And if she doesn't know better, then she shouldn't be president.

By tomorrow it will be "nah, I don't think so." It would surprise me if this talk about Oprah lasts more than 48 hours.

Michael Moore floated her as a presidential contender in either Stupid White Men (2002) or Dude, Where's My Country? (2003), so if this current fever dream lasts more than a few days, we can expect him to mention it

We are a long way from 2020.

Each can have the nuclear football for a month.

this.

While she gave time on her show to those three and others I don't agree with, she did not CREATE them. Like it or not they (Phil & Oz) were professionals in their fields and though I find them quacks as similarly do some of their professional colleagues, she did NOT "create" them. I would not have promoted them, but they were supposedly the holder of expertise in their fields and Oprah was NOT.

I have a lot of expertise in the field of medicine, but if you asked me to judge which neurosurgeon, as an example, is most credible to be offered a weekly show/forum, I would be hard pressed to do it. Given that Oz still has privileges at Cornell--despite his controversies, suggests it is not so easy to prevent all but the best to have influence and voice.

Phil and Oz were effectively anonymous and largely harmless to the world at large before Oprah created the media personalities that they are now. If they'd stuck to their actual fields, then I wouldn't give a shit about them. But Oprah took it upon herself to propel them into the multi-million dollar limelight that they continue to enjoy by peddling bullshit--from which she continues to draw a profit.

Regarding Oz & his privileges @ Cornel, Ben Carson is a 90% idiot but is also a highly respected neurosurgeon.

If Cornell continues to employ Oz, it is they as much as Oprah that is promoting Oz and his wacko promotions.

Carson is a prime idiot, but how many have been given the impression he is "Gawd's gift" to neurosurgery-- and that is from some who should (probably DO) know better.

What exactly is it that is bothering you about Oprah-- she gave a very eloquent speech about women and the movement to prevent abuse of power, especially as women are concerned. She has announced nothing in terms of her own ambitions. So, I have to wonder if it is her speech that was so lauded, that has you upset and seemingly obsessed.

IMO they should censure him and revoke his privileges, because he aggressively promotes alt med bullshit under the guise of credibility. Cornell is not relevant here, frankly, except to distract from a prime reason why Oprah should not be president.

Further, Cornell is not a monolith nor a single person, so the entire institution is not tarnished by the fact that he retains privileges. Oprah, however, is an individual who could easily renounce Oz's or Phil's bullshit, but she chooses not to do so.

One wonders why, and one is justified in questioning that choice.

is many calling into question the many DU attacks on her, when ALL she has done was give an eloquent speech on women and the movement to stop harassment and abuse of power where women are concerned throughout society. Yet, there has been essentially NO discussion of the speech--only very personal attacks on her re: to a rumor that she MIGHT consider a run for President or the twitter-verse' apparent determination that she OUGHT to.

One MIGHT wonder why....

One definitely wonders why.

Given your aforementioned expertise, you can't possibly be so naive as to imagine that speculation about her presidential ambitions--and the feasibility of such ambitions--must wait until she has formally declared. The rumors and speculation began to swirl while we she still on stage. Have you called out this idle chatter for distracting from her powerful speech? Or are you only going after people who aren't eager to see President Winfrey in the White House?

As you note, I'm not the only one posting on this, and I have read the dozens of replies in the dozen-plus threads on the subject.

that is a ticket to a jury hide. I will NOT oblige. Look for yourself.

I will NOT oblige. Support your own claims.

If you feel so strongly about it, send me a PM, and i promise not to repost it or alert on it.

Asked and Answered. And DONE

NO one is here to spoon feed you, Orrex.

You made a claim that you refuse to support, and because I can't read your mind you accuse me of needing to be spoon-fed. That's fucking hilarious.

Just to fire you up a little more, here are four more great reasons to dislike Oprah:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-ways-oprah-winfrey-changed-world-for-worse/

See? I made a claim and I gave citations. Who'd have thought that such a thing is possible? Amazing!

A lot of vitriol — probably mixed with some sexism and racism too.

All I'll say is don't underestimate African American women. We all should have learned that by now.

I personally would not let him treat a neuroma on my own or any friend/family member's toe. As soon as he opens his mouth, I lose any confidence in his judgement.

The op posted twice not five as you said, and it is unfair as well as against the TOS to claim they are obsessed.

In addition Oz being at Cornell does not justify her repeated promotion of questionable "experts" including him and Dr. Phil. There are other examples such as her promotion of Frey and her multiple tributes to materialism with her "gift parties" where audience members go nuts over free big screen tvs. We already have a president who worships materialism and makes bad choices in what to promote. Would she be better than dump? Of course but if the bar is set that low then our situation is really hopeless.

I find your post not worthy of further comment.

You violate the TOS rather than debate the facts. I take your response as confirming my points. Thanks.

What field would that be, since he's not actually a doctor?

Just curious to know what field you meant.

This is what you said:

are disingenuous. He professes to be a counselor (and Dr. Oz, is indeed a physician) but I don't give GD whether he is or not. He is a charlatan. Enough said.

That does not give reason to attack Oprah, when ALL she has done in the past 18 hours is give an eloquent speech on women and women's rights. And YES, I do believe some are driven by some not so benign or honorable motivations.

I also don't think Oprah's speech was particularly eloquent, but that's just a matter of taste (I thought it was self-serving and chiding, and that she said absolutely nothing new under the sun).

Each to their own, I guess.

and of course your opinion is as valid as anyone's on that.

What angers me is the DUers using this rumor as a launching pad to attack her, rather than even address why she was at the Golden Globes to begin with. So reminiscent of what we have seen towards other prominent women here, especially those with professed (or surmised) political ambitions.

It was typical Oprah. As I said, I'm lukewarm about her, but I certainly can't see her in office. Among other things, she jumps on trends too quickly (and often discards them).

Leave politics to the politicians.

there is a case to be made for wanting to go back to a more traditional path to the WH--i.e., those who actually LEARN the craft of governance prior to running for the highest office.

That said, I do find it scurrilous and frankly ridiculous, to be conflating OPRAH with TRUMP--as others are doing here. And, I say to them: "have you lost your f'king minds?

He is responsible for his own heinous actions.

She bankrolled his media career, and she continues to profit from it, so she's on the hook for it IMO.

He's a science enthusiast, he knows what he doesn't know and how to ask the right questions of those who do know, and he can sing.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Picardo

Same as Phil and Oz.

WE CAN'T TRUST HIM!

Does Kim Jong Un have moves like this:

We live in a shallow, shallow time. At this point a celebrity has a better chance of winning the presidency than Abraham Lincoln reincarnated. We could do a whole lot worse than Oprah. I've never been a huge fan of anyone (since the Beatles - LOL), but if there was a way to swap Oprah for Trump I would agree to it in a nanosecond.

I also think Warren, Harris and others would have the upper hand in taking on a "celebrity".

I get the issues but there is also a bigger picture thing. Promoting the acceptance of people being able to openly talk about their feelings is a good thing. Letting people know there are always(for the most part) help and options is a good thing. I like him for concept and image reasons alone.

Dr. Oz has a negative impact on society and is a big part of what is wrong with us as a society.

Oprah is Oprah. While I have never watched her show I am a "fan" of hers as a person. She is not perfect.

I think the Presidential talk is offensive at best. It's like some have never seen a black woman give a great speech. That is truly the appearance I am getting. They are floored over a speech to the point of making up Presidential aspirations.

I watched it and thought it was one of the least compelling moments of the show, though I admit, I'd pick her over that jackass James Franco who invited a guy onto the stage and then elbowed him away.

Successful businessperson

Really Smart

Hollywood Success

etc.

I dont know about Oz , I do know about Dr. Phil. I dont personally care much for him but my SO loves him and I dont see the problem, other than he seems to provide relatively obvious information as help, but that is not uncommon in that field.

1,097,867 times more qualified to be CIC than any living republican.

Any.

My neighbor's asthmatic Pomeranian is more qualified to be president than any living Republican, but he's still not qualified to be president.

Which of course immediately disqualifies trump.

Oprah could beat him, as could others on our deep bench of potential candidates.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. She hasn't said she's running, all she did was give a speech.

On paper, Trump is qualified to be president, because a majority of electoral votes were credited to him.

In reality, Trump is less qualified to be president than any person has ever been less qualified for any job on the planet.

Although Oprah certainly hasn't declared, there's plenty of online talk about her hypothetical presidency, so it's appropriate to discuss the downside of such a hypothetical presidency.


And it was a monumental speech.

...the USA will not go for another celebrity President in 2020. It's difficult to make predictions this far out, but Americans will be running away from celebrity Presidents, by 2020.

PS - "Dr.s" Phil and Oz - I guess they make a lot of money for themselves and Oprah - but they are awful, in my opinion.

She definitely helped his tv career.

What are you talking about?
If you are trying to claim guilt by association with Dr. Oz, then be aware that Dr. Oz is not anti-vaccine. He writes about vaccines in his blog. http://blog.doctoroz.com/dr-oz-blog/getting-the-vaccinations-you-need