Oprah balks at Hosting Palin

[Bree0372]

Lol, that was cute, sweetmop!

My opinion is that since Oprah hasn't given air-time to any candidate, she shouldn't have to interview Gov. Palin.

I, however, wish SOMEONE would (or could). I wouldn't vote for Senator McCain either way (although I do have alot of respect for him, as a hero); I would like the rest of the nation to hear from her own lips, how dangerous she would be if we put her within a "72 year old's heartbeat" from the presidency.

I probably shouldn't even be responding, but here's my spill on this....Yes, John McCain is 72 years old (his mother is a lovely 96-year old woman). However, I didn't realize he had a problem with his heart - skin cancer, yes, but so do a lot of people. IIRC, President Reagan had a 73 year old's heartbeat when he ran for office for a second term...elected, served, and did a wonderful job, IMHO. I wish people would stop with the age thing - it's just a number. A 47 year old's heart could stop just as quickly as a 72 year old.

Now, people talk about Palin's lack of experience, etc. (not saying the quoted poster), but she has more executive experience than Obama, Biden and McCain. It would take McCain to pass away for Palin to be in the #1 position rather than Obama in the #1 position from the beginning. Also, I don't understand where people refer to McCain as the next George W either; they do have a lot of different views. McCain is his own man and no one can take that away from him.

I could go on and on, but I won't. I'm off my soap box now. No offense meant to the poster I quoted; I happen to respect her very much.

FWIW, I'm a registered Democrat!

ETA: Oh yeah, I don't think celebrities should be able to publically endorse candidates because so many people vote based on what George Clooney (for example) thinks. We need to choose who is best in our own opinion to be the next Commander in Chief; we don't need celebrity influence!

 

[kline]

So then, what do you consider of historical significance, if not the first major speech of the first Republican female vice presidential candidate? Is it safe, then, to assume that you also believe that Geraldine Ferraro, as the first female Democratic VP nominee, and Hilary Clinton, as the first viable female candidate for president, also gave no speech of any historical significance?

Please, satisfy my curiosity - what, exactly, would a woman have to accomplish for you to find it to be worthy of the designation, "historical significance?"

The Gettysburg Address,Martin Luther King's 'I have a dream speech'
neither of which were Partisan Propaganda.
Not that there is anything wrong with Partisan propaganda...it is an election year, but it hardly qualifies as historic.
And her gender is no more relevant to me then Obama's color...I hope it isnt to too many other people either.
There is too much at stake .
I cant think of anything Geraldine Ferarro or Hillary Clinton said that was particularly Historic
but then I cant think of anything Walter Mondale Or Bill Clinton said that was particularly Historic either so no reflection on them or their gender.
Having said that its my(Heavy emphasis on the 'My' part) perception that she wasnt picked as the best and most qualified person out of any the GOP had to offer as vice president...someone to assume the leadership of this country in the advent of something happening to McCain.
But rather a cynical move to widen the schism between Hillary Clinton's suporters and Obama.
Which I find kind of frightening.But then again thats my Bias showing.

 

[Kiki]

Hey, Kiki - why is this wrong - what's wrong about it? I mean, I understand that some folks find it irritating, but I don't understand "wrong."

It's wrong because it's an abuse of power. Celebrities appear on the television sets and magazines in millions of homes. That, combined with the wealth that accompanies it, places them in a position of power. Unfortunately that power sometimes goes to their heads and they start believing they have the right to use their fame to influence people's political or religious beliefs. Really their job is just to sing, dance and/or act. To me, using fame to try and sway public opinion in areas that are very personal (like politics and religion) is very wrong. If celebrities want to use their fame to sell their fashion line or perfume I have no problem with that but they should stay out of politics and religion. It astounds me really that people care how some singer, actor or talk show host wants them to vote but sadly a lot of people do. Southcitymom, do you understand what I mean now?

 

[EntreNous]

I agree with everyone that it's Oprah's show and she can have whoever she pleases on that show. I'm just a little disappointed in her. I don't watch her show (I have to work) but what I know of her I thought she was above that. If she's so afraid that giving Sarah Palin air time is going to take away some votes from Obama then she must not be so sure that Obama is the man for the job.



Oh, and nothing turns me off more than a celebrity trying to influence who people vote for (George Clooney).

You must have really been turned off by Ronald Reagan then.

 

[lizzybeth]

Nope. I liked Ronald Reagan.

You must be a George Clooney fan.

 

[marauder]

People tend to listen to celebrities for a number of reasons, and here are just a few:

-Celebrities tend to be far better-informed than the typical citizen. I'm not saying that they always are, but when you consider how ill-informed most voters are, the average television "bimbo" is a political genius in comparison. There are voters out there who still can't locate Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan on a blank world map, who can't even name the justices of the Supreme Court, who are too lazy (or "busy") to crack open government reports such as the 911 report... I could go on. Celebs typically have the free time, resources, and connections to investigate, research, and travel to see/experience for themselves. The guitarist for Queen is an astrophysicist on the side, for instance- an education he could easily afford in terms of cost and time.

-Celebrities are for the most part articulate, much more so than the average political activist. Again, not always, but there is that tendency, especially in Hollywood, where speaking in a practiced manner is a large part of the job.

-Celebs often have a very unique and different way of looking at things, and often that's what's made them popular. They have the opportunity to meet people, discuss things, and gain insights that most of us will never have.

-Celebs often have a strong set of skills in terms of personal success- that driving force that makes them get up and try again after a long series of failures. For ever "instant rock superstar" there are many more musicians who are quite satisfied with their success, attained only through thousands of major projects and works. Frank Zappa was a musical genius, and combined with his strong personal moral ethics, it gave him a strong foundation upon which to build his witty and often hilarious social commentary.

I guess it bugs me when people sigh and say "Hollywood" and roll their eyes, when the people that they roll their eyes at often know what they're talking about. For instance, punk rocker Henry Rollins. He travels extensively, and has spent a lot of time wandering around Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, not just for the USO but on his own as well. He's spent a lot of time in military hospitals and bases, and when he talks about politics, he speaks from a very informed perspective.

I think it all comes back to one of America's most core values: deep down, we do not want leaders who are as intelligent as the guy who mops the floor at McDonalds. As we saw in the last presidential election...

MOO

 

[Bree0372]

People tend to listen to celebrities for a number of reasons, and here are just a few:

-Celebrities tend to be far better-informed than the typical citizen. I'm not saying that they always are, but when you consider how ill-informed most voters are, the average television "bimbo" is a political genius in comparison. There are voters out there who still can't locate Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan on a blank world map, who can't even name the justices of the Supreme Court, who are too lazy (or "busy") to crack open government reports such as the 911 report... I could go on. Celebs typically have the free time, resources, and connections to investigate, research, and travel to see/experience for themselves. The guitarist for Queen is an astrophysicist on the side, for instance- an education he could easily afford in terms of cost and time.

<respectfully snipped>

I think it all comes back to one of America's most core values: deep down, we do not want leaders who are as intelligent as the guy who mops the floor at McDonalds. As we saw in the last presidential election...

MOO

I want to comment on the 2 parts of your post that I bolded. First off, I consider my self to be well-educated and well-versed. However, I do not believe that one should have to take the time to read the 9-11 reports, study who the Supreme Court Justices are, nor study a blank world map unless that is their interest. While I agree with being educated on things, there are things that are more important - like perhaps learning the 50 States in the US before learning where Iraq is. Fortunately, there is no test to take to become a US voter; that's what makes this country great. We are all different yet afforded the same right to vote unlike a lot of countries. I think your comments can be taken as being very negative towards the average or 'typical' US citizen.

You speak of celebrities being better-informed than the 'typical' citizen...while you gave some great examples, you failed to mention Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, etc., who have all came into play during this election. The average 'young' American voter isn't looking to Henry Rollins and Frank Zappa for influence.

As far as the 'guy who mops the floor at McDonalds'...that is an offensive comment, IMO (but I know you are entitled to your opinion). I worked at McD's during high school and I know the 'guy who mops the floor at McDonalds' and he is a very intelligent man (well at least the one at my McDs is). He may not have been afforded the same opportunities as I was (given the age difference) but I wouldn't take one thing away from his intelligence just because of his profession. Some of the best ways a person can learn is by listening to those from elder generations that have 'lived' it, not learned it in a book, JMHO.

And, IMO, to make that type of comment about the last presidential election speaks volumes. Whether we agree with the result or not, the people elected the President. Given the fact that the President can not do anything without the approval of Congress, I'm not sure why George W gets so much blame. We have to remember that it was Congress that gave the approval to go to war in Iraq.

This part is not directed at the quoted poster - he/she did not mention the war - I just feel like giving my 2 cents: We are in a war, that like it or not, was going to happen - either there or on US soil; I choose their land. And the talk of pulling out of the war quickly makes no sense to me. While I understand wanting our troops home (I'm a military spouse), it would be harmful to withdraw too quickly. And more importantly releasing a timeline of troop withdrawal would be reckless, IMO. Having lived abroad during the 9-11 attacks and at the beginning of the war, with the command station set-up next to my office, I heard and saw more than the average citizen (not bragging cause I would have rather not heard or saw it). But, we have to remember that everything the media reports isn't always like it is.

No offense to the quoted poster: I respect what he/she has to say, I just don't fully agree with his/her comments/opinons. But, that is what's great, we are all entitled to our opinion.

 

[EntreNous]

Nope. I liked Ronald Reagan.

You must be a George Clooney fan.

Nope, I'm a fan of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. I'm a fan of the road going both ways. Freedom of speech is not just for conservative views, it is for all.

 

[EntreNous]

I want to comment on the 2 parts of your post that I bolded. First off, I consider my self to be well-educated and well-versed. However, I do not believe that one should have to take the time to read the 9-11 reports, study who the Supreme Court Justices are, nor study a blank world map unless that is their interest. While I agree with being educated on things, there are things that are more important - like perhaps learning the 50 States in the US before learning where Iraq is. Fortunately, there is no test to take to become a US voter; that's what makes this country great. We are all different yet afforded the same right to vote unlike a lot of countries. I think your comments can be taken as being very negative towards the average or 'typical' US citizen.

You speak of celebrities being better-informed than the 'typical' citizen...while you gave some great examples, you failed to mention Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, etc., who have all came into play during this election. The average 'young' American voter isn't looking to Henry Rollins and Frank Zappa for influence.

As far as the 'guy who mops the floor at McDonalds'...that is an offensive comment, IMO (but I know you are entitled to your opinion). I worked at McD's during high school and I know the 'guy who mops the floor at McDonalds' and he is a very intelligent man (well at least the one at my McDs is). He may not have been afforded the same opportunities as I was (given the age difference) but I wouldn't take one thing away from his intelligence just because of his profession. Some of the best ways a person can learn is by listening to those from elder generations that have 'lived' it, not learned it in a book, JMHO.

And, IMO, to make that type of comment about the last presidential election speaks volumes. Whether we agree with the result or not, the people elected the President. Given the fact that the President can not do anything without the approval of Congress, I'm not sure why George W gets so much blame. We have to remember that it was Congress that gave the approval to go to war in Iraq.

This part is not directed at the quoted poster - he/she did not mention the war - I just feel like giving my 2 cents: We are in a war, that like it or not, was going to happen - either there or on US soil; I choose their land. And the talk of pulling out of the war quickly makes no sense to me. While I understand wanting our troops home (I'm a military spouse), it would be harmful to withdraw too quickly. And more importantly releasing a timeline of troop withdrawal would be reckless, IMO. Having lived abroad during the 9-11 attacks and at the beginning of the war, with the command station set-up next to my office, I heard and saw more than the average citizen (not bragging cause I would have rather not heard or saw it). But, we have to remember that everything the media reports isn't always like it is.

No offense to the quoted poster: I respect what he/she has to say, I just don't fully agree with his/her comments/opinons. But, that is what's great, we are all entitled to our opinion.

We certainly are but you might want to note that Frank Zappa is dead and has been for many years. You might also want to note that Congress opted to go to war based on lies and false documents. Remember the WMD's, the Al Queda "connections", and lie of all lies, the uranium yellow cake purchases by Iraq in Niger. Surely you do know about Valerie Plame right? All lies by the current administration in order to fool the American people into a false need to defend itself.

I am amazed at the people who are still in denial over this.

 

[lizzybeth]

Nope, I'm a fan of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. I'm a fan of the road going both ways. Freedom of speech is not just for conservative views, it is for all.

I absolutely agree with you on that post. I would be worried if everyone had the same views. It's good to have different views and it's also nice to respect other people's views. Even celebrities have the right to their own views but I don't want to see them on television spouting about who you should and shouldn't vote for. I don't want to pay to go to a concert to be entertained and have to watch or listen to their views on the state of the world, our leaders, etc.

Bree072, I agree with everything you said too. My views are much the same as yours I'm just not as articulate as you.

EntreNous, this is totally off topic and has nothing to do with your views or what you've posted. You can refuse to answer but I was curious. Your nic is French, you have a French sig, are you French or Canandian?

 

[Bree0372]

We certainly are but you might want to note that Frank Zappa is dead and has been for many years. You might also want to note that Congress opted to go to war based on lies and false documents. Remember the WMD's, the Al Queda "connections", and lie of all lies, the uranium yellow cake purchases by Iraq in Niger. Surely you do know about Valerie Plame right? All lies by the current administration in order to fool the American people into a false need to defend itself.

I am amazed at the people who are still in denial over this.

I wasn't the one who brought up Frank Zappa - did you read the post that I quoted...he/she did. I was just using it in my post. Thanks!

As for Congress - they did vote to go to war based on the evidence presented to them. Call me what you want - I still believe there are WMD's and Al Queda 'connections' in Iraq. Hussein had how many years to cover his butt and hide WMD's. Heck with a desert the size of California it would take a while to find anything hidden - WMD's included. So, just like me, you can believe what you will. Whether there is a hidden agenda or not for being in Iraq, I feel strongly we would have been at war with them anyway. Better their soil than ours! FWIW, I do know who Valerie Plame. Thanks for checking!

Denial - not me. This is jmho.

 

[EntreNous]

I absolutely agree with you on that post. I would be worried if everyone had the same views. It's good to have different views and it's also nice to respect other people's views. Even celebrities have the right to their own views but I don't want to see them on television spouting about who you should and shouldn't vote for. I don't want to pay to go to a concert to be entertained and have to watch or listen to their views on the state of the world, our leaders, etc.

Bree072, I agree with everything you said too. My views are much the same as yours I'm just not as articulate as you.

EntreNous, this is totally off topic and has nothing to do with your views or what you've posted. You can refuse to answer but I was curious. Your nic is French, you have a French sig, are you French or Canandian?

No I'm not French or Canadian. Born and raised in Tennessee and I'm just about as Irish/Native American as one can get.

My NIC is something my hubby and I have used as our little code since we started dating 26 years ago. For those of you that don't know, "entre nous" means "between us". He is of French & German descent although also a native Tennessean.

My siggy line was just something Sleuthy Gal said once that tickled me.

 

[Bree0372]

I absolutely agree with you on that post. I would be worried if everyone had the same views. It's good to have different views and it's also nice to respect other people's views. Even celebrities have the right to their own views but I don't want to see them on television spouting about who you should and shouldn't vote for. I don't want to pay to go to a concert to be entertained and have to watch or listen to their views on the state of the world, our leaders, etc.

Bree072, I agree with everything you said too. My views are much the same as yours I'm just not as articulate as you.

EntreNous, this is totally off topic and has nothing to do with your views or what you've posted. You can refuse to answer but I was curious. Your nic is French, you have a French sig, are you French or Canandian?

Thanks Lizzy for your comments! :blowkiss:

 

[EntreNous]

I absolutely agree with you on that post. I would be worried if everyone had the same views. It's good to have different views and it's also nice to respect other people's views. Even celebrities have the right to their own views but I don't want to see them on television spouting about who you should and shouldn't vote for. I don't want to pay to go to a concert to be entertained and have to watch or listen to their views on the state of the world, our leaders, etc.

Bree072, I agree with everything you said too. My views are much the same as yours I'm just not as articulate as you.

EntreNous, this is totally off topic and has nothing to do with your views or what you've posted. You can refuse to answer but I was curious. Your nic is French, you have a French sig, are you French or Canandian?

I'll have to disagree lizzybeth. As long as it's okay for Toby Keith to put a boot in your @$$ because it's the "American way", others have a right to have their say also. Why not call him to task?

I come from a family of entertainers, my son is an entertainer. There are plenty of entertainers who discuss or are involved in politics. Arnold Schwarzeneger, Fred Thompson, Toby Keith, Charlie Daniels, etc. You never hear conservatives calling them out for stating their views. What you do hear are conservatives calling out entertainers who disagree with their views. That's wrong to try and censor them or to call for them to censor their views for another's convenience. You have the option to not buy the ticket or change the channel.

 

[Saffron]

...you might also want to note that Congress opted to go to war based on lies and false documents. Remember the WMD's, the Al Queda "connections", and lie of all lies, the uranium yellow cake purchases by Iraq in Niger. Surely you do know about Valerie Plame right? All lies by the current administration in order to fool the American people into a false need to defend itself.

I am amazed at the people who are still in denial over this.

Many other intelligence agencies throughout the world believed Saddam had WMD and was continuing his build-up of them. The German, French and Japanese intelligence agencies, along with the United Nations, and even Bill Clinton during and after his administration, all believed there were WMD in Iraq. I don't think President Bush lied about anything, he based his decisions on all the information he was given, as did Congress.

Back to Oprah. I remember seeing footage of Cameron Diaz on Oprah's show before the 2004 election. Cameron, almost in tears, looked at the audience and claimed that the Republican party was going to make rape legal, and she told the audience that if they wanted rape to become legal, not to vote. Most celebrities do Democratic candidates no favors, IMO. And, replying to one of the posts above, I don't think most outspoken celebrities are articulate when they discuss politics. To me they sound pretty hateful, and ignorant yet arrogant. Also, they tend to use sound bites out of context, and they don't seem to do much research. They are especially annoying around election time.

 

[southcitymom]

It's wrong because it's an abuse of power. Celebrities appear on the television sets and magazines in millions of homes. That, combined with the wealth that accompanies it, places them in a position of power. Unfortunately that power sometimes goes to their heads and they start believing they have the right to use their fame to influence people's political or religious beliefs. Really their job is just to sing, dance and/or act. To me, using fame to try and sway public opinion in areas that are very personal (like politics and religion) is very wrong. If celebrities want to use their fame to sell their fashion line or perfume I have no problem with that but they should stay out of politics and religion. It astounds me really that people care how some singer, actor or talk show host wants them to vote but sadly a lot of people do. Southcitymom, do you understand what I mean now?

Thank you for explaining, Kiki. I do hear what you are saying.

I guess I see it a little differently. I think we all try to sway people to our beliefs on a regular basis and use whatever power we possess to do so. Celebrities have a larger platform than most - that is true. If I were a talk show host and talked about everything under the sun that interested me in front of a camera, you can bet I would also discuss my politics and religion. I personally wouldn't see that as an abuse of power - just as an extension of my life in the public eye. I am also not someone who feels like my politics and religion are personal matters - I'll chat with anyone about both subjects!

Additionally, some folks (I'm not one of them) take politics very very seriously and consider it their duty to use whatever power they have to get the right person elected.

Just curious - do you consider it an abuse of power when a pastor or minister takes a political stand? I actually find that fairly stomach-turning, though again - I think I understand why they do it - certainly I find it much more revolting than a movie star mouthing off. JMHO!

 

[southcitymom]

.... As long as it's okay for Toby Keith to put a boot in your @$$ because it's the "American way", others have a right to have their say also. Why not call him to task?
......

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[lizzybeth]

No I'm not French or Canadian. Born and raised in Tennessee and I'm just about as Irish/Native American as one can get.

My NIC is something my hubby and I have used as our little code since we started dating 26 years ago. For those of you that don't know, "entre nous" means "between us". He is of French & German descent although also a native Tennessean.

My siggy line was just something Sleuthy Gal said once that tickled me.

I'm of Irish/English and Native American descent also. I know a little French so I knew what you're nic and sig meant. How sweet that you and your husband have that little inside code.

 

[lizzybeth]

I'll have to disagree lizzybeth. As long as it's okay for Toby Keith to put a boot in your @$$ because it's the "American way", others have a right to have their say also. Why not call him to task?

I come from a family of entertainers, my son is an entertainer. There are plenty of entertainers who discuss or are involved in politics. Arnold Schwarzeneger, Fred Thompson, Toby Keith, Charlie Daniels, etc. You never hear conservatives calling them out for stating their views. What you do hear are conservatives calling out entertainers who disagree with their views. That's wrong to try and censor them or to call for them to censor their views for another's convenience. You have the option to not buy the ticket or change the channel.

Toby Keith HAS taken a lot of flak for his song and what he believes in. Maybe not on this board but I've heard it on the radio and seen it on television. I don't have a problem with ALL celebrities being involved in politics. Ben Affleck is very involved with the Democratic Party but I've yet to see him blather on some award show about who you should vote for. I have seen him on a TH show voicing his opinion and I have no problem with that either. I just don't feel like some of the celebrities that are always in your face saying who you should vote for are any more informed than the rest of us. Some poor jerk will vote for candidate "A" because their favorite actor was on television saying you should vote for so and so. Then again there's always going to be people that vote for reasons like because he's black, because he's white, because she's a woman, etc.

I DON'T buy the ticket and I DO turn the channel. I haven't seen George Clooney in anything since he was on The Facts of Life (how many are old enough to remember that show?). Whenever I see Susan Sarandon on television I can't turn the channel fast enough.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Nore]

I think Oprah can do what whatever she wants. (ah, there she has my permission, LOL) Obama was last on in October 2006, before he announced.

On the other hand, I would love to see Palin have to face someone like Oprah who wouldnt' back off asking the hard questions. If the McCain camp has truly said she won't be doing interviews at all, well then, that is just wrong. Having Palin on a show like Oprah's would let people get a good look and maybe would wake some people up to what she really is about.

------
Amen!
IMO