"Oprah for president" has broken out like a delirium across social media after the TV star made an "electrifying" speech at the Hollywood Golden Globes ceremony last weekend in which she spoke eloquently in defense of women over sexual harassment and for racial minorities.
Comment: Even Ivanka Trump tweeted in support of Oprah's speech, but the responses she received were more clear-headed among the Twitterati than the liberal airheads:
"A new day is on the horizon," declared the 63-year-old African-American Winfrey, who is one of the most recognized celebrities in America after decades hosting a top-rated talk show.
CNN and other liberal media outlets who hate Republican President Donald Trump with a vengeance, think that they have found their political savior in Oprah. She would be the "perfect anti-Trump candidate," reported CNN on breaking the news from "close friends" that Oprah is considering a run for the White House at the next election in 2020.
"Winfrey has deep pockets, an even deeper well of charisma, and instant name recognition, thanks to decades on The Oprah Winfrey Show," swooned a CNN comment.
On a superficial level, Oprah might seem the perfect ticket. She has millions of fans among ordinary Americans due to her years of hosting wildly popular TV shows and also from an award-winning acting career. She was nominated for an Oscar in 1985 for her performance in Steven Spielberg's film, The Color Purple.
Oprah has the backing of legions of celebrities and media because of her undoubted charisma and humanitarian character. This week, Oscar-winning actress Meryl Streep was one of the first to hail her presidential ambitions. "She's got to do this," Streep emphatically told the Washington Post.
Oprah's life story is also appealing to masses of ordinary folks. She was born into poverty to an unmarried mother who worked as a housemaid in the Deep South of Mississippi. Through sheer talent and grit, she worked her way to the top of the entertainment business.
Today, Oprah is reckoned to have a personal net worth of $3 billion, and owns her own cable TV network and a movie production company. She has also given hundreds of millions of dollars away in charitable causes both in the US and Africa.
There is no doubting her empathy with the downtrodden in society, owing to her own experience of hardship and pain. Her younger sister died from cocaine addiction, and as a child Oprah used to wear clothes made from potato sacks such was the grinding poverty of her family's life.
Comment: On the other hand, there's this:
Previously, at the height of her TV fame, she has campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008 when he was elected the first African-American president. She also backed Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Comment: That she backed evil Killary should tell you all you need to know about Oprah. She's either clueless or knows exactly the kind of person she was endorsing in Killary. Either way, would YOU want someone like that as president?
In many ways, therefore, Oprah has impeccable credentials to galvanize the American electorate behind a liberal Democrat president - and become the first woman to occupy the White House.
But here's where the fairytale story starts to unravel. It really is a sign of how decrepit the American political system is when the parties are obliged to seek celebrities as their figureheads. It is a sign of how in such low esteem "professional" politicians from both parties are held by the public when the parties have to court a reality-TV-type candidate to represent them.
Comment: Clearly the Democrats are trying to learn from the 2016 election. They have learned that the American people no longer trust traditional politicians, so if a celebrity takes on social issues and has a large following they immediately become political figures. Such is the state of American politics in today's day and age.
Ironically, the Democrats and liberal media pundits have deprecated the Republicans for recruiting reality-TV star Donald Trump as their leader. Now, the Democrats are mulling the same formula by choosing Oprah Winfrey.
Admittedly, Oprah has a very different character and set of moral values from Trump. Her life work and charitable giving mark her out as a genuine humanitarian with natural leftwing social sensibilities for justice and equality.
Comment: Her support of Killary and seeming enabling of Weinstein over the years belie any claims of 'moral values' and 'justice and equality.' Oprah is just another virtue signaling libtard.
But putting faith in Oprah to transform American society into something more "progressive" and humane is such a pitiful delusion.
It really is a touchstone of how degenerate US politics have become when so many people might even contemplate that one benign individual could overturn a backlog of systemic problems, from gross wealth inequality to a culture of endless war-making around the globe.
Oprah's would-be campaign slogan "A new day on the horizon" sounds a lot like Obama's "hope and change". Or Trump's "America first". In the end, it's all soundbite and no substance. Much like an advertising jingle. Because American politics has become reduced to a commodified pursuit, like buying soap powder or a fast-food snack.
It is delusional for Americans to think that the many deep-seated problems in their nation can be solved by one individual, no matter how well-intentioned that individual might appear.
America's political problems are systemic in nature. They arise from the plutocratic nature of how its capitalist economy is run for the benefit of the elite few. Trump's recent $1.5 trillion tax giveaway for Wall Street and corporate America is a classic example.
So too is the relentless annual military spending - $1 trillion by some estimates - by the American government. A fraction of this allocation of taxpayer money would provide all Americans free education and healthcare if the government chose to. But Washington does not provide that humane option because it is dominated by the military-industrial complex, which again is dedicated to elite corporate interests, not those of the ordinary people.
America's systemic problems require a systemic solution. That involves electing a president and an administration who truly represent the interests and needs of the majority of working Americans. That, in turn, depends on Americans mobilizing as a mass movement of informed citizens who are aware of what needs to change: the systemic corruption that stems from a capitalist economy which is dedicated to oligarchic privilege and war-making.
Oprah Winfrey is indisputably a wonderful human being and an inspiration to millions from her soulful life. All credit to her for what she stands for as an individual.
But for Americans to place faith in Oprah as a would-be political leader is pathetically misplaced. Americans need to stop looking for individual "saviors" and to start organizing themselves as a mass movement for a socially just and peaceful government. That's a tall order. Nevertheless it needs to be done.
The flurry of media excitement this week over Oprah's projected presidential ambitions shows how braindead American political culture is.
And, to be sure, the plutocrats and oligarchs just love it that way. Watch how she will be lionized and packaged to become just another American delusion.
Reader Comments
Stop thinking like a spineless white-flighter and make what you got work for you like every other race in America has had to do one time or another. Your way of thinking is part of the problem.
You've been on SOTT for how long?.. And you haven't figured it out yet?? Obama is a sock-puppet like your other presidents are for the NWO - like Trump now is (ever since his 'glowing orb' moment in Saudi).
You're witnessing another development-stage played out toward finalising the NWO Grand Plan - and this time its to the detriment of 'whitey' also... Isn't that nice?... The Illuminati have included the demise of us white-folk too! We're all in it together:like: Wouldn't want to feel left out!!!
"Ordo Ab Chao".
I sit on a pretty safe rock.
What we emit is what we attract.
Anyway, who gives a fuck. That country has been a joke to everyone else for a long time. Having clowns for presidents is just par for the course.
they look like the perfect match.
Cant' find it, it's all full of the golden globe speech, reminded me of all those larger life figures in the teen books and movie Mockingjay. Y'now where the youth fight for survival in a virtual/reality game for survival.
Are we seeing the idiocracy played out, instead of Commander Comanchero, we are seeing the new updated female version, all socially acceptable to all factions of society, without the guns of course.
[Link]
Just can't help myself.
Current society says: " Wait, what does that mean"
If this story was about a white women from Biloxi Mississippi the trend would highlight white privilege, but since this is about Oprah, well, it is sheer talent and grit.
Democrats, you want a winner in 2020? One name: Tulsi Gabbard. [Link]
please to try it
Case in point, the contributors above... they lump african americans into one large and homogeneous group and incidentally, describe themselves as individuals... like somehow they overcame group categorisation.
Flip reverse, if a so-called african american lumped a contributor above to say, 'the white group' and started coming up with all sorts of generalisations, these same contributors would be up in arms.
You know what I call this... HYPOCRISY.
You know what I call these contributors... ZOMBIES.
"Overcoming group categorizing"?... "coming up with all sorts of generalizations"??...
...Bit rich...
- So says Mr. 'Everyone-is-Either-Clear-Cut-White-or-Clear-Cut-Non-white'... There'e no in-between mustn't upset "categorisation"... No overlapping muddling for our Lon!
HYPOCRISY INDEED!
Also making sweeping statements about my person with no supporting data...
Think someone didn't read this
Common thinking errors: How to recognize logical fallacies so that they can be prevented
We would all benefit from thinking more about how we think. Everybody makes thinking errors. But two things have happened recently that prompt me to write on this subject. One is politics, because...All fun and games BC.
As long as its "all fun and games" LS.
Pretty much the only arguments the article proposes are
- Association with Harvey - I'm sure I can find pictures of 90% of entertainment moguls and billionaires with Harvey.
- Supported Hillary and Obama - only evidence this is of is that she supported those 2 and is a democrat likely.
- She's a self made celebrity - so is Trump
- CNN endorses her - has CNN become the barometer nowadays?
The above seem to act as virtue signaling lol something which Oprah is accused of doing in other articles, ad hominen attacks etc
Common thinking errors: How to recognize logical fallacies so that they can be prevented
We would all benefit from thinking more about how we think. Everybody makes thinking errors. But two things have happened recently that prompt me to write on this subject. One is politics, because...The author goes on to say why Oprah won't change anything, because essentially no one single individual can change the system. Ironic that this is the strongest argument WHICH the author uses disingenuously... he uses it to discredit Oprah when in fact this argument discredits ALL presidential candidates INC Trump and Steve Bannon if he decides to run.
Things to watch out for... how come the next election the so-called people using the above argument against Oprah will be using it to endorse whoever the alt right selects. Oh wait... we already experienced this with Trump's whole drain the swamp malarkey.
Well that's true, but the term 'African American' is a false friend that 'we' are given to believe all so-called black Americans wish to be lumped together as one under, which is not the case, and by using the term 'African American', it could be perceived that you also seek to lump people together 'into one large and homogenous group', and that you're happy with the crappy fallacious-vanity-dripping-vom-worthy term 'African American, because maybe, according to your perception there's something in it for you, when in fact there ain't.
People in general tend to think of themselves as 'individual' when it suits them, 'group' when it suits them, and allow themselves wiggle room to flit between one group or another group 'to identify with' when it suits them (according to their perception). A lot of these 'groups' are based on false politically expedient concepts based around "What's in it for me?", but in general they're just handy tools for leading large amounts of people around by the nose and creating a lot of pie-chart divide and conquer paranoia while the worlds owners rub their hands with glee.
Surely we can only understand people if we know where their great-great-great-great-grand parents ship landed
So you're on first name terms?
That's funny. Neither of them have ever heard of you.
Perhaps you should have a ponder over the word 'taken'.
What's in it for you???
Not much, Hutch...[Link]
Big fan of good old Lewis Hamilton, Cristiano Ronaldo... erhm, right now into good old Leroy Sane. Hmmm, think Raheem Sterling is doing good.. oh what other one... was kinda into Roger Federer, thought he was class and elegant.
There, guilty as charged!
The joke's on nobody but you, pal.
Spot the sequence - Black man, white female, black female, transgender thing?