Oparah is not just a hollywood actor by any means and she has built an empire in a "mans world". Don't under estimate her abilities to run the WH efficiently, hire the best for the adminstration and she would have great support from a prior president that dealt with terriorisum, economic disaster, and was respected by the rest of the world. She has a very long and proven history of her love of the people that can be trusted to up hold the honor and integrity of POTUS. She would have my vote as so would Bernie.
There are plenty of people with big hearts and intelligence. We need someone with integrity, moral courage, and commitment to public service and the common good. Oprah doens't have creibility, the history, in these areas. She's a good human being with lots of public approval, this isn't enough.
3
She hasn't changed the US or even her home state of Illinois. What makes you think she'd want to devote herself to changing the world? She has devoted herself to pulling herself up, and that's fine. But we need much more in a president.
3
The opening paragraphs were right on the mark. Here we go again the next perfect speech the rumors, etc etc. Trump decided he was running the media couldn't get enough of him or his lack of ideas that would help everyone. The elite democratic party selected Hillary they refused to listen to anyone else but themselves. After reading the Donna Brazil book all of the dots were connected. This elite democratic bunch did everything they could to destroy Bernie and they ended up trying to bully there way into office.
Progressive democrats are working hard at all elected office levels and demanding change. These midterm elections are important for the 20/20 election. This country cant afford another celebrity. We are all voting adults its time for us to act like it
4
I think the Democrats have spent the first year of Trump's presidency torturing the rest of us with their whining. They lost and cannot get over it.
5
I have not done any research yet - but my question is this - what has Oprah done with her billions - to help those who need help in this country?
2
LIke the other ultra-wealthy people she hangs with, Oprah has acquired multiple over-the-top estates. Spent a lot of her appearance, jewelry, on parties for her elite-category friends, on extravagent vacationing. She's not much different from the Trumps in this regard--much nicer a human being, but not very different in terms of her values and commitment to the common good. It's all about appearances with Oprah. OK, that's not a crime. But she's not a public servant. It fhe Dems nominate her thinking she could at least beat Trump--well wasn't that the problem with Hillary? As many negatives as Hillary had, anyone could beat Trump. That was the thinking.
3
She is BOTH. And please explain to me how she could possibly be WORSE than Trump ??? Anyone? Hello? Yeah, thought so.
5
It would not be unfair to suggest that gender bias and racial bias were at play IF Oprah Winfrey were to seek the highest public office AND found herself denied a chance at candidacy because she was judged to be as unqualified as Trump, who now holds the office. Oprah Winfrey, unlike Trump and unlike Hillary Clinton, overcame huge obstacles to gain the American Dream business success she enjoys. There is a case to be made that Oprah Winfrey was the kingmaker behind fellow Chicagoan Barack Obama. She was raving about him way before he became a household name. Consider this: Oprah Winfrey is known to rave about the celebrities and leaders she likes. If Oprah needed to tout herself in the same way, Oprah would no longer be Oprah-esque and voters who judge women harshly would not like it. At this very moment, I hope Oprah doesn't run because I like Oprah.
1
Oprah, a Mistake! Bernie, a Mistake. Joe, a Mistake. Elizabeth, a Mistake. All are mistakes for different reasons: celebrity, lack of experience, radicalism or age make each a mistake in a combination of different ways. Democrats must find a candidate who's experienced in government, has charisma, and who's not a septuagenarian. And that candidate cannot simply be Non-Trump.
33
It'd settle for an octogenarian if that person were nonetheless physically and mentally capable, had a record of integrity, moral courage and public service. Maybe only old people won't bring their career ambitions with them; these seem to trump integrity in most people.
Too bad Biden is so old!
Hillary Clinton was definitely qualified to be President and had a lot of government experience, and I voted for her. However, she was also a deeply flawed candidate for many, many reasons, some of which Frank Bruni mentions in his piece, such as misogyny, being a bad campaigner, i.e. her inability to connect with voters like her husband Bill, and yes, Clinton fatigue. She was the wrong choice at the wrong time. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, many Democrats do think that they nominated the wrong person to run for President. I would also add that I think Hillary's decision to run for President a second time in 2016 was ultimately a very selfish act because she put her own personal political ambitions above the interests of the Democratic Party and the country. She is highly polarizing figure, yes her supporters love her, but just as many people, if not more, HATE her intensely. I know several people who voted for Trump as a vote AGAINST Hillary. She was the second most unpopular Presidential candidate in history, only Trump had higher negative polling numbers. I can't see any possibly path for Oprah to win the Electoral College, since it's hard to see how she could overcome not only misogyny but also racism. Are any voters in red states going to vote for a liberal, Hollywood elite, from Chicago, African American woman?
6
Yes, Clinton was so brazenly selfish. That must be why she was the first to visit Flint and went to Puerto Rico to investigate the effects of the Zika virus while she was campaigning. Fatigue? She was giving substantive, informative, nuanced speeches while the other two were either carrying on like broken records with their stump speeches or phoning it in - and you must have missed the Benghazi hearings. The democrats nominated the right person. She made history and won the popular vote. There are better arguments against an Oprah candidacy.
1
Neither, she's another Billionaire with no political experience. And we do not forget that you were a Republican until Trump, Mr. Bruni.
4
Please, we do not need another no-nothing in the white house. And because the media has hyped this so much (because it was the only new thing they could talk about in these past month) and even you are talking about it. People need to get real about this process.
3
Please just stop it. She gave one good speech. It takes more than that to make a President. Let's not forget that she is also the one who has foisted charlatans like Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil and Jenny McCarthy on the American public. Her judgement is often, at best, questionable.
26
Thank you for pointing out her admired favorites. And don't forget Tom Cruise and Hillary and Bill. The list goes on...
1
BHO one claim to fame and his sole qualification to be president was his speech at the 2004 convention. There is precedence.
Oprah, the un-Clinton? The un-Obama? More like the unlikely.
Good news my fellow Americans and soon to be leaving "not Americans". One Joseph Arpaio is running for US Senate. Mr. Arpaio, know for serving as Maricopa County Sheriff. Maricopa County is in Arizona.
2
Oprah is like a little puppy that you are asked to hold for a while and then at the end of ten minutes you don't want to give back. Maybe cuddly, warm and fuzzy but this is not the dog that is someday going to win best of show. It is just a warm and fuzzy. It is about time for voters to get smart, realize the world is no longer a game show and that yes, elections do have consequences. We have been there several times and even with Reagan who was the governor of CA, he wasn't "presidential" he was still the union buster he was when he was in Hollywood. He was the lifeguard who let everyone in the pool drown from trickle-down help.
Just the idea that this is discussed even in JEST by the media shows that we have a long way to sovereignty. Someday, we'll break free from the Hollywood Reporter and the Enquirer.
24
I do not want another amateur president. I think Oprah is smarter, certainly more decent, and has fewer parasitic family members than Trump, but I still do not want her to be even considered as a presidential candidate. The presidency is a serious job and I think some governing experience -- preferably at the executive rather than legislative level -- should be a requirement.
4
She's too savvy to want to be president, one hopes.
Oprah is not only a good orator but she can articulate her ideals and can mobilize people toward great goals. Right now it is not whether she is a good candidate or not, but it is whether the Dems can put forth a strong candidate who can crush Trump. If anyone throws doubts on Oprah candidacy, it is because he really want rather Trump in the WH. Don't fall for those racists and hypocrites who speak against this strong progressive candidate.
2
Oprah, a strong progressive? HAHAHAH!! As another commenter pointed out, Oprah is a proponent of the Wealth is Good gospel.
Compassion is good. Sharing is good. Kindness to all is good. Wealth for its own sake or for the sake of all the possessions and status we can amass with it, this isn't really much of a good. But this, it seems, is what Oprah has devoted herself to. (Oh, and there's that school in Africa which had all the problems.)
And if all the Democrats want to do is beat Trump next time, this is no political platform. We deserve a much better vision.
2
Okay, but is it never about more than packaging? And who, did you say, designs packages?
1
She would get my vote if she was serious about controlling the military and raising taxes and redistributing to those less well off and controlling immigration until we get everyone here working and taken care of. Oh.....and not go to Citibank to figure out who is going to run the government like Obama did.
2
AS, you alone have articulated what would be a good basis on which to vote for Oprah. If her status gives her the moral courage to cut military spending and corporate welfare, to redirect our national resources to projects for the common good, to stand against Congress and Wall Street, if she will commit herself to a w a living wage for every working adult, THEN and onlly then would she get my vote. Obama's downfall, as you say, begain before his inauguration with his appointments of Larry Summers and Tim Geitner. He went downhill from there, with Oprah's cheerleading in the background. He had the political capital to do great things and he squandered this opportunity in favor of his re-election chances.
1
I would like to see Oprah endorse a candidate with political experience. Kamala Harris? Cory Booker? Elizabeth Warren?....
2
I would like her to endorse a person of integrity and moral courage with a history of public service. None of the above fit this bill.
1
Oprah, please move to Kentucky and take out Mitch McConnell. Perform that immeasurable act of public service, enter the Senate, learn government, governance, policy...and maybe then a run as VP, for which you are perfectly suited: a gifted messenger.
7
Oprah should scare us, because she absolutely could win. The problem is that she would make a terrible candidate.
Oprah Winfrey is a snake oil saleswoman of the first order. She is responsible, more than anyone else, for the popularity of people like Dr. Oz, Jenny McCarthy, and Rhonda Byrne. And let's not forget Dr. Phil, Suzanne Somers, Deepak Choprah.
She has a track record for using her fame and media power to irresponsibly promote dishonest people. Although I want the pool of nominees to be open and diverse, hard pass on this one.
10
Not the un-Trump, but rather the neo-Trump--the creeping convergence of celebrity politic...
4
I think we are all ready to move on from the endless analyses of Hillary Clinton and her failing campaign for the presidency. She has. If opinion writers such as yourself could manage, just once, to write a political column without mentioning Hillary and comparing her to others then we will all jump for joy that an actual original thought might have taken place.
6
In a 1999 interview with Larry King, Donald Trump said that his first choice for running mate would be Oprah Winfrey. Look it up.
7
Please, no more TV celebrities.
8
She is a REAL Billionaire, self-made, no less. No huge scandals, no string of Bankruptcies, no revolving door of spouses, public affairs and money grubbing children. Want to get the majority of female voters, even whites?
THIS is how. If the GOP can win with a sleazy, megalomaniac " businessman ", We can win with HER. All she needs is the chance, and a great, experienced, knowledgeable partner. I want Sherrod Brown, of OHIO. Think about it folks. Sleaze versus Decent. Very, very decent.
Make America DECENT, Again. I'm with HER.
5
Brown is too old,and is younger than I.
Whether she's the Un-Trump or the Un-Clinton, she's vastly better than either of those narcissists.
2
Hillary is not a narcissist. But yes, Oprah is a better narcissist than Trump.
1
This piece is a disgusting display of misogyny that I am so tired of reading from men who hate Clinton and the (mostly) white women who agree. Criticizing Ms. Clinton who had spent her career preparing for her career goal of President is so sexistly described as "Plotting and pining" to be President - unlike say the beloved JFK, FDR, Reagen and on on with white guys who spend decades ambitiously (yes - that's a good adjective when used about men) pursuing the oval office. But, of course, women shouldn't have career goals. We should just demurely do our jobs and hope that by luck or personal charm someone notices us and promotes us. Ms. Clinton is a self made person - who came from nothing and through her own smarts and hard work reached the top. That's her story. Trump was born rounding third for home, never worked a day in his life let alone helped a fellow human being - but white guys, many of their wives and the media - loved to sell him as the people's candidate. I'm sick of hearing Democrats trash a woman who has spent her entire life in public service, who has done non-stop fundraisers to support Democratic candidates and who was the FIRST to propose a single payer system at the expense of her reputation and decades long attacks by Republicans. But - of course - by the misogynist narrative that Bernie Bros and conservatives tell - women don't have original "big" ideas. Only men do.
50
Dana from Santa Monica...LOL
Exactly!
3
Well said Dana. This piece is indeed a disgusting display of misogyny.
2
I think Mr. Bruni has it all wrong. It's not Mr. Trump's lack of experience as a politician that makes him uniquely unqualified to be president, it's his temperament. Eisenhower never held political office before becoming president and many presidents (JFK, Obama) had no experience at the helm of any governmental entity, but had only served as senators or congressmen. I'm not advocating for Oprah to run for president, but she clearly has the temperament and the gravitas that Trump lacks. She knows how to run a business empire, and how to do it without staggering controversies or repeat bankruptcies. She appears to be a good judge of character and, as Mr. Bruni recognizes, she gives an inspiring speech without denigrating or bad-mouthing others. I think she, or someone with her same temperament and attributes, would be a fine president.
5
DDE had one of the most political jobs in the world, Supreme Commander AEF.
Dealing with the personalities of his day would as challenging as any assignment on today's horizon.
3
The Golden Globe spectacular was repulsive: Actors dressed in $100,000 outfits and jewelry signaling their moral superiority and lecturing me ... with numerous jokes about white people.
When I turn off the entertainment channel, I don’t want to see actor. Please stay out of politics.
5
I'd say she's the un-Obama.
8
How?
Maybe it is time for us to consider seriously the place of an American-style Monarchy in this great country. And maybe she would be a first candidate...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/world/europe/monarchy-us-advantage.html
5
Don't kind yourself. Clinton's unlikeability and controversy transcended her gender. And for the author: the cult of political expertism is over. What has it done for us?
17
She won the popular vote, so her likeability transcended her gender.
4
"the cult of political expertism is over. What has it done for us?"
If you're seriously asking what experienced, seasoned politicians have ever done for the country, I suggest you look up the Monty Python video where they complain, "What have the Romans ever done for us."
3
Hahaha...Jason!
Another great Bruni column -- and recounting of a paralyzing paradox. What you have to do to win the presidency, the troughs of degradation you must sup from, disqualify and deter all but the profoundly shameless and unqualified.
18
Sorry to burst the bubble of your apocalyptic dirge, but Hillary Clinton was well qualified.
1
Clnton had other deficiencies Oprah doesn't share.Oprah has accomplished much and gets full credit for it, she is seen as trustworthy, she has no flagrant conflicts of interest (like the Clinton Foundation) and many Americans could imagine enjoying a drink or two with her.
9
And she isn’t married to Bill.
1
Yes, but I have to wonder what is in Oprah's tax returns... while I don't doubt that she has the billions she claims (unlike Trump), and probably hasn't taken any money from Russian oligarchs, I'm willing to bet anyone with her money has pursued some dodgy tax and investment strategies along the way. She seems pristine because she hasn't been scrutinized.
1
When you speak of Oprah's accomplishments and Clinton's deficiencies are you confident that Oprah could withstand the epic, scorching hatred that Hillary Clinton has endured? Because no matter how virtuous you think she is, it wouldn't come to that if she runs for president.
1
"To many voters, she was a career politician who had been pining and plotting for the presidency her whole life."
Pining and Plotting? WOW. How about she spent her whole life practicing and gaining knowledge & experience. Had experience in the White House as First Lady. Ran for Senator and won and ran again and was re-elected. Was our Secretary of State. Not to mention all her efforts and experience straight out of college and into the Governor's mansion in her pre-White House days.
Trump spend decades proclaiming he wanted to be president and did not spend one second even figuring out what the job was nor spending one second in any position as a public servant. Not a clue what the Constitution is or what it's for.
CLINTON was exhausting???!!! Who's exhausting now?
571
Thank you Y. ellen.
What's exhausting is reminding people, who should know better, of Clinton's
immeasurable qualifications.
8
Clinton was the victim of a 25 year smear campaign, which started when she dared try to volunteer to fix health care, which by now, really does seem unfixable. She became poison to her peers, women of a certain age, who felt she was too modern, too independent, too interested in work rather than family or a decorative appendage to her husband. She also was devastingly smarter than many men in the room. Not baking cookies was seen as a rejection of their life choices, which in many cases was very limited due to the attitude of their dads towards higher education and the attitude of men as to the rightful place of their wives. The booming economy of the boomer generation meant women could stay home and provide full-time childcare and let's face it, full-time husband-care, cooking cleaning keeping up their social lives and letting them idle after their work contribution.
I think the youth of america will have to pick the next leader. Hillary was popular among younger women, and men, who no longer see the world like this.
We have seen what a random billionaire celebrity understands about running a government. Part of government service and political positions is learning to discuss and bargain and to follow a path of mutual benefit. Being CEO seems to allow people to become arrogant and overconfident in their own abilities (Trump, Tillerson) which just does not work when you have millions of civil servants who are paid, qualified and want to help.
9
"To many voters, she was a career politician who had been pining and plotting for the presidency her whole life."
No one moves -- I repeat, no one -- moves to ARKANSAS because she's been "plotting" to snag the presidency.
4
Bruni has it exactly right. But the Democrats, who should have been on suicide watch for years, will once again blindly go off another cliff in 2010. .
4
Alzheimers?
1
The only person in the Democratic party who comes close to Oprah-esque is the one person with a heart, mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu. True, he is an unknown, nationally and internationally. But he has all the qualities it takes to bridge our ailing divisive nation.
Bernie Sanders was hugely popular too, and 11 million Americans voted for him, especially democrats abroad saw in him qualities they needed to see in an American leader. But the American media, especially the NYT did an awful job of conveying the truth about what he stands for. Rabid Hillary fans portrayed him as anti women and such falsehood. These same Hillary fans called anyone who was not in love with Hillary, sexist, which was very hypocritical considering Hillary represents a kind of woman who tolerates a wandering husband while posing to be a champion of all women. It just did not make any sense. Anti Weinsteiners need to understand that not only did Hillary and the Clintons take money from Weinstein, for both the party and the Clinton Foundation, but that Bill Clinton himself represents the very symbol of a charming womanizer whom women could not supposedly resist.
28
What about my personal pick for 2020, Julian Castro? For that matter, Corey Booker? Senator Booker literally carried an elderly woman out of a burning house. There are plenty of Democrats with inspiring stories and heart, we just need to nurture them and stop the familial infighting. It is a Republican myth that the Dems have a deficit of talent and inspiration on the back bench.
2
Some of the talk on FB about this topic has been particularly illuminating and what I have gleaned is this: We have a long way to go when it comes to feminism, #metoo aside. My FB feed is filled with mostly men protesting that she is not qualified and making jokes about her touch feely nature.
To which I say: Are you kidding me?!
Oprah built a multimedia empire and one of the world's most recognizable brands. She has been a cultural touchstone and a societal force. She’s a self-made billionaire and a philanthropist.
LOTS of people go into public office without experience. In business, you have people like Mitt Romney, Jon Corzine, Phil Murphy, Michael Bloomberg In entertainment: Al Franken, Sony Bono, Ronald Regan, Fred Grandy, Clint Eastwood. In the nepotism category you have two Bush, several Kennedys, one Cuomo and I am sure I am missing a few. If none of those filled you with angst, then be quiet now.
Whatever her platform, from a qualification perspective, she's as entitled as those who came before her..... That doesn't mean I endorse her--but the blinding misogyny that is surrounding this is hard to hear. She has a built an empire worth billions.....
.....and to remind you all....that is billions with a B.
121
It's not mostly men on FB. Many people do not care for the idea. She is an entertainer with a great personality. She's a great actress who gave a great speech, but the talk show thrives on the cynical assumption that people are disempowered and needy. I find it to be somewhat sanctimonious and exploitive.
3
She's rich therefore she must be qualified to be president? Please. Have we not conducted this experiment and it failed?
5
I agree. But you forgot to say that she is very, very SMART and could easily learn the ropes of the office. She was once dubbed "the most influential woman in America" because she not only knows a lot but can inspire other people through her actions and words.
3
Are you sure about "Oprah's ability to excite Democrats"? The Times comment sections have been lukewarm at best.
18
We really need another Rich Celebrity sucking up all of the oxygen in 2020. Have we reached the stage where all you need is a private jet and a good onscreen presence to win the White House? Really starting to hope someone wakes us up from this bad dream we are having. No Policy Trump verse Who knows her policy Winfrey in 2020 is really scary.
84
Wait, are you talking about JFK? Or FDR? Both celebrities and wealthy men in their own times, both dismissed before they entered office as inexperienced and lightweight.
If Oprah would stop stringing the Palestinians along with the bogus promise of a two state solution, if she would stop the use of United States forces to slaughter Arabs in the name of some bogus war against supposed terrorists, in short if she would change the trajectory of the disastrous foreign policy of the United States championed by Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton ( to whit $3trillion wasted and upwards of 200,000 lives lost in 16 years of George Bush's pointless wars), I would vote for her in a heart beat! We need real change.
10
One of Hillary's problems was that she represented the elite, and I don't see Oprah as any different. Her involvement in weight watchers is a red flag. What exactly did she do to deserve the $400 million that she got for endorsing weight watchers? As somebody who influences opinions, she has a $400 million conflict of interest.
26
She purchased 10% of the company is what she did.
6
Are you sure about those numbers? They are insane?
I am not an Oprah fan -- I've never even seen one of her t.v. shows.
But I give her a lot of credit for creating from nothing and then successfully administering a large corporation, without crashing and burning everything in her path -- the kind of administrative skills a successful leader of an administrative branch of government could put to good use.
More importantly, though, I give her even more credit for inspiring the best in the American people, and not forgetting the farm workers, the secretaries, the hotel and restaurant workers, the teachers and the scientists as too many in the Democratic party have done in the past.
That is why Bernie Sanders inspired so many in 2016, and "I have a plan for that" did not. Right now I could use a little more inspiration in my life. If a new day is about to dawn, and it is Oprah on the horizon, I'm willing to at least give her a chance.
78
Bernie only inspired those who were naive enough to believe he could do what he said. The rest of us didn't buy into it and won't buy into it. Forget about Bernie!
1
When I think of what Clinton brought to the table as a whole, I personally saw nothing that would be such a turn-off in her that I would even think of Trump as an alternative.
I have to ask the question then, what is it exactly that we the people looking for in a leader and do we even actually know?
Granted, Clinton was a woman who had been grooming herself for the role she was seeking for years.
What's wrong with that?
Would we rather have, say, a surgeon like Donald Trump, who's come into an operating room and wing it.
Many say they didn't like Clinton's voice, her style, but the thing to me, I had hoped was someone who had the experience in government to make us at least say we had sent in someone who knew their way around the table.
Then there were those who felt that Bernie Sanders offered those who were seeking free tuition and health care a better shot.
When one looked at the makeup of Congress, we could see that wasn't going to happen.
There were those who were childish enough to say they'd rather have Trump than a Hillary Clinton.
OK, you got your wish, how's that working out for you.
At some point in time, we have to be realistic about what we desire in
one who would lead us.
All things considered, just like when the folks in his day choose Barabbas, I think we might have missed the boat.
313
First you must ask the right question. Asking "what is it that we the people are looking for in a leader" is the wrong question. Presidents are not leaders, they are elected representatives. It is We the People who give them their authority. Never forget that they work for us and stop looking for the Messiah.
6
I agree with your summary here @marriea, but as a Bernie supporter I fear you have minimized me (and Bernie) to a republican sound bite. Bernie talked about income inequality, the growing kleptocracy, the right to healthcare and shoring up the social safety net. He was - and still is - right. (And yes, I voted for Hillary in the general election).
9
I am SURE we missed the boat!
2
She is just a different version of whatever it is Trump is.
She is a talk show host with clever investments and a tendency to try to engage large groups of people in self improvement activities.
None of these things is even remotely a qualification for the presidency.
180
Americans are too enamored by celebrity, too eager to reward celebrity.
If we only cared as much about policy. I want a president who has worked in elected office at the local or state level before jumping into the most important job of our country. I admire Oprah Winfrey greatly, but I don't wish to see any entertainer/billionaire seeking our highest office.
244
but there probably will be more of them now and I'd rather have her than many of the others.
1
I have a new theory in this current political climate with the way technology and social media can dig up information and twist them to produce many untruths. The longer you are in politics the less chances you have of winning the presidency. Think about it.
1
I think the important thing is for the 2020 nomination process of the Democratic party to be open to a wide variety of candidates. Hilary Clinton seemed imposed on us; she was the presumptive candidate from the start. The thing about Obama and Bill Clinton: they did not start as favorites, but had to win people over (recall that Paul Tsongas was the original favorite for the Democratic ticket in 1992).
Hilary never won people over. She lost in '08, then waited for '16, and it was "her turn".
Was she a bad candidate? Was she the best the Democrats could do? In June 2015, you could not tell me you knew the answers to these questions. Which is why it's so important not to lock in behind one candidate so early. For the Democrats, I'd like to see:
1) From June 2019 to Spring 2020, a diverse group of plausible candidates, with no overwhelming favorite, and an opportunity for those candidates to prove that they can really connect with the public well.
2) Once a candidate had clearly locked up the nomination, other candidates should accept defeat, and the supporters should recognize that the consequences of electing Trump--or another Republican--for four more years are worse than voting for your favorite Democrat's primary season rival.
38
It was "her turn"? Is that something she said? How EXACTLY was she a bad candidate? Unqualified? I would like someone to explain her policy ignorance to me.
1
"In June 2015, you could not tell me you knew the answers to these questions."
See, I specifically said that we wouldn't know who was a good candidate. This is why there should have been an open competition for the position. What happened--and by extension, what you are defending--is confining the race, from the outset, to one prominent candidate (and a few fringe people).
Also, "qualified" is not enough; this country has 50 governors, 535 representatives, and hundreds of former governors, representatives, and cabinet members who are "qualified". That doesn't make them capable of winning. Hilary never passed a test: her only win was against poorly funded Rich Lazio; she lost despite the odds to Obama in 2008. She should have been tested in 2016; she should have had to earn the nomination to show she could actually win an election.
Lastly, I did not imply that Hilary used the term "her turn"; so much as the Democratic establishment did. The term was used by Hilary's staffers, Obama's former campaign manager Jim Messina, and numerous influential columnists.
Nonsense. She won the popular vote. Most of us voted for an intelligent experienced candidate. Shame on the rest.
2
Oprah Winfrey gave a magnificent, soaring and even important speech at the Golden Globes. I hope there is not another one coming any time soon. Because this reaction - putting her in a presidential context - is getting a bit silly and embarrasses the Democratic Party.
No one who is "stable" and "like, very smart" should begin a career in politics by running for President of the United States. It's not just because they are likely to lose in their bid but, far more dangerous in 21st century America, they might win.
103
I read the speech. Run of the mill inspirational, in my opinion. High glucose corn syrup for the heart. Our nation has lost its center, with the Trumps and the Oprahs dominating our political debate.
Re Oprah: we have no trouble electing generals who have no governmental experience. While the jury's still out on Grant (though not for me: I think he was a great president), Washington and Eisenhower didn't do too badly.
6
You're saying that 5-star generals don't have governance experience? perhaps not elected, but they have to manage trillion $$$ organizations with millions if "employees", strategizing in matters of life and death for individuals and for countries. You really think that TV and film experience is comparable to managing the Union troops in the Civil War and American/Allied troops in WWII?
3
Generals have government experience in one of the most important aspects of a presidency. Heading up the US armed forces.
3
Zachary Taylor, "hero" of the Mexican War and Whig compromise candidate at a time when the Whig Party was falling apart because it couldn't figure out what it stood for, is typically ranked by historians among the bottom half of US presidents. And the election of William Henry Harrison in fact got us John Tyler, almost always ranked in the bottom quartile.
1
Anyone who is actually qualified to be President either has to much sense to want the the job, or too much baggage to get it. A multi-decade career in politics involves choices, compromises, and inevitably mistakes that are on the record. A military career That end at Colonel's rank or above in our era's ugly, unfinished wars is not much better. Hillary's Iraq war vote being perhaps exhibit A. The current social media driven, and absolutely absurd, election process simply demands a blank slate with one hundred percent name recognition, and good speaking skills. So Oprah is very much in the game if she wants to play. The alternative is for the voters to give someone credit for having learned from their mistakes. I am not terribly hopeful on that one.
30
Pls no, no famous business people for president. The skills required are very different - compromise, negotiation, taking the long view, compromise, compromise, compromise. Being your own CEO means never having to compromise, your word goes. No matter how nice, concerned, inclusive etc Winfrey is - she just does not have the experience. Pls just stop with the speculation and feeding frenzy. Democrats need to hunker down, find skilled, experienced people to run and then back them with money, rhetoric, bodies on the ground and money.
20
I'm not up for a battle between the Good TV Host and the Wicked TV Host. One of the worst aspects of Trump's ascendance is his utter lack if any relevant knowledge or experience. Statecraft is not a TV show. It requires extensive knowledge and skills gained through experience. The President should be someone who could easily serve as the Secretary of State, Defense or Treasury. No more rich celebrities!
85
John, Fully agree. However, given the star aspect of our election system, the president needs a bit of charisma. I was struck that many really admired Clinton as Secy of State but found her wanting as a presidential candidate. Probably the president needs to surround him/herself with really capable people, but the president also needs to use the bully pulpit to push legislative agendas. Obama was terrific in many ways, but he once had Bill Clinton lay out the logic of his economic goals. Although I was a strong Hillary supporter, I did not look forward to the Republicans sandbagging her the way they did Obama. Of course, if not for Comey she probably might have had congressional majorities.
1
Like A. Lincoln? Oh wait, he freely admitted that he needed Seward in Defense, Chase in the Treasury and ultimately Stanton in Defense to make his administration a success.
i have no clue whether or not winfrey will run for potus.
nor do i have a clue whether or not she'd be great or horrible if she became potus.
i do know that having the ability to make money isn't always the same as being politically smart or smart in general.
however, i am curious how the genius in chief would denigrate, disparage and generally try to destroy her.
of course, that depends on whether he's still potus.....
and, finally, she might not want to take the drop in status if she's elected president.
5
Another celebrity being discussed, and apparently seriously, as a potential President. Wow.
19
Hillary's mistake was talking about Trump instead of her policies. So far,the Democrats have no one who has experience plus charisma. Trump's supporters will stand by him and most potential Democrat voters won't vote.
5
She talked about her policies. Nobody listened - and the media distinctly did NOT talk about her policies.
11
Joe Biden has experience plus charisma but also high mileage.
1
I, of course, meant 2020 not 2010. But, hey, I'm a Democrat so I sometimes get confused.
5
As a Democrat for 52 years, I find the Oprah for president frenzy profoundly depressing and indicative of a society that has become thoroughly debased.
At the very least, where is the appropriate humility before the magnitude of this office, not only the highest in the land but holding such great world power?
Is it a job for a well-meaning neophyte who can simply learn on the job and transfer her skill set from one context to another, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance? Remember, Obama had a thin resume but WAS a senator and law professor.
Have national elections devolved to contests akin to high school student gevernment elections where you pick the more popular and well-liked student who promises to decrease homework?
Is the candidate with the most celebrity and money given the most credence and media coverage?
With the monumental problems this country and this earth face, and with the onerous task our next president must take up, seizing the initiative to solve these problems AND using his/her skill to undo the damage Trump has visited upon us, I can’t believe we are devoting all this energy and print to this topic.
I’ve counted 9 articles in the Newspaper Of Record already.
For shame!
358
I agree and what was worse to me was it was the lead story on every national news broadcast last night and on all of the morning shows today. Meanwhile, Trump and his ilk are dismantling departments and regulations that were devised to protect the American people and throwing out hard working immigrants who came to this country looking for a better place. Boggles my mind how we focus on this and voluntarily divert our attention from the important stuff.
10
Lincoln was a neophyte. Obama was a neophyte. When it came to governing, George Washington was a neophyte. When it came to governing, Dwight Eisenhower was neophyte. Truman was pretty inexperienced too, and the product of the Missouri political machine.
Nixon wasn't a neophyte
George Bush Jr. supposedly had executive experience as the Governor of a large state
Herbert Hoover was experienced.
Ronald Reagan had two terms as the Governor of the nation's largest state.
Try sorting this list by succes in office and experience either is unimportant or is negatively correlated with successful governance.
Maybe vision, character and proven success are more important. If that is the case, Winfrey has all 3. The fact that she is a rags to riches African-American woman ain't bad either.
2
We went down the rabbit hole with the Trump presidency and are not going to find our way out of it for a while. Why not meet strength with strength and utilize someone with Oprah's immense clout and capacity to effectively pull a U-turn and return us to democratic norms while the Democratic party grooms the next generation of leaders... Booker, Harris, etc. Who better to enter the circus spectacle of a Presidential campaign than a business titan (an actual one) with her own media empire at her back? Not to mention that she knows a few things about how organizations work. Also not to mention that she has Barack and Michelle on speed dial and can learn from their missteps. I'll bet she's brushing up on her Spanish right now. I hope so. Oprah, if you're reading this: please, Madame President, PLEASE.
1
Because the presidency is no place for on the job training. Watching Trump (the child king) flounder, flair and scream for the past year has surely taught at that.
2
Frank is on target in identifying Oprah’s radiation of empathy. But her charisma goes beyond empathy: she radiates belief in humanity, and conviction that goodness will prevail.
Oprah motivates solving the problems, but the skills needed to remedy them are full of details and mechanisms and alliances that extend beyond motivation and belief in outcome and the will to do good. Oprah’s qualities are needed, but solving problems like health care, affordable housing, child & elder care, functional transportation, equitable distribution of wealth, etc. are complex. We need to be reminded by Oprah not to lose hope, but we also need a map and leaders who can plot a route through the intricacies complicating how to get there.
254
Solving healthcare is easy. Its called single payer. Just do what every other first world country is doing. To me the "problems are complex" argument always seems like an excuse for inaction.
15
Name an electable candidate who can plot a route through the intricacies of health care, affordable housing, child & elder care, functional transportation, and the equitable distribution of wealth. No one person has enough understanding of all of these issues. It is entirely about whom they appoint and consult. And then about their ability to separate the wheat from the chaff, or to make difficult choices between equally viable (or non-viable) alternatives. Preferably using their own experience, education, reading and preparation as a foundation for such a decision.
Could Elizabeth Warren do this? Sure, but no way she gets elected. Biden I put as a maybe. Bernie, too. What about Rubio? Pence? Heck no. I wouldn't put most current/former senators in this category. (Tom Cotton? Tom Price? Jeff Sessions? Devin Nunes?) Adam Schiff maybe. Ted Cruz (dear God!) could do it. But do you see Cruz as president?
We set the bar too high, when appealing to the electorate is also a requirement. Maybe Schiff could beat Pence, but if Trump is the candidate you must put up another Trump.
11
actually great leaders don't need to be deep subject matter experts. They need to have crazy good listening skills, motivational skills and decision making skills. They also need to believe insurrounding themselves with people smarter than they so they can hire the best and brightest.
9
She’s neither, and she’d probably be offended at the question.
The next president after The Donald likely will be a professional politician, with deep domestic and possibly deep foreign policy credentials. Trump was a discontinuity, summoned by the people to fix an American political framework that had been broken and frozen for years. The bargain voters made to get forward movement again was a guy they disliked marginally less than they disliked HRC, but who probably (so far) is going along with excessively conservative congressional direction. If the economy remains strong through 2020, if Trump were to moderate his tweets AND his support of hyper-conservative policy, and if we can avoid a nuclear confrontation with North Korea, then Trump could win re-election handily.
And Oprah is center-left only to someone glued to the far-left wall. HILLARY was center-left: Oprah is an unambiguous liberal and is not electable as such. Someone like Cruz, who in the end is a pretty bright guy, would crucify her in a campaign.
It’s not Trump’s behavior that fills Democrats with despair: it’s his remarkable success so far in pushing a Republican agenda. The problem is that Democrats haven’t universally passed through even the first two stages of the five stages of grief following Trump’s election. Some have gotten through “anger” and “denial”, many remain stuck at “denial”. None of you has gotten yet to “bargaining”, and you may never get to “depression” and “acceptance”.
4
Congressional Democrats have yet to mount an effective campaign to trade bipartisan fig-leaves for actual relevance by moderating excessively conservative legislation. Without doing that, so long as the economy remains strong, they have no hope of altering our Republican reality.
And Oprah would be as much an ineffective lame duck as president from her inauguration date as Hillary would have been with this Congress.
The next president won’t be Oprah, and won’t come from the world of entertainment. He or she will have political and governance substance and stature. The people will demand it.
2
Just checking to see if you are still delusional regarding Trump.
Yup.
8
True, HRC doesn't have Oprah-esque magnetism, but it's too often forgotten that HRC's task of winning a 3rd consecutive White House term for the same party has only been accomplished once in almost 70 years - the trifecta of pulling this off as the first woman major party nominee, on the heels of the historic Obama election(s) shouldn't be assigned too much to the candidate's faults or the campaign's faults.
Yes there were mis-steps, but remember, the Dem candidate in 2016 did win the vote - she only lost the electoral college.
As well, the media utterly forgot its purpose in the 2016 cycle; CBS's Les Moonves Feb. 29 2016 proclamation of the calculus "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS" behind the media's GOP'er circus primary process is an attitude unlikely to be repeated in 2020.
Plus, any Dem female nominee will still be running up against the same substantial wall of GOP'er "Nevertheless, she persisted" and Martha Stewart stock trade-ism that makes up GOPers' meme.
Instead of aping the Dilly Dilly! GOPers destroying their party engaging in the fraudulent conspiracy of covering for His Unhinged Unfitness in order to prosecute a Koch Bros. Inc. fantasy agenda, and stuff the judiciary with a Federalist Society dream list, Dems should stay true and keep calling out the hourly lies/Fake News of Putin's Poodle POTUS.
For example, according to BLS, in 2017, fewer jobs were created than in 2016; 2017 was the worst year for job creation since 2011 :(
54
Past the 1500 characters:
It must also be said that even Oprah's candidacy wouldn't have survived an October surprise like Comey pulled in the 10 days before 2016's election; that exact scenario won't be repeated (it's been done now), but a variation courtesy of Faux Noise Machina et al, can easily be contemplated.
2
We've already seen what happens when an individual with no experience with or understanding of government holds office. In addition to these major deficiencies, Trump has also shown little interest in learning about governance. An equally important problem which is not mentioned as often is that he has been unable to attract people who could offset these deficiencies.
Oprah shares the same lack of experience and understanding of government, but I think that one critical difference is that I believe she could (and would want to) attract people who could ably support her in office. In fact, she might well be able to draw the "best and the brightest" to her side, and that could make a major difference.
Maybe it would be a good idea for her to run for Congress in this fall's elections. That would give her a taste of the Washington milieu.
142
No. She should start with mayor. I refuse to vote for anyone with no government experience.
5
You mean like Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil? Nah. If she wants to show us what she has got, she should run for the governor of Illinois or the mayor of Chicago. She can use her shine to clean up that city. Chicago has a ton of problems. Start there!
1
I think Clinton came up short in part because she insufficiently aspirational. She wanted to promise what she believed she could deliver while Sanders and Trump were promising the moon, very different moons at that. That centrist view won her a majority, just not in the right states, where she spent too little time.
The issue that Oprah Winfrey would face is building a campaign team and then an Administration to get things done. Trump is an example of perhaps the worst of both ever, hiring dirty guys like Manafort, Flynn and Bannon for the campaign, and then relying on inexperienced family members and weak political players like Priebus to coordinate with legislators, while Bannon tossed bombs.
The political climate will look much different in 2020 than 2016, better or worse. But belief in science will certainly be stronger and hopefully the belief in voting will be as well. With Trump long gone, the incumbent Pence should be easy to beat.
22
Much as I wish she would, I doubt if Oprah will run for the Presidency. The day before the Golden Globes I was puzzling over who the Democrats could run who could win -- and independent of the pundits, I decided that Oprah would be best because she has the right moral character, plus charisma. Obama wasn't just a good person and lawyer, he had charisma and that is what won him the presidency.
I adore Hillary Clinton, but clearly our country does not. She would probably win as Prime Minister of France or Germany, but rationality isn't a winner for American voters. Charisma is .
Oprah is all those other things, brilliant, astute, and a fine human being. She also has charisma. It is unfortunate that people can't see beyond charisma in this country, but since it can't , we are lucky to have a Democrat who is both rational and moral and she has charisma.
30
I admire Winfrey a great deal, but her trajectory to the presidency would be too much like Donald Trump's and -- I hate to say it -- might well be another step moving the US to dictatorship. Certainly not that she herself would become a dictator. But the trend of looking to the President to be not an executive, but a Savior, is troubling. At some point, it could go horribly wrong.
4
If Obama was good if would not have belonged to Jerimahi Wright church for years. Or have been Bill Ayers' friend.