We can now leave Oprah alone

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Link to tweet

Peter Alexander?Verified account
@PeterAlexander
Follow Follow @PeterAlexander
More
NEW: A source close to @Oprah tells @tvkatesnow as of today, she has no intention of running for President in 2020:
“It’s not happening. She has no intention of running,” the source said.
Source says that’s from Oprah herself.

3:26 PM - 8 Jan 2018

Oprah, you're our friend. You are kind, empathetic, and warm. There seems to be a paucity of these attributes these days.

[dalton99a]

1. That settles it

[yuiyoshida]

37. Agreed...

people were trying to get Elizabeth Warren to run but she firmly stood her ground. The appropriate person will stand up and will run, and when they do, we must be ready to back them 100% and fight for other Democrats to get into office.

[ollie10]

2. Not a total Sherman

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. This crap gets stirred up by the media for no other reason than to give the 24/7 election media.....

beast something to talk about. There's just no need to make shit up when we're living in Trump's America.

[hlthe2b]

4. So those who were apoplectic at the thought that this intelligent black WOMAN

might consider such a thing-- with hysterical posts all day long-- can calm the hell down. Your world isn't coming to an end.

[nini]

5. Really? So I'm a racist mysoginist because I don't want her running?

I have no idea then why I'm a Kamala Harris fan and of my first political heroes were Shirley Chisholm and Barbara Jordan.

[hlthe2b]

6. No.. I said "those who were apoplectic at an intelligent black woman running"

Were you "apoplectic at an intelligent black woman running"? No? Then I clearly was not referring to YOU. But, I suppose only you can say.

[nini]

18. I would hope if anyone said they didn't want her to run because she is a strong black woman

would be alerted on and removed.

I didn't see any thing like that so my assumption would be if one was against her it was for those reasons.
but I'll take your word that was not your intent.

thanks

[hlthe2b]

22. the misogyny was strong among a VERY few here today...Not most but a vocal few

There are a multitude of reasons one might not want Oprah to run, not least of all because it wouldn't be good for HER and I'd agree with all or most of those reasons..

However, a few today, with their virulent attacks on Oprah-- which totally ignored the entire reason she was at the Golden Globes to begin with-- made their feelings pretty clear. Just as we've seen when any number of potential female candidates names are mentioned and as we saw through the primaries to election day re: Clinton. Perhaps you've missed some of the intensity of vitriol when say a Elizabeth Warren or a Kamala Harris is mentioned versus a Sherrod Brown, Tim Kaine, Deval Patrick, Bernie Sanders etc. I make no determination that we select ANY female candidate--only that they are treated as equals and with equal respect and that our arguments for or against them are every bit as much policy based as they would be in discussing the male candidates.

[nini]

35. I agree

I have seen some of that in the past but I may have put them on ignore so they don't irritate the heck out of me.

[brush]

36. Those are all fine people but we could do a lot worst than Oprah.

[Bradshaw3]

8. Got any examples of posters who were acting this way?

I saw a lot of people her posting valid reasons for questioning her running, but none who thought the world was coming to an end. Were you greatly overstating and implying racism or their part for some reason? Have any examples of links showing what you claim?

[hlthe2b]

11. As I was one who did not believe she would run and said so and also that we needed someone

who understood government with the requisite experience to turn the "ship around", rather than another absolute outsider-- making it clear this was not an idea I supported, your comment is without merit. There were plenty of opponents to the idea that made cogent points as to why this would be a bad idea--but a significant number of posters who just wanted to attack Oprah, much as they have any woman, let alone a black woman, who was mentioned as a possible contender. It is the latter group to whom I address my comment.

[Bradshaw3]

12. So the answer is no

You can't back up those ridiculous claims about people who question her credentials to run.

[regnaD kciN]

32. It seems a typical gambit among some here...

...make a IDPol statement characterizing anyone who opposes someone or something you like as motivated entirely by racism/sexism/homophobia/etc., then, when someone posts that assertion is off-base, ask rhetorically (and more than a little passive-aggressively) "was I talking about you, personally?" -- with the clear implication that everyone else was motivated by r/s/h/etc.

The beauty of this gambit is that it can be repeated endlessly; no matter how many posters can give cogent reasons for their opposition, you can always postulate an unseen horde out there motivated purely by the basest motives. And, since there's no way to prove a negative, no amount of evidence will suffice.

In a way, it's a backward version of the old "not you -- you're a credit to your race -- I'm talking about all those other worthless (insert name of desired minority here)" lines that were tirelessly intoned among "respectable conservatives" a half century ago. It's become an almost de rigeur gambit in some segments of the left recently, and is making nobody any friends for the movement. But, then again, that's not really the point, is it?

[Phentex]

13. Why discuss her at all?

She gave a great speech. She has repeatedly said she is not running for president.

Shall we discuss Reese Witherspoon running? Or Seth Myers? Or any of the other attendees? There have been posts all day discussing why she should or should not run. WHY?

[Bradshaw3]

16. Obviously because there have been news reports about it

Including now on Hardball. Obviously people on a democratic forum are going to discuss it. If she has repeatedly denied it as you say, that is missing from the reports.

[Phentex]

17. The links are there

and her best friend, known to many people as a named source, namely Gayle, has confirmed it. This is missing from today's news because people were fired up about her speech. And this story would make for a better headline.

[Bradshaw3]

29. I see no links whatsoever

I asked you to provide links showing what you say is true. Should be easy since you said she has stated this repeatedly. You didn't, just another claim about what you claim her best friend says.

[Codeine]

24. Oh just stop.

My Senator is Kamala Harris, for whom I proudly voted. Were she to run for President I’d back her to the end.

You do yourself no favors with your nasty implications.

[hlthe2b]

25. Then why do you self-identify if it doesn't apply to YOU?

Needn't bother Codeine... I am done with you and your rudeness from earlier today.

[Codeine]

26. Your implication was as clear as anything.

It would seem intellectual dishonesty is the rule of the day here at DU.

[Bradshaw3]

30. You make false and nasty implications

Then when asked to defend them and your responses from today that violate the site's TOS, accuse others of doing what you have done.

[hlthe2b]

33. I know you are desperate for my attention, but nope, sorry

I'm not playing in your mud. But, I will give you this one post. Happy now?

[gopiscrap]

28. no, my point is that unless you have a masters in ed, law, history or political science AND

five years experience as a US Rep, Senator or Governor, you have no business running for president

[hlthe2b]

31. then you were not among the few to whom my comment refers...

I agree with you... those are valid reasons.

[FSogol]

7. What does she know? A bunch of bloggers, the twitterati, & clueless pundits are pretending she will!

[BigmanPigman]

9. I have said that when a

woman, atheist, single, childless, multi racial, LGBT, etc person is easily elected prez and when none of these are even mentioned by anyone as being a topic/focus, regardless of their party, and the both chambers do not obstruct the prez (like McConnell, Boehner, Ryan...) then there will be equality and equal representation by real Americans and I will finally be content.

Gender, race, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, etc should never be an issue when choosing a leader who represents everyone by either party. Of course this will never happen in our lifetime.

[Agschmid]

10. Anyone with a brain knows she wont run.

[a kennedy]

14. NOW GIVE IT A REST....PLEASE???

sorry for yelling.

[Phentex]

15. Keep yelling

before we start discussing why Matt Lauer should not run for President.

[JI7]

19. No, she needs to know to stay in her place and don't even think about it

[a kennedy]

34. What do you mean she needs to know to stay in her place??.

Or am I reading this wrong??? Stay in her place, actually means the nerve of her, who does she think she is, as in uppity black woman.

[bdamomma]

20. As much as I like

and admire her, thank you Oprah, you are too good to get smeared.

[Captain Stern]

21. So, evidently, Oprah's a quitter.

She couldn't even handle the rigors of a Presidential campaign for one day.

And no....I refuse to use the sarcasm tag..not gonna do it.

[mcar]

23. Let the attacks on this good woman stop

And let's just appreciate the great speech she gave last night.

[VMA131Marine]

27. It's 2018

Nobody has any intention to run for POTUS 3 years before the election.

[DeminPennswoods]

38. That's good

I like Oprah and watched her show now and then, but enough with candidates who have no government experience at any level. I'd also be concerned that she'd be an easy mark for anyone with a sob story to tell. Think about what her reaction might be if, say, Paul Ryan came in and told her all about his dad dying at a young age and how he and his mother had to pull themselves up by their own (social security assisted) bootstraps.

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. Good, I'm frankly horrified that anyone thought that was a good idea (n/t)

[grantcart]

40. This is why we can't have good things.