No Amateurs as Democratic Presidential Candidates, Please!

[MineralMan]

I'm serious. It's going to be a tough pull to correct all the damage that will have been done by Donald Trump. Starting in January, 2021, we are going to need an accomplished political leader who can pull things together and begin restoring the United States to some semblance of its previous status in the world.

The damage done by one amateur President cannot be fixed by another amateur.

So, no actors. No business CEOs. We need someone who understand both politics and international relationships.

Please.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. K & R

[olegramps]

138. Maybe there should be a test that must be passed to run for national offices.

At present we have a president that is totally ignorant of the constitution that he is sworn to uphold. His knowledge of law is nonexistent, didn't know there are that many countries in the world, is totally clueless as to who is leading these nations and has appointed a cabinet of plutocrats to run the country. The Chinese centuries ago realized that to have a effect well run government that it was imperative to have knowledgeable people in control and developed a civil service system of administers who were required to pass the national exam before they could serve. I doubt that such a system could be implemented here but it something to contemplate that we elect virtual nincompoops to run our government and then wonder why it is such a damn mess. I realize that many serving in the government are well prepared and dedicated, but it is the top administration that is often is the hands of political hacks. This cannot fail to have consequences when such people don't recognize their limitations and don't rely on competent assistance. Just consider the quality of some Trump has surrounded himself with.

[SCantiGOP]

158. While I dont disagree with your reasoning

It would require a Constitutional Amendment. Currently there are two requirements: 35 years old and natural-born citizen.
Charles Manson could have been elected had he received enough electoral votes. That is why the people who wrote the Constitution included the broad impeachment provision.

[Maggiemayhem]

198. We have a convicted felon running for office in WV

and I suppose he could run for President also. It is really unbelievable isn’t it?

[olegramps]

333. Can you impeach for incompetence?

[SCantiGOP]

338. They purposely left it vague

and left it up to future Congresses to decide. There is no definition of what triggers an impeachment - 'high crimes and misdemeanors."
If the House votes to impeach then it is up to the Senate to vote 2/3 to remove the person (not just Presidents, Supreme Court justices can also be impeached).

[olegramps]

334. The framers of the Constitution placed restrictions on who could vote.

The Federalists Papers discussed the issue of qualifications, such as men only, property ownership, etc. that would today exclude millions of voters. They also discussed literacy.

[green917]

183. I've argued for years...

that anyone running for any public office greater than dog catcher should have to pass the same civics test that any immigrant vying for citizenship does.

[niyad]

196. that certainly makes sense.

[gopiscrap]

288. I passed that immigrant test

it wasn't very hard

[green917]

325. Iice also taken and passed it.

I would be willing to wager though that as many as 1 in 5 members of congress and/or the executive branch would have difficulty with it (particularly the portions covering separation of powers and checks and balances).

[gopiscrap]

332. yup, I bet you're are correct on that

[olegramps]

335. I don't have the article at hand, but the ability of the average citizen to pass was dismal.

Our schools are failing us in the teaching of civics. What could be more important as a citizen than a solid understanding of our government and at least the Constitution. I wish I had a copy of the article. Maybe someone has it.

[gopiscrap]

337. agreed

when I was in school we learned about the governmental systems of Germany, the US, France, Netherlands, Belgium, England, Austria, Switzerland, Poland and Russia

[TomCADem]

295. Also, Can We Have a Democratic Nominee

Nt

[OhioBlue]

319. I think debates, a free press and elections were supposed to cover this

assuming that a candidates knowledge would be exposed and the electorate would choose candidates with appropriate qualifications and knowledge. We know this isn't working.

Maybe it needs to be at the party level? In order to participate in said primary, you have to file appropriate paperwork and pass basic knowledge verbal interview?

[TexasProgresive]

2. Agreed, someone who served as a governor and as a legislator-state as well as congress.

We need someone who knows how government works and how to get things done.

[LAS14]

209. She doesn't know how to get things done????????? Do you have any...

.... information about her life?

[TexasProgresive]

242. I suppose you are referring to Oprah Winfrey

I was responding to the OP where there is no mention of her just that we need an experienced civil servant as our nominee. I love Oprah- she may make a great executive or maybe not. We need someone with great democratic convictions which she has but also with a working knowledge of how our government works which she has not.

It is not enough to say she would surround herself with those who do- that is exactly what people said about Dumbya and tRump. The president is not figurehead, a symbol the president is someone who must lead and act in ways prescribed by our Constitution.

[brush]

231. Ahhh...her name hasn't been mentioned but it seems we're talking about Oprah Winfrey, right?

I wouldn't say that a sexual abuse victim as a girl who went on to dethrone Donahue (a good man) in Chicago and build a major national following for her show for decades, build a production studio, build a magazine and build a whole TV network, not to mention a fortune, also not to mention having to battle the sexism she encountered and overcame to accomplish all that, doesn't know how to get things done.

We're talking actual competence here not the bluster and lies of the current WH occupant.

[TexasProgresive]

244. See my reply #242

[brush]

252. I read it. With Winfrey we're not talking dotard, or even Reagan. She has actual intelligence.

She's been able to surround herself with the right people to successfully build her network, magazine, her show and studio — plus, she's a good friend of the Obamas and Hillary who she can call on for advice so why couldn't she do the same in building a WH staff?

Hell, she might even appoint O to the Supreme Court.

I'd say she's formidable and I wouldn't dismiss her competence and ability out of hand.

We should all have learned by now that African American women should be listened to.

[TexasProgresive]

255. I stand that being successful in business and charismatic is not a replacement

for actual experience in government. I know a lot about how the government works but I am not qualified. The presidency of the United States is an office that requires real working experience as how laws are formed, passed and signed. LBJ was able to get the civil rights act passed because he knew the workings and workers of the congress. He was able to whip them better than the whips.

President Carter faced real rebellion from a dem controlled house and senate. Why? He was perceived as an outsider. President Obama had some of the same problems. The congresscritters did not approve of his bringing in Chicago pols to help him do his job.

[brush]

265. Any new president now with our divided political climate will encounter opposition.

It comes with the job nowadays.

The fact that two repug candidates from the business world won, W and trump, and have not had successful presidencies doesn't mean it can't be done.

Neither of those two were that successful in business btw. Winfrey has been.

If we go back further, Eisenhower had no government experience but during his administration the country and the economy boomed unprecedentedly.

We have a deep bench of candidates but if Winfrey somehow does get the nomination and win, she just might be the person from the business world who can translate that success to success in governance. Unlike dotard she can actually absorb information and apply it.

Let's see what happens.

[TexasProgresive]

270. Ike had the experience of being a top general who dealt with the government.

And he had the good will of the country behind him. My hope is that the next president will be a dem with the house and senate behind the president.

[brush]

278. That would be nice. I'd be happy with a Dem pres. with just the House, or the Senate.

Having both of course would be the best.

[gopiscrap]

289. and Ike wasn't that great either

look who he agreed to run with? and by that time Nixon was already well known as a major asshole

[LAS14]

260. You forgot racism.

[brush]

266. YES! And that too. Oprah is formidable, and IMO could beat trump.

It remains to be seen if she can get the nomination as we have a deep bench of potential candidates.

[gopiscrap]

290. exactly

[Girard442]

3. Unfortunately, anyone who runs on a platform of competence is pretty much guaranteed to lose.

We need visionaries, even if they are amateurs. People with visions and decent positions on the major issues can rally the technocrats they need. The reverse isn't true.

[MineralMan]

4. I completely disagree.

Besides, one can be a visionary and still be a competent leader. Really.

[PatSeg]

36. I agree

An eloquent speech does not make a president, but a competent leader can also give inspiring speeches.

[msdogi]

170. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hilary Clinton

Competent, and visionary, and all three won.

[MineralMan]

171. Yes. You are correct.

Sadly, though, the last did not win the Electoral College contest. That is a thing to study for all of us. We must not take certain states for granted, ever again.

[jg10003]

247. Also Al Gore

[OhioBlue]

321. Neither Bill nor Obama ran on competence as their campaign theme

both were running against candidates with longer resumes. (and Bill against a sitting President). They ran on change.

Both were immensely qualified, yes, but that isn't what they ran on.

[Alice11111]

205. Hopefully, we get both. These days, it takes a visionary to

win, IMO, unless someone lucks out with an opposition scandle. Dump was a visionary...of a racist, white male , wealthy 1pc, and the rest live an apocalypse ...but he had his following.

Competent, worse than zero.

[druidity33]

293. I'm sorry to say then...

I think you're a little out of touch. I want to WIN the next election. In order to get the 45% of the public who doesn't vote to actually vote, and to inspire the Indies and Non-affiliateds to actually vote next time around, we will need a transformative candidate. That's not going to be a "run 'o the mill" politician. My 2 pennies talking.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

15. Oh fer pete sakes - the two are not mutually exclusive. nt

[Girard442]

21. It's a little like shopping for a house.

Yes, we all want economical, comfortable, roomy, safe, attractive, and well situated. It's not impossible to get all those things in one place, but when it comes time to decide between several actual possibilities, it's good to know what your priorities are.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. You haven't paid attention to your own analogy.

When you list six desirable attributes you don't say that the two most desirable automatically exclude each other.

We want vigor, education, accomplished executive ability, vision, optimism, and mastery of details in a politician, especially for the highest office. Executive ability and vision are not mutually exclusive.

Case in point: Jerry Brown combines both. He is almost certainly not going to be a candidate, but he does combine both and has for decades.

Another case (unavailable): Justin Trudeau of Canada. Challenged by a much bigger brawnier First Nations Canadian Senator to a charity boxing match, he prepared and beat him. He prepared for a leadership run of the Liberal Party and won. He prepared for an election and swept his party to a large majority. He prepared for governing and made a cabinet 50 percent women, "because it's 2015" as he said. Clearly he has vision and executive ability.

There are a number of Democrats who fit the bill. But running also takes high ambition.

[Girard442]

51. Picture this: Leonard and Penny from the Big Bang Theory are running in a primary.

Leonard is brilliant, accomplished, personable, and has experience getting a group of strong-willed people to work toward a common goal. Penny is street-smart, relentlessly cheerful, doggedly persistant, has stellar people skills, and also has an proven ability to deal with a motley crew of people.

Leonard would probably be the better executive, but Penny would be pretty good too, and she'd be a way better campaigner and more likely to win.

It's all about the priorities.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

53. Fuck TV. We've had enough TV & movie star incompetents in the Presidency! : eyes : . . . nt

[Girard442]

82. LOL. Not suggesting we actually run Johnny Galecki or Kaley Cuoco.

But then again, what do I know?

[SCantiGOP]

118. Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump ??

I think we’ve tried this before.
Let’s stick to people who have actually gone through the process of being an elected official before we think about giving them a top job.
Run for school board, county council, state legislature — don’t ask for a pass to Governor or President because you are famous and know how to give a public speech.

[Cattledog]

142. Reagan was a 2 term Gov of California.

[SCantiGOP]

153. I know that

And he was not qualified for that job.

[Sunlei]

329. If the RW can win with a Ferangi, we can win with a Captain Kirk!

[bettyellen]

115. Who the hell are Leonard and Penny and why should adult voters care?

[Alice11111]

206. Exactly

[Iggo]

262. Wrong.

[struggle4progress]

5. +

[Crabby Appleton]

6. I agree. nt

[MineralMan]

7. Thanks.

We really need to focus on 2018, of course, but we also need to get it in our minds that being President is a very, very difficult job that involves experience in the world of politics.

[Girard442]

26. If the D's rise to the challenge in the fall, quite a few people will become visible as possibles.

And if they don't, well...

[kag]

225. Yes.

As much as I love Oprah--and believe she could win--I want someone who knows Congress, knows the law, knows at least a little about international relations, and knows how to hire competent people. I also want someone who is less concerned with their own image and more concerned with the plight of Americans who don't happen to be in the 1%.

Right now I lean towards Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. I don't know much about some of the state governors, but executive experience wouldn't hurt.

I will say this, though. If we nominate Oprah, I'll campaign for her, donate to her campaign, and vote for her with enthusiasm over whomever the r's insist on running.

[bdamomma]

8. No amateurs is correct

that is why we are where we are right now. No experience at the top, and is taking down the country due to his lack of knowledge of world issues and at home issues.

None of this has a silver spoon in their mouth crap, and can't relate to the American people.

No this is no game, we need to get our country back.

[MineralMan]

11. Electing a President should be serious business.

It's not a popularity contest, or shouldn't be, at least. You'd think we'd have learned from Trump.

[PoliticAverse]

35. "It's not a popularity contest" - right, it's an electoral college contest. n/t

[maddiemom]

130. And there you have the major problem.

Democrats are 0 for 2.

[womanofthehills]

297. what we have learned from Trump is that Oprah can win

the majority of the people in the US are not that into politics - but they recognize her name. I bet 30 percent of the population or more don't even know who Joe Biden is. I love the fact that Trump is already freaking out about Oprah possibly running. The Oprah tweets will start soon. I wonder what name he is going to give Oprah.

[LAS14]

212. Silver spoon?????? Do you know her life story????

[bdamomma]

245. I am not

referring to Oprah on this comment. Again I am referring to those like Trump and Bush who cannot relate to hard working Americans. Who don't know our struggles.

Oprah is better as an advocate, she was great endorsing Obama. Sometimes being in background is better than being in forefront.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. Inslee for President!

Gov of WA

[MineralMan]

16. I don't know much about him.

That's something that needs to be corrected if he's going to run. Time to start on that was yesterday.

[samnsara]

32. i like jay but i dont see fire in his belly...

[StevieM]

42. I love Jay Inslee and think he would make a great president. (eom)

[bahrbearian]

68. Boeing's bag man.

[MineralMan]

92. Sez You.

Look at his voting record. Look at what he stands for. He's a potential candidate, I'm sure, although his national name recognition is fairly low in the field.

[bahrbearian]

114. You mean he never gave Boeing a 9 Billion dollar tax break.

to keep jobs in the state , and then they continued to lay off workers.

[MineralMan]

124. Tax breaks for major corporations are a commonplace.

That does not put him in Boeing's pocket. It just means he was trying to ensure job creation.

But, Boeing moved anyhow.

[KT2000]

211. all Washington governor's

play ball with Boeing.

[pnwmom]

261. You are saying then that no Democratic Governor who has given tax incentives to major business

to stay in the state should be a candidate, no matter what the rest of their record.

Millions of Washingtonians would strongly disagree with you.

[calimary]

111. I like him, too. But he doesn't have the "oomph" yet. He'd be a GREAT running mate for Oprah, though

Male, liberal, governor, younger, offers geographical balance.

[pnwmom]

263. At 66, he's not as young as he looks. But I do like him a lot. n/t

[angrychair]

309. Jay is a great guy

But I can’t help but look back at our two most recent 2-term Democrat Presidents....both got elected twice, completed both terms and both were still younger than an Inslee or Biden or Sanders or HRC are now at the end of those 8 years in office.

All of the above are great people that have done a lot good but want experienced, younger people.

If people want an intelligent, politically savvy, competent legislator with solid experience who also happens to be a women of color, Kamala Harris may be available and willing.
To be honest if my choice was between her and Ms. Winfrey, I would choose senator Harris any day if the week.

[pnwmom]

310. I also think Kamala Harris would be a very strong candidate. n/t

[True Blue American]

214. I heard him this weekend

Very intelligent man. I liked him.

[Alice11111]

220. Good guy, but

We don't need a good guy who can't inspire a win.
Sorry. Too much at stake.

[RKP5637]

10. And, who understands how government works as opposed to the idiot in office. Also, reading,

writing and speaking skills will be helpful together with a vocabulary of more than 50 words!

[MineralMan]

13. Absolutely.

[bdamomma]

18. also a stable mental state

would help too.

[RKP5637]

19. Yep, Definitely!!!! n/t

[ollie10]

129. a stable genius for a change.....

[dalton99a]

12. No VERY successful businessman or top T.V. Star

[lagomorph777]

14. Totally. There will be a huge to-do list.

We need somebody who is keeping track of each item, in detail, and is ready to immediately address things.

Department-by-department, need to flush out the inept skeleton crews and appoint competent replacements. The replacements will need to immediately lock down all records and provide them to the incoming DOJ staff for criminal investigation.

Meanwhile, hundreds of Turd executive orders will need to be rescinded and Obama orders re-instated.

Turd's judicial appointees will need to be investigated in order to enable impeachment on any with evidence of criminal wrongdoing (there will be many, I'm sure, because their main function is to obstruct justice, and protect Trump, to be his collective "Roy Cohn."

Top priority is to restore the top tiers at DOJ; they will have a whole lot of work to do.

[MineralMan]

17. Exactly!

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. So agree.

[MineralMan]

22. Thanks for your reply!

[left-of-center2012]

23. Totally agreed !

How about a Biden - Franken ticket?

[tblue37]

62. We need to let our elder statesmen BE elder statesmen and start letting

new blood take over the reins. Biden would be too old to be a suitable candidate in 2020.

He was born in November of 1942. He will be 78 a couple of weeks after the election in 2020, ferchrissakes!

[bdamomma]

73. geez, how about

a Sanders and Franken ticket?? Just sayin.

I think we need to concentrate on 2018 one thing at a time please. We need to win back the House. None of this one party rule shit.

[heaven05]

24. I just want competence

And compassion to reappear in our government administration and legislations

[MineralMan]

25. It will be up to us to help make that happen,

through GOTV and other work. We can all help with this, and definitely should.

[DesertRat]

27. It's impossible to predict a good 2020 candidate in 2018

It's impossible to predict a good 2020 candidate in 2018. The US will change too much between now and next year.

2. Main priority should be stopping voter suppression. The appeal of a candidate is irrelevant if people can't vote. Focus on 2018 for now.

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

29. I'm not predicting anything. I'm making a request.

There are many things that are high priorities. We must not lose sight of them.

[bdamomma]

80. and eliminate

the Electoral College too, how many times can we say it. The whole voting process has to be revamped.

Standardized voting practices across the US and it should be a day off too.

[TexasProgresive]

141. You got any workable plans for eliminating the EC?

[MineralMan]

201. Can't happen before the 2020 election.

Impossible. So, that's right out of the question.

We lost in the EC in 2016, but just barely. We need to look at why and correct that. We can do that. We made mistakes in 2016. We must learn from those.

[bdamomma]

249. a lot of red tape regarding the Electoral College.

found this article

damn

http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/nov/17/electoral-college-vs-popular-vote-could-states-a/

[MineralMan]

273. Yes, that is true.

Individual states can decide how electoral votes will be distributed in their state.

Fortunately, what some state thinks will be the result of changes may not turn out to be accurate.

So, it's hard to say what would be the affect of changes on a state by state basis.

[spanone]

54. Bullshit.

[Paladin]

30. Amen X 1,000,000.

No more amateurs, please. Let Oprah give a few million bucks towards installing someone like Kamala Harris in the White House. Somebody with actual, proven political experience. Somebody with a genuine, Democratic, on-the-ground record.

Those of you clamoring for Oprah in 2020, give yourselves a good hard pinch and take a look at where we are now, because of a shit-headed segment of the populace deciding a big-money TV entertainer was just the thing we needed to make this country great.

That's all I have to say about last night's awards---other than yet another demand that Susan Sarandon shut up and disappear into well-deserved obscurity.

[MineralMan]

33. I agree. We probably should ignore all of these

folks who are clamoring for the "presidential candidate of the day." A better idea would be to look closely at Democratic officeholders who are on the rise, recognition-wise, and find out what they're thinking about 2020.

[Paladin]

93. The old-fashioned way. Hear, hear.

Let's aim for somebody with solid, reality-based opinions on economic growth and international relations---rather than debasing ourselves to the level of "Prez Oprah's Cannot-Fail New Diet!!!!"

[LAS14]

264. Get informed about Oprah.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017473794#post6

[samnsara]

31. amen amen amen amen amen amen

...so that means NO OPRAH!

[MineralMan]

34. Well, she's apparently the "Presidential Candidate of the Day,"

but that's temporary. I'd just like to get us focused on talking about Democratic officeholders who might be potential winners in 2020.

[Alice11111]

217. She's a Democrat and she's had more experience doing things in

Service for humanity than most elected office holders.

I prefer a Dem politician too, but if she can beat Dump, then I'll take her. She IS a Democrat!


She has the brains to get competent people around her.
You cannot compare her to Reagan or Trump, Republicans, and the worst of the lot. Get real.

[Cracklin Charlie]

38. Wholeheartedly agree!

Qualified candidates with political experience only, please.

There are numerous qualified individuals.

[Sharpshooter007]

39. If Oprah ran I think she would win the Democratic nomination in 2020 easily.

Most people don't care about policy, they care about personality. I used to think this applied to only GOP voters, but I don't any longer given the clamouring for Oprah.

Like it all you want but celebrity politics works in this country, any super charismatic Hollywood running for president would walk all over any of the career politician dems running.

[alarimer]

70. Unfortunately probably correct.

I get it, people in this country are pretty fucking stupid sheep who will vote for a name over someone with serious policy chops. One reason I am so DONE with this country.

[calimary]

94. With all due respect, NOTHING unfortunate about it.

You're spot-on about the "pretty fucking stupid sheep" out there in voter land. Look what we got because THEY have the right to vote?

Well, okay then. Let's meet some of them at THEIR level, but with a candidate who actually has brains, common sense, the common touch, a demonstrated public track record of helping those in need and using her wealth and power and clout to help the "little guy (and gal)", name recognition you can't even begin to count - because nobody can count that high, a successful track record in business (take THAT, trump! And SHE did it without lying, cheating, getting in bed with an avowed enemy of our country, hanging out with mobsters, laundering money, filing for multiple bankruptcies, or stiffing people), and TONS of appeal - much of it on a very visceral level that reaches those who "vote with their gut." She doesn't need ANY introduction and she knows how to work the media. TREMENDOUSLY media-savvy, which in THIS weird-ass day and age, can't be underestimated or sneered at or shrugged off.

All the white women who allowed themselves to be conned into voting for trump? Which IS what happened on the last election day? A LOT of those women, from those states, CROWDS of them, ARMIES of them, stood in line and packed into the studio to see her show and to be part of her audience, and made their "Oprah time" every day to watch her on TV and hang on her every word. And buy her magazine. And watch the shows she produces. And listen closely, and embrace, what she said.

[alarimer]

119. It takes more than "common sense."

What is "common sense" about promoting charlatans like Dr. Oz or Dr. Phil or Jenny McCarthy? They have done actual, measurable harm. People have DIED because of anti-vaxxers and Oprah is the godmother of the latest wave. So, please spare me how "smart" she is. She has fallen for lots of woo-woo bullshit and, as President, would be in a greater position to promote more of it, thus endangering even more millions.

What the fuck does she even know about politics, about foreign policy, about the many minefields in any of that? No one gets it right every time, but we have seen what a complete ignoramus can do.

So, no, I will not vote for her EVER. I will simply not vote and I will encourage anyone to vote third party if she is nominated.

Yes, stupid people vote. If she runs and if she wins, this country is fucking sunk as a world power.

[calimary]

134. So you'll want to go rogue and make sure that we DON'T stand together and therefore

we LOSE. AGAIN.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend.

[alarimer]

139. Yep.

This country is screwed either way.

Stupid clowns electing stupid clowns either way. Bread and circuses are more important than good governance. We have to be better than celebrity charlatans on either side.

If they nominate Oprah, then fuck the Democratic Party. Clearly it means they care more about celebrity than actually fixing what it wrong.

[bettyellen]

125. Too many skeletons in her closet. And thank god for that.

She’s pulling a Trump and letting the talk happen to boost her brand. Let’s NOT meet them at “their level”and fall for it.

[calimary]

137. Here, too, we'll have to agree to disagree.

NO candidate is perfect. EVERYBODY has some problems. But April Ryan this morning made the point - the game is DIFFERENT now. And if trump has changed the game and the rules (as he HAS, like it or not), then I think we should play THAT game and shellack his ass with it.

[Thekaspervote]

162. What skeletons? Really? There are none that she has not publicly acknowledged

[bettyellen]

189. Youre kidding right?

[TexasProgresive]

248. If they are so obvious than you must inform the ignorant.

Put up or shut up is a good rule.

[Alice11111]

222. What skeletons???

[Cosmocat]

78. I am somewhat skeptical of that

It is going to be such a mess, people, even on our side, are going to be looking for someone who is 1) very calm and statesmanlike 2) proven and experienced.

But, this country is stupid as shit, so you can't rule anything out.

[forgotmylogin]

81. I'd make an exception for Oprah Winfrey.

She reads, she is culturally and civilly aware, she knows how to control a discussion, she's enjoyable to listen to, and she truly has compassion and the fire to inspire change in the face of injustice. She's actually interested in improving the lives of people who are not her.

While she's not in politics, neither was Trump, and I bet Oprah would pick it up a lot faster. Plus the President's main job is to be the voice of the US to America and the rest of the world, which she would excel at. Back her up with a lot of great veteran Democratic politicians in the Senate and House, and she'd do just fine. I mean...45 gets by as the guy who just "signs what they put in front of him"... right?

They gave us dim Dubya Bush, we countered with brilliant Obama. They give us slag reality TV host Trump, we give them successful self-made socially progressive TV empress Oprah.

[calimary]

103. I bet a LOT of people would make an exception for Oprah Winfrey.

And c'mon! Seriously. Aren't you practically ACHING to see a woman throw trump onto the floor? Out in the cold? Into the garbage? Force-feed him a spectacular public loss? On TV? How delicious would it be to see trump publicly humiliated in the worst way imaginable (for him, in particular) by a WOMAN? And an African-American woman, at that? How exquisitely achingly delicious could revenge possibly be?

[kstewart33]

110. Count me in.

Unlike Trump, she is a self-made billionaire.

Obviously, she knows how to employ the best people because to my knowledge, she has never failed with a business venture.

She is whip smart, and knows that half the game is hiring the right staff.

She owes nothing to nobody except her fans.

[Alice11111]

224. If she is what it takes to win, go for the win this time!

[Thekaspervote]

160. Me too!! She is smart savvy and would surround herself with only the best leaders

I would ask all the nay Sayers against Oprah, give your true reasons as to why you think she would not make a wonderful president? Seriously

Imagine the voter turn out for her. They could throw anything at her, Russia, voter suppression,gerrymandering and she would still win.

[Bradshaw3]

254. Surround herself with the best leaders?

Like Oz, Phil and James Frey?

[xor]

193. If Oprah actually wants to give being POTUS a go, then she should work in government in congress

It would let people determine if she is up for the task of public office. It would also help her figure out if it's something she really wants to do. If she was a senator of six or eight years first and she did a good job, then I'd fully support her running. The same goes for any other 'outsider' who thinks they can shake things up.

[Soxfan58]

40. I agree

We have some outstanding political minds in the Dem party. Let one of them bring us back.

[TryLogic]

41. Agree. And someone who realizes what Republicans fight for.

Their party, their donors, big business, big money, radical approaches to power and religious dogma, racist policies and structures, centralized power, one party rule, run-away capitalism, and fascism, as needed, to accomplish their goals.

[hexola]

43. Only if Roasanne runs as her VP!

I really don't know how I feel about Oprah...

I think she's baiting Trump...that is all.

[MineralMan]

44. Oh, my!

Perish the thought!

[hexola]

47. Oprah/Rosanne 2020

That's a winning ticket!

[Maggiemayhem]

188. You do realize that Roseanne Barr supported Trump

[hexola]

234. She was also a regular guest on Oprahs show.

[hexola]

237. Thats why she gets picked - bring the Trumpers along. Ms. & Mrs. America!

Covers the whole spectrum!

[SunSeeker]

218. You forgot the sarcasm thingy. nt

[calimary]

105. Nope. She'd have a more conventional politician as a running mate. Probably male.

[BlueTsunami2018]

191. Roseanne who?

Barr?

She’s an idiot Тяцмр humper.

[hexola]

236. Also an "Oprah" regular

[dembotoz]

45. Someone doesn't like Oprah

[MineralMan]

48. I like Oprah Winfrey just fine.

I don't want her to be President, though. She has zero qualifications for that complex job. But Oprah's a great spokesperson for women, people of color and others. She should maximize her impact in those areas. She has no qualifications, however, that apply to being a national political leader and international diplomacy leader.

[Tipperary]

50. No way should Oprah be president.

Please.

[nini]

136. I can't stand her

flame away. I got sick of her narcissism years ago.

That doesn't mean I don't think that she's not an accomplished woman before anyone has a hissy fit.

[BannonsLiver]

246. It was the Oprahs favorite things episodes that did it for me

People crying because they got a free deep fryer or shoes. A barf inducing orgy of consumerism and materialism.

[paleotn]

286. I "like" lots of people....

but I would not trust the vast, vast majority as President of the United States. Only a select few who are qualified for the job. There are even those I don't "like" that would make great Presidents. "Like" has nothing to do with it.

[StevieM]

46. Well, we all have our own priorities and preferences. President Tom Steyer sounds good to me. (eom)

[MineralMan]

49. I'd rather have Steyer on the fundraising team for our candidate.

[duforsure]

52. We need to support Democrats first

If she were to become the candidate its light years ahead of the Republican candidate trump, plus do you really want to lose more with any Republican in office because someone doesn't meet a purity test? No matter who is the candidate the Democrat gets my vote to stop this madness, corruption, and tearing down of our Democracy, and that's most important to me.

[MineralMan]

57. While I will vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee,

I have a lot more things I want from that nominee than just not being a Republican. I want solid proof of performance as an elected official. I want serious experience in international affairs and executive responsibility. It's not enough just to oppose the Republican Party or to be able to make a good speech. Not nearly enough.

[alarimer]

123. People have DIED because of Oprah's woo-woo promotion.

I will not vote for her EVER. I will no longer be a member of a party that votes for that idiot.

[Maggiemayhem]

250. Too much quakery

[NewJeffCT]

55. The more charismatic candidate has always won in the modern TV era

Since the election, I have been saying that at the presidential level, the more charismatic candidate always wins.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was the smooth and optimistic former actor, one of the most charismatic Republicans of the 20th century. Jimmy Carter, while smart and extremely competent, was portrayed as stiff and indecisive. Reagan wins big.

1984, Reagan swamps Walter Mondale, a smart and competent, but low charisma candidate.

1988 featured two low charisma candidates, but Mike Dukakis took blandness to epic levels. Bush wins on Reagan’s coattails.

1992 featured the young and charismatic Bill Clinton against low charisma George HW Bush. Clinton wins handily.

1996 was Clinton again versus stern and serious Bob Dole. Clinton wins handily again.

2000 featured “down home” regular guy George W. Bush and out of touch and overly serious elitist Al Gore. Bush ekes out a win.

2004 featured Bush again against smart and competent but bland John Kerry. Bush wins.

2008 was young and charismatic Barack Obama against stern and serious John McCain. Obama wins.

2012 was Obama again versus the elitist and out of touch Mitt Romney. Obama wins.

2016 was Hillary Clinton – very smart and competent, but not the most exciting person. Donald Trump was a train wreck, but he had that smarmy con-man charisma that sucked up all the media attention. Trump ekes out a win.

[MineralMan]

60. Charisma and Competence are not exclusive of each other.

[NewJeffCT]

159. Nor is charisma and incompetence are not either

Reagan, Trump and Bush are prime examples. While I'd prefer a very smart and charismatic politician versed in the law like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, I think Oprah, Tom Hanks, or a George Clooney would be far more likely to appoint good people to their cabinets and listen to them.

[TexasProgresive]

253. While the president needs good counsel they need clear vision in order to lead.

The cabinet and staff need to have the clear leadership of the executive in order to do their work effectively. The analogy I used during the Dumbya years was that the president is like the hub of a spokes wheel. With Dumbya being so ineffective at governing the spokes just flailed against one another. Fortunately the nation was stronger then and survived. With this unstable yahoo in our house we are in real danger.

A person like Oprah may be a quick learner but I am not willing to support her as a primary candidate.

[NewJeffCT]

257. Oh, I would not support her in a primary, either

but, if it came down to Trump vs Oprah, I'd happily vote for Oprah

[TexasProgresive]

267. That's a no-brainer.

I bet TV news would love to see that election.RATINGS! RATINGS! RATINGS! Who cares about the country, it's all about RATINGS!

[Alice11111]

227. TRUE,sadly maybe, whether purists want to believe it or not

[hexola]

56. You get healthcare...you get healthcare...and you get healthcare!

I can see it now...

[tblue37]

58. It's an irresponsible Republican pattern to push incompetent celebrities into important

government offices: Reagan, Sonny Bono, Schwarzenegger, Trump. Heck, they even got Fred Grandy (Gopher on Love Boat) into the House.

The GOP is all about appealing to the ignorant and easily duped and distracted, and running popular celebrities, regardless of their ignorance and incompetence, is part of that cynical approach. I prefer to see knowledge and competence in our candidates.

Our one major celebrity candidate/office holder was Al Franken, and he demonstrated a level of intelligence, knowledge, and competence that blew most Republicans and even some Democrats in the Senate right out of the water.

[MineralMan]

61. I like Al Franken. I helped get him elected.

He is no longer our junior Senator from Minnesota, though, unfortunately. He lost his position due to past behavior, really. It's very sad.

[LAS14]

269. On what basis do you say she's incompetent?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017473794#post6

Here's a good post to get better educated.

Also, #59 just below.

[bigtree]

59. actually, Oprah is an experienced communicator

...wildly successful in reaching millions around the nation and world, with a resume of relationships with countless individuals, many holding powerful and influential positions.

Communicating with the American people (and the rest of the principals involved in governing) is central to the job. Management experience is also a plus.

I mentioned Oprah because you studiously avoided mentioning her, but speculation about her is apparently what's sparked this type of response from you and others today. I wouldn't underestimate her abilities or her qualifications for the job.

[MineralMan]

63. As I said earlier, I like Oprah very much.

I hope she continues to speak eloquently about issues that are important to her.

[bigtree]

77. I'm not advocating her for the Dem nom

...but I'm picking up on the generalization of your complaint.

There are many qualities which can make up a successful president. There are also accepted attributes, like experience in governing, which don't necessarily translate into effective governance in the presidency.

I also want it to be made clear that Oprah Winfrey isn't anywhere near the low standard that Trump has demonstrated for a 'celebrity' candidate. She has many more attributes of substance and quality which don't deserve to be lumped in with the likes of Trump. I realize that wasn't your intent, but some 'amateurs' may deserve more consideration than others.

[MineralMan]

84. There are a number of non-politicians whose names we may hear

bandied about over the next year or two. Elon Musk. Mark Zuckerberg and assorted others. Some have considerable popularity in one or another circle. Many may have achieved spectacular success in some area or another. I'm not interested in such people as President.

I'm not interested in anyone who does not have a history of success in high-level political positions. There is much that needs to be accomplished, and every one of those things requires political expertise, not business acumen or success in other arenas.

I'll let the primaries thin down the field. That's why we have them.

[bigtree]

95. presidential politics

...is a different creature than the local and state races.

We'll all organize for whoever we please, but for most voters, presidential politics often boils down to which primary candidate has the best chance of winning the general. In that pursuit, it's not an unreasonable choice to pick someone with popularity and national recognition.

Also, it may be well and good to hold to principles which believe career politicians can best manage in the Executive branch. I'm not sure if history bears that out.

[Wounded Bear]

64. I normally ignore 2020 threads, but I agree...

[alarimer]

65. 100% this.

I think serious progressive policy chops are in order, not dilettantes.

[Bradshaw3]

66. Agree. Enough with the celeb worship

While I find many things to admire about some politicians, they are just people, not the saviors of our country. That is even more true when it comes to celebrities, even those we like. We the people are supposed to determine the fate of our country. Let's get back to running for office and working for candidates who will truly serve us.

As for the current Oprah wave, let's not forget she also gave us Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil and James Frey, as well as those nauseating greed worship shows where people go nuts over being given a tv. Not always the best judgment in my mind.

[MineralMan]

69. As far as I'm concerned, Bernie Sanders is welcome to try again.

I doubt he would succeed, but he's welcome to try.

[getagrip_already]

72. that would be a ticket to trumps second term.....

If he tries, we need to move him off the road asap. Sure, he can try, we are a democracy, but we don't have to be stupid.

[MineralMan]

79. That's why we have primaries.

It's difficult for someone who has lost in a previous try to come back and win. I think Sanders will recognize that, along with his age, and decide not to try. There are many potential candidates. For now, I'm waiting to see who rises to the top in the next year or so.

[geardaddy]

71. As much as I like Oprah, I agree with you.

We need somebody who has governing experience.

[catrose]

74. yas-a-million

[NCTraveler]

75. If they have given a good speech I'm in!!!!!!

I think the guy who does Between Two Ferns might be my top pick for 2020. He's funny.

Overall, I fully agree with you. That said, I'm sure there are a number of CEO's who could peak my interest.

[calimary]

76. Fuck it. She's got TREMENDOUS appeal, power and clout with the public, class, and DEEP pockets.

Whatever it takes, to take back the White House, and start reversing all these spectacularly stupid, short-sighted, and damaging trends. She's smart. She's involved. She's a natural leader. She's got COLOSSAL positives and she can reach all the demographics that can take her straight to the top. And, hell, she's built herself up on TV. If we're in THAT particular place, which we ARE (whether one likes it or not), then let's play THAT game to win. If she's the nominee, I'm with HER, too!

But I've said it before here - I can be as machiavellian as the next guy. How did Malcolm X put it? "By Any Means Necessary."

It's about WINNING. That's the fundamental, bedrock, harsh-reality and frustratingly stupid truth, THESE days. THIS is where we are, whether we like it or not. So I propose that, if indeed that IS the way things are now in the trump era, then let's grab that trend for ourselves, steer it OUR way, and use it to take power back. It's ALL about WINNING, and it's ONLY about WINNING.

You can't govern if you don't win.

You can't set the agenda if you don't win.

You can't make ANY changes for the better if you don't win.

You can't lead if you don't win.

You can't chair the committees and own the subpoena power and set THAT agenda if you don't win.

You can't serve the public interest and address serious and very real public needs if you don't win.

You cannot serve the greater good if you don't win.

And insisting on only the perfect (because in reality there IS no "perfect&quot isn't gonna get you a win.

I think it was Vince Lombardi who said "winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing." (My dad had that quote on a plaque, hanging on his office wall. "There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that's first place.&quot

On edit - another thought: how totally and deliciously exquisite would it be if trump got pushed out of OUR White House by A) a woman, and B) another successful African-American candidate? Even just the thought of that makes me salivate!

[longship]

97. Oprah has horrible negatives. She supports quacks and scammers.

Like Jenny McCarthy, the anti-vaccination kook. Like John of God, the religious scammer. Like Dr. Phil, "I was the worst marriage counselor on the planet" who Oprah has doing fucking marriage counseling. Like Dr. Oz, who supports quack medicine.

Oprah is a babbling idiot.

I would not support her running for dog catcher.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

109. A dog chases a car. What will he do with it if he catches it?

It's not enough to be able to win. You have to be able to do the job.

[musicblind]

197. I'd rather he catch and learn on the road than never get a chance behind the wheel. n/t

[Maggiemayhem]

83. Joe Kennedy?

[MineralMan]

87. I suspect we will hear his name often.

He seems to me to be a serious contender for 2020.

[True Blue American]

221. Yes!

We have a number of up and coming,smart Democrats in Congress

No to another Reality Star. B actor or celebrity with no experience!

[TimeToGo]

85. ITA

[OliverQ]

86. Agreed. I like Oprah, but I don't want her to run.

I want someone who understands politics and diplomacy, not a celebrity or shady businessman.

My dream ticket is Schiff/Yates.

[MineralMan]

89. Schiff definitely comes to mind.

He's becoming better known on a national basis, too. He clearly is competent and represents himself very well. I like him. I don't know if he will run or not, but he'll be someone to watch if he does.

[efhmc]

88. Eric Garcetti

We need to convince this man to run.

[MineralMan]

90. Another notable name, indeed.

He definitely has the look for the job as well. Although that shouldn't matter, it often does.

[efhmc]

116. He is a great mayor.

His resume is great.

[MineralMan]

122. Yes, agreed...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

91. Assuming that this in response to Oprah?

I feel pretty confident in stating that nearly any serious Democratic contender in 2020 would fit the bill of being a thousand light years more competent than Dump. I'm weary after not even a full year of Trump. If things continue their current trajectory, I can't imagine many (any?) people seriously would want a full 8 years of this. But I agree, no "vanity candidates", please. We get another crack at Trump in 2020. We need to make sure we are ready this time.

[MineralMan]

96. It's in response to the "Candidate of the day" phenomenon that occurs

every time someone gives a good speech about something. Oprah is the most recent example, but that's all.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

100. I agree

though a good speech definitely but Barack Obama on everybody's radar. And delivered us a great POTUS a short few years later. That's not going to happen with everybody, though.

[MineralMan]

106. But look at where that speech was made. That's the difference.

Plus, Barack Obama was already making a name for himself politically. Not as a celebrity, but as a serious political figure.

I remember watching his speech and thinking, "Now, there's someone to keep an eye on in a serious way."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

120. Obama was already in politics, and he gave that speech at the Dem convention.

At that time he was a state senator in Illinois and was running for the U.S. Senate that year (he won handily). He had been a constitutional law professor before he went into politics. That's a lot different from a tv personality giving a speech at a show biz awards ceremony.

[3catwoman3]

241. "That's a lot different from a tv personality giving a speech at a show biz awards ceremony."

Damn right it is!

[bdamomma]

312. God, that was awfully impressive

when Obama gave his speech there, he had my attention. I was not disappointed in him either.

Wonderful man, at least he knew how to talk, not like this POS juvenile we have now.

[LAS14]

277. Since it's clear we're talking about Oprah (among others), on what grounds....

... would you label her a "vanity candidate?"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

98. As soon as Oprah's GG speech was out of her mouth last night,

DU was all OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT!! and I was all - again.

No. Oprah is a wealthy TV celebrity. She should not be president. She seems to be a good, decent person; she has given generously to many worthy causes, she holds acceptable liberal views, and she is not insane. Also, she gave an inspiring speech at a show biz awards ceremony. These are not adequate qualifications for the presidency. I said this last night and I'll say it again: The presidency is a real job that requires extensive knowledge and experience concerning the mechanisms and functions of government and international diplomacy. When you are president you have to know these things. Right now we have a president who doesn't know these things and look what's happening.

It's not enough to say, well, Oprah (or any other such shiny-object person) has the correct politics and she's famous and doesn't seem stupid, so people will vote for her, yay! Then when she's elected she'll just pick some good people to work with her and she can get a crash course in Constitutional Law 101, and she can watch a filmstrip about How A Bill Becomes A Law, and it will be all good. Nope, it won't. She wouldn't suck as bad at it as Trump, but "not as bad as Trump" is about as low as the bar can get.

This regular clamor for Liberal Celebrity X For President seems to arise from the idea that anybody can be president (maybe they can, but they shouldn't) combined with Americans' disheartening worship of celebrities. It seems like every time some popular liberal says something inspirational on the teevee, all of a sudden that person should run for president. Lately it's also been Rachel Maddow, who is a cable news and opinion host. Every now and then DU goes nuts with "Rachel's so smart, she ought no run for president." Sigh. She is, of course, very smart, but she is a cable tv personality. She knows more about government operations than Oprah, but that's not the same as having done the actual work of government. Fortunately, I think she's smart enough to know that. If Oprah does run for president, that would prove she's not smart enough to be president - because if she was that smart, she'd know she isn't qualified.

There is a prevailing sentiment - and Trump is that sentiment made orange, blubbery flesh - that "professional politicians" are bad. Why? Yes, sometimes a numpty like Louie Gohmert is inexplicably elected to Congress (the House seems to be the main repository of dumb politicians in the federal system), and then gets re-elected every time because his constituents are also stupid. Louie Gohmert also should not be president. But there are people in government who do take their work seriously, who do become knowledgeable and skilled. We seem to have forgotten that Hillary Clinton was one of the most qualified and experienced people to run for the office and who, but for a perfect storm of circumstances that have been discussed ad nauseam here, should be in the White House now. We said Hillary should be president because of her extensive experience and knowledge, but now we're saying we should run a tv talk show host against her former opponent because - why - because our tv personality is better than theirs?

We can do better than that; we have to. By the time Trump leaves office, even if that's tomorrow, the federal government will be a smoking ruin. The next president will have a huge mess to clean up. Let's find someone who will understand what needs to be done and can hit the ground running. Oprah can help with her money and fame, and brava for her if she does that. But she should leave the actual work of governance to someone who knows what they're doing.

[dalton99a]

101. +1

[MineralMan]

102. Thank you for your very well thought-out and presented

comments. I truly appreciate them.

I thought about writing something similar, but realized that it would not be read by many. I hope people who are reading this thread take the time to read what you wrote. It's exactly on point!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

152. Thank you.

This "Shiny Object For President" phenomenon drives me nuts.

[MineralMan]

155. You're far from being alone in that.

[aka-chmeee]

302. When I heard this Oprah buzz, I became just for a moment, Ebenezer Scrooge

I'll retire to Bedlam!

[justhanginon]

177. Very well said! I agree with you and also appreciate Mineral Mans's oriignal post and your

expanding on it. Professionals only, especially at this point in our history. The work of straightening this mess out will be long, arduous and require keen political senses and skill.
On the world stage we will have many fences to be mended and done in a tactful and diplomatic way. This will require more than the celebrity of the day.

[cwydro]

204. Thank you.

You are saying everything I’m thinking but don’t have the energy to type.

[ms liberty]

313. Yes, this. n/t

[Heartstrings]

99. Agree, agree, agree! nt

[LakeArenal]

168. Just wanna get thru 2018...

Besides anyone that looks to be in the running will be smeared for the next two years.

I stand with Al.

[Heartstrings]

203. Midterms, Midterms, Midterms!

I also stand with Al.....

[kstewart33]

104. We must win to save our democracy.

At this point, winning is everything because the stakes are so terribly high.

If Oprah emerges as the strongest candidate, I'll be happy to work for her and vote for her.

[MineralMan]

107. She won't, I promise you.

She will probably not even run. She is a smart person, and isn't going to take on a campaign like that. She knows she does not have the background and experience to do that job.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

112. If she's the strongest candidate we can come up with, we are in deep kimchee.

She's "strong" in the sense of being famous. I want someone who's strong in the sense of knowing how to do the job.

[MineralMan]

126. We appear to already be deeply buried in sour, fermenting cabbage.

I suggest that we need to extract ourselves from it, take a hot, soapy shower, and start fixing stuff.

I know you agree.

[kstewart33]

223. For me, the key question is who can win.

We're in a terrible time now. Qualifications normally would be the top criterion. Our democracy will not survive another four years of Trump. If he wins, our federal courts will be packed with little Trumps who will be there for a lifetime. If so, say goodbye to all of the progress made in civil rights for decades.

So for me, the strongest candidate will be the one with the greatest chance of winning.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

228. But if we win with a candidate who doesn't know how to do the job,

then what? We'd be a little better off just because Trump would be gone, but the federal government will be nothing but a charred abyss by the time he's gone - and we will need, more than ever, someone who really knows how to operate the gears and pulleys of government. A well-meaning person with charisma might be able to function more or less adequately when things are going smoothly, but when the patient is dying on the operating table you want the best surgeon in town, not the nice friendly talk show host whose exposure to medicine consisted of having had a lot of doctors as guests.

[kstewart33]

339. Not necessarily.

The key to success when you don't know how to do a job is threefold: 1) Know what you don't know; 2) have the smarts and experience, and consequently the skills to select people who are exceptionally good at what they do; and 3) delegate smartly.

I have no idea if Oprah would make a great president. I do know that she has run several successful companies. I don't know of one that has failed. Logically, I conclude that she knows a lot about people and has selected very good people for management in those companies, and knows when and how to delegate effectively.

On character, she seems top notch. You have to have something special if you were born into poverty in rural Mississippi, were sexually abused by multiple relatives, struggled mightily in your adolescence, and then worked and worked to become the most successful self-made female billionaire in this country.

So I won't dismiss her potential candidacy. We're in that wait-and-see phase that precedes 2020. Let's see who enters the race.

[Firestorm49]

108. Good Point

I agree with your general premise but respectfully interject that just because a buffoon with no political experience, and who was unelected by the majority of Americans occupies the Oval Office implies that there are no other well qualified non-politicians who could do a much better job, may be short sighted.
Yes, this guy has tainted the non-political candidate category, but I would bet that there are others out there who would take the job with integrity, pride, conviction, and stock cabinet positions with experienced and knowledgeable staff.

[mchill]

113. Disagree

I don't think much is beyond her capability. Unfair to lump her in the same group as Arnold and Trump. She's a true leader and well respected.

[LAS14]

280. Agree.

[mchill]

117. Oprah yes, but "The Rock" NO NO NO

[KPN]

121. That would be nice.

There may be an amateur who would do very well, but the risks are enormous -- gotta agree with that.

[Hekate]

127. KnR. I hate watching people play Democratic Shiny Object Teams of the Day. nt

[MineralMan]

132. It appears to be a favorite game here.

Perhaps we need to stop playing games and start working on an outstanding, fully qualified candidate for President. That's my hope for DU. So far, though, no luck.

[question everything]

128. And no OPRHA! (nt)

[Bayard]

131. Americans are desperate for someone

Someone who sounds sane, and middle of the road. Politically experienced, global savy, who can pass a totally nit-picking ethics test. Throw in some charisma and eloquence, and I think they'd coast into office. Sorry to say, he'd have to be an average white guy to get voters who hated Obama. We can re-address that issue next time, but first, we have to take back the White House. This person will have to be qualified to undo all the harm Trump has done. Its an emergency.

Not sure who that would be yet. But he could probably bring along a younger firebrand for VP.

[nini]

133. THANK YOU

GAWD.. I can't believe this trend for Oprah or any other celebrity for that matter.

[mchill]

149. For the record

She is more than a celebrity. She started her career as a journalist. Yes, she had a talk show, but a successful one because she’s both wicked smart and understands people. She’s started a school in Africa to promote young women. She started her own tv network. Yes, been an actor too, but also involved with local politics in Chicago and Baltimore. As a speaker, she matches Obama, and if possible, maybe even better. She probably already understands how government works, and bringing people together is in her wheelhouse.

I can’t think of one celebrity that I would support, but if that’s what you want to call her, she’s the only one that can bridge the gap between celebrity and being POTUS, imho. The fact that Obama could be her mentor, as the Obamas are dear friends, is only a plus, as well as being a black woman.

Maybe I see her differently because I am a woman? I think she is exactly what this country needs after Trump. She is the quintessential anti-Trump.

[nini]

156. Oh please

We can do better than Oprah. She can continue to do good work with her celebrity as she should. We need people with foreign policy, legislative etc.. experience to straighten out this country after that moron is gone.

The federal government is not entertainment. You say she is anti-Trump yet she is a TV personality like him with big business holdings.. Want to rethink that?

[nolabels]

175. I think Oprah or anyone with good people skills like her would be fine

We went from a person with exceptional people skills to a flim-flam man. I think we got sold at the auction for the last fifty-five years with the advent of video technology at any rate. The problem this where we live now though, the merits don't matter anymore. It just has to be able to sold on camera. And the way has been for all this time, is to hire the wonky people after the person with the people skills has been selected. In other words a popularity contest with increasingly less emphasis on actual meritorious accomplishments

Just like making sausage

[nini]

176. And this is why this country is doomed

We keep lowering the bar.

[nolabels]

192. If you despair at where you are you not likely make it to where you want to go

I often tell myself nowadays of all the better ways there could be to do things.

The good ideas are nice also but if they cannot help me get from point a to point b then I ponder if they really are good ideas or just waste of the finite time we have on earth.

I share your belief in lowering the bar but I don't think we are doomed. It just feels like a transitional change we have to go through

We will never be able to start from where we want to be because we always have to start from where we are at

[mchill]

200. There's more to a person than the label you put on their profession

I don't think there is one other celebrity I would endorse for President. I just think she is a very unique and an immensely talented individual and could adapt easily into the Presidency. Just my opinion.

[longship]

292. Her position on science and medicine is absolutely horrible.

She is anti-vaccination, hence her support for that idiot Jenny McCarthy.

She supports Dr. Oz's alternative medicine quackery which became so jarring that there were congressional hearings.

She supports the mind numbing lunacy of John of God, a Brazilian megachurch scamming pastor who, in addition to faith healing, claims cancer cures with psychic surgery. OPRAH WINFREY SUPPORTS PSYCHIC FUCKING SURGERY!!!

So you are correct. There is definitely more to Oprah than a professional label.

Allow my avocational labels for her. Anti-science. Medical quack supporter. Kook.

In other words, she's somebody who should not be allowed to get near to public office.

My best to you.

[mchill]

336. Interesting - didn't know this about her nor

would I suspect she even believes this crap. Thank you. I'm actually shocked to read this. Well, if true (not that doubt you, but there are a lot of lies on the internet), I would NOT support her.

[DownriverDem]

135. Dems Only

Anyone who is planning to run in the Dem Primaries better join the Dem Party now! We don't need another mess like we had with Bernie. Even now many Bernie supporters are working against the Dems. WTF? Didn't they learn anything from 2016?

[Skittles]

322. NO MORE NADERS

FUCK THAT SHYTE!

[Kimchijeon]

140. Well I do understand that position.

But also think it would be nice to have someone not entrenched in the corporate compliance either.

Just because the current admin is an obvious idiot distraction who was favored by the oligarchy, doesn't mean good leadership couldn't come from another non-career politician. One who can and will play it "dirty" and use the tools that work to hammer out an undeniable popular following, and a crushing victory.

In fact, I still think the best bet to get us out of this head-in-the sand nonsense might be a independently powerful Democratic ally type candidate. I really do. They might have the courage and guts to get shit done and ignore the peer pressure to constantly cave into the corporate oligarchy's demands at every damn turn, and maybe not fall prey to constant trolls and shenanigans.

Just sayin', because I have zero confidence that many of the so called professionals in the field have the wherewithal to do what actually needs to be done. I will not cave in to the "lets play nice, lets let them have this, ohhh well gosh there is always next time" defeatist mentality.

Granted, I highly doubt someone like Oprah or the like is going to actually run. But that would probably be what needs to happen if we want to win. Did we learn nothing? Most Americans don't vote, and they won't next time either. Learn from what works, something that is different and attractive is going to win (Like an Oprah) - barely anyone is going to vote for some entrenched politician, no matter how many lies we tell ourselves. That's not the reality of this country.

The fact that so many were surprised when Trump won shows how deep the denial was. Learn from the mistakes, or this will happen again. No more milquetoast BS candidates. (No insult meant to any potential entrenched politician candidate- just that I'd like to win, and with a huge smashing turnout. For once.)

[LovingA2andMI]

143. Laughable.....

And Insulting As No One Comes To A Job "Knowing Everything" and Everyone Was A Novice At Some Point, Including ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE WHO NEVER RAN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE (State, Federal, Local) PRIOR -----> But Won Anyway ---- Let's See -- Former U.S. Senator Al Franken For Example (Former SNL Actor and Political Commentator On Air America, Wrote A Couple Of Books, Run For Senator and WON)

The 79 and counting recs of this post says plenty about the word "Transparency".

[ollie10]

144. Will Trump be primaried?

I have been doing some thinking about the Wolff book. It is a sad state of affairs that virtually everyone working under Trump knows he is unfit. The worst kept secret in Washington, from what I hear.

Yet, as long as Trump is in power, nobody stands up to the insanity.

Still....I may be wrong.....but I think Trump is ripe to be primaried. People won't stand up to Trump, but if given a choice in a primary race, I think that someone could give Trump a real run for his money.

Yes, Trump still has his idiotic base, but even a few of them might waver given a strong alternative. As for the Republicans who are not in the Trump cult.....I think they could long for a sane alternative.

I don't know who that Republican might be, but by the time the election season gets going, and by then Trump is sure to show even more signs of his insanity.

We keep assuming Trump is going to be the opponent. Maybe not?

At any rate, Trump or no Trump, we need to take a collective look into the mirror. Elections have consequences. If we don't nominate a winning and inspirational candidate, we may lose the election.

[MineralMan]

145. Frankly, I do not think Trump will be President at all by that time.

I believe he will resign before the end of his term. We shall see, of course.

[ollie10]

157. A lot of folks are noticing signs of pre-dementia

....which may get worse.

Hell, he may die of a Big Mac/KFC/ lack of exercise/ stress-induced coronary/stroke for all we know

Does he really want the job? It is probably an ego thing for him more than actually liking his job.

[Cosmocat]

299. HE'S absolutely going to be primaried

But, not sure by anyone who could really beat him.

The people who are going to primarium, are likely people who are sane and have decency. They won't be able to get enough support from the party to beat him.


The people who have some personality, and might be able to speak to the lunatic base, are going to think long and hard about running and possibly alienating The Lunatic base who will favor the more extreme lunatic over the Lesser lunatic.

[ollie10]

300. I am not so sure he would survive a primary

Yes, he ran through a large field of mediocre candidates in the primaries before.

We shall see what happens with his approval numbers.

If it is true that Trump is pre-dementia....this could worsen, heaven help us all.

Mueller could weaken him, even if he is not impeached.

Add to that those Republicans who gave him a chance in 2016 but are ....er....uncomfortable with what is going on.

Of course, if 15 Republicans run against him, he has enough cult followers to divide and conquer. But if it was one respected Republican who ran against him based not on the issues but his character and instability?

Somebody like a Romney, first person that came to my mind. Or someone else.

It is a lot easier to vote in a primary than to stand up and voice opposition to a sitting president of your own party.

[Cosmocat]

303. Maybe if there are only one or two

But the critical mass of the base has been totally removed from reality. I mean it their party is The Walking Dead.

[oberliner]

146. Is this about Oprah?

[MineralMan]

147. This is about the "Presidential Candidate of the Day."

That's who it's about. The name changes regularly on DU.

[oberliner]

151. So Oprah is not the amateur, actor, business CEO in question?

It seems like she would be the only Presidential Candidate of the Day on DU who fits those descriptors.

[MineralMan]

154. Had I wanted to limit my post to Oprah Winfrey, I could have

done that very easily. I did not do that, because that was not what I was writing about.

[oberliner]

207. OK

Thanks for clarifying.

[Cattledog]

148. Amateur only means inept.

I can think of a lot of elected Presidents who were not amateurs who fit that description.

[MineralMan]

150. No, it actually doesn't mean that.

It means someone who does something for the love of that thing, not for money. Go look up the primary definition.

[Cattledog]

164. Spliting hairs.

amateur | ˈamədər, ˈaməˌtər, ˈaməCHər |

noun

a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis.
• a person considered contemptibly inept at a particular activity: that bunch of stumbling amateurs.

adjective

engaging or engaged in without payment; nonprofessional: an amateur archaeologist | amateur athletics.
• inept or unskillful: it's all so amateur!

[MineralMan]

180. No, not at all.

Every NFL football player was once an amateur player. Every NBA player, too.

I was once an amateur oboist. I was a pretty damned good one, too. I performed with a number of musical organizations, and even participated in a European tour with one. I was a very competent oboist. I was not, however, able to devote the time required to become a professional oboist who was good enough to win an audition with an orchestra that paid well enough to make it my profession.

My profession was in another field. And yet, at the same time, I was a skilled performer on my instrument. I have no doubt that I could have devoted more time and could have become a professional. I made a different choice, but still performed at a high level with many groups and enjoyed what I was doing.

Because I was not a professional, however, I did not audition for paid positions. I recognized that my level of skill was not at that level, and competition for the few available positions was fierce. I was not qualified to fill one of those spots. Yet, I enjoyed being a musician a great deal, and found many opportunities to perform. I just didn't get paid for those performances, except on rare occasions. I was an amateur.

Amateur status is not something to be ashamed of. It is not a negative word. It is most often a choice made by an individual.

[Caliman73]

243. Amateur means unpaid.

It is taken to mean inexperienced as well, not inept.

The Golden Gloves champions in boxing, as well as Olympic athletes in the sport are amateurs. Muhammad Ali was an amateur when he won the Olympic Gold Medal. The college athletes who fill the ranks of most professional US sports are also amateurs until drafted and paid.

Going with the sports analogy, would you want to be represented by a Professional athlete (analogous to the governor of a large state or a long term Senator who has been on the foreign relations committees) A college athlete (a House member, relatively new senator, or governor of a small state) or someone like Oprah who would be analogous to a high school athlete.

The point is that there needs to be a candidate with a proven record of governance and the ability to navigate the national and foreign policy arena. The US is going to have to mend a lot of fences and a person with little diplomatic experience

[The Mouth]

161. It's what the primary is about

In a way the primary is an 'electability filter'. Every election there are folks who seem to have it all, on both left and right- but just can't actually win. What you and I think are the proper qualifications (and having read many of your posts for a long time I find myself mostly in agreement) are irrelevant if the person doesn't have the practical qualifications: 'fire in the belly', fundraising, ability to counter attack.... How many times have we all seen the 'perfect' candidate just wimp out, or flame out, in the primaries? Jerry Brown seemed to have it all, but Bill Clinton took him down; John Edwards had and almost superstar aura but we all know what happened...

It will be interesting to see which potential 2020 candidates engage in the VERY important function of getting out there in 2018 and helping elect representatives and senators; it's a crucial job that goes a long way to building up the base of influence that they'll need if elected in order to get anything done.

[MineralMan]

165. Yes, but one of the things to avoid is too many candidates

running in the primaries. In 2016, there were 17 Republicans vying for the nomination, which led to Trump being the one who stood out and won that nomination. That's always the risk with a large field of primary candidates.

[The Mouth]

181. It worked out for them

2 or 20, it's all about selecting the person who will win the general.

Just a question- why do you consider that a lot of primary candidates makes it less likely to end up with a winner who can go on to win the general? I'll confess I haven't actually gone and crunched the numbers (maybe I will, or see if someone has)- is there any statistical correlation between number of primary candidates and wins in the general; it's an interesting subject that might be worth looking into.....

It really is going to be important for the DNC to manage this, you are right; even in the best of all possible situations it is going to take decades to undo the damage that Cheeto Benito has already done.

[MineralMan]

185. An extremely poor choice went on to win.

A popular choice with some, but a very, very poor choice. I do not want a poor choice to win as a Democrat.

[The Mouth]

213. What if the alternative is Trump, though?

Personally, being more of a pollster, poli-sci type, nothing else matters if you don't win. The worst idiot winning, as long as there is a 'D' after their name, at least will do less damage to liberal and progressive causes, than re-electing the current POTUS.

[MineralMan]

215. As I always do, I will vote for the Democratic nominee for President.

I'm talking about the process of choosing that nominee and what we should be looking for in our nominee.

[The Mouth]

226. "Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line" EOM

[CatMor]

163. I agree with what you wrote....

very to the point in few words. Thank you.

[msdogi]

166. We did elect the most qualified candidate in 2016

Hilary won the popular vote, by a lot. Were it not for the many ways, known and unknown, in which the results were manipulated, we would clearly have not only a democratic president, but a Senate as well.
Democrats should choose a candidate who is respected, experienced in the workings of our government at the highest levels, capable, tough, and smart.
So I agree, no more amateurs. Especially after the shitstorm of the last year, there is already so much damage to be repaired, and who knows what the next year will bring.

[octoberlib]

167. Couldnt agree more.

[MineralMan]

169. I wish Hillary had done what is in your signature graphic.

I truly do. I think it might have made just enough difference.

[octoberlib]

173. In hindsight, I bet she would. She was

trying to look like calm , steady person in the room, though.

[mrsv]

172. We had the most qualified ever and lost!

Obama was considered by many to be an amateur too.

[MineralMan]

174. How Hillary Clinton lost is something we need to study

very, very closely. Serious mistakes were made in thinking that some states were sure to go for the Democrat. We dropped the ball in 2016, and lost in the Electoral College. I hope we have learned from that. Truly I do.

[StevieM]

331. Clinton spent more money in Michigan than Obama did in 2012. That goes for Pennsylvania too.

States like WI, PA, MI, FL, NC and AZ all flipped at the end. They weren't taken for granted. Polls showed us winning, in some cases decisively.

They all flipped suddenly when the entire election was turned on its head with 11 days to go. Comey got those states for the GOP.

The most important part of winning in 2020 is to prepare ourselves for the next phony scandal and the next James Comey ready to sell it to the American people.

[mchill]

195. Yes!

There are many things to consider, not just boxes with labels on them.

[uponit7771]

238. Not without Russia's help or comey's help or voter suppression

[OhioBlue]

178. We need to win to clean up this shit show

If oprah gives us the best chance... I'm with her. I trust her to surround herself with top talent.

[George II]

179. The next time Harvard-Harris does their "popularity poll" I hope the include....

....Oprah Winfrey on their limited list. I guess after speaking last night she qualifies as much as Steve Bannon as an "active politician".

[Stanley Roper]

182. Oprah for president

Dr. Phil for v.p.

Judge Judy for Attorney General

[Maggiemayhem]

232. You are joking I hope

[tiptonic]

184. Mueller

Could Mueller run as a dem.? Just wondering. As a Marine, he took a oath to protect this country. We take that oath seriously.

[MineralMan]

187. I am sure that Mueller has no desire to run for office.

He has devoted his life to service as a Federal employee, both in the Marines and in the rest of his career. Could he have been a politician? Probably. He chose a different path.

Yes, he could still run for office, but I doubt very much that is in his plans.

[redstatebluegirl]

186. K&R

If it must be an elder statesman or woman then so be it. It may take someone like Biden to fix this mess. I could vote for Shiff as a young guy since he has legislative experience.

[DinahMoeHum]

190. Agreed. I GROANED when I heard about Oprah.

[MineralMan]

194. I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread, sincerely.

I appreciate the thoughtful replies and the discussions in subthreads. The DU Recs, too, of course.

I believe we need to come together to select a candidate for President who has the experience, skills and deeply-understood knowledge to correct all the things that have gone wrong after the 2016 election, and even before that.

I think such a person will have the potential and opportunity to make enormous strides toward a more progressive America. I hope we take the opportunity to select a President who will accomplish what needs to be accomplished.

To that end, I think we need to be very, very serious in this process and avoid impulsive support for anyone who is not absolutely qualified for the office.

Thanks again!

[Bradical79]

199. I know people out there want outsiders

but you need some experience at least. If a celeb is serious about getting into politics, start at local or state level, maybe run for a House seat.

[Nitram]

202. I agree 100%

[LAS14]

208. "incompetent"? "Amateur?"

I challenge anyone to come up with an area where Winfrey has shown she's incompetent.

Amateur? Look at Obama's political experience? Jimmy Carter's!

She's achieved enormously in a variety of venues. Her political positions are stellar. And she has charisma! She wouldn't be saddled with breaking ground on any front, race, gender, or professional background.

[MineralMan]

210. Barack Obama was a US Senator

Jimmy Carter was a Governor.

Sorry, but those are facts.

This thread's original post was not about Oprah Winfrey. She was not even mentioned.

[LAS14]

216. One time, not full term. Barely "experienced." Do you know...

... about Oprah's life and achievements?

[MineralMan]

219. He was also an Illinois state legislator.

This thread is not about Oprah Winfrey. I did not mention her name, nor was I talking about her. If you want to start a thread about her, you're more than welcome to do that. It's easy to start a new thread.

This one is not about Oprah Winfrey. It is about the process of selecting a nominee.

[fleabiscuit]

229. They're gone Penny. They can't hear you.

[MineralMan]

230. Wow! A Big Bang Theory Allusion.

I had to look it up. I've never watched that show. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to tell me, though.

[40RatRod]

233. I would throw Sam Nunn's name in the hat!.

He has forgot more about politics and world affairs that anyone in Washington.

[Mr. Ected]

235. Democrats need to campaign on QUALIFICATIONS

We had the most qualified candidate in 2016 but failed to stress how much an unqualified CiC could wreak havoc on America. We now have proof of that allegation.

Let's run against Trump in 2018 and 2020, stressing the qualifications of our candidates, and juxtaposing them to IQ45.

[MadDAsHell]

239. Maybe the problem isnt the politicians, but the government and politics themselves.

I’d much rather have someone that can inspire change of the crappy existing system, than someone who is an expert at manipulating said system to maintain the status quo.

[MineralMan]

240. Our system of government can only be changed by those

who have been elected to our government. The process is simple, but very difficult to make happen.

There is no "someone" who can change it. We have to elect 535 "someones" and a President who will change it. There is no external method for changing our government system.

Is that news to you?

[LAS14]

258. Which is an argument for electing someone from outside..... Never thought....

... I'd say this, but I had to respect my immediate visceral response to her speech.

[MineralMan]

268. Immediate visceral responses need to be analyzed objectively

before being accepted, I think. A powerful speaker can certainly motivate people, for good OR ill. We can, perhaps, think of many examples where a strong orator has led people astray.

I never act on the advice of anyone without putting that advice through the filter of time and analysis.

As I said above, I like Oprah Winfrey. I like many of her ideas. However, I also know that she has also recommended people I do not like and whose advice I think is absolutely incorrect. So, I don't simply accept what she says without analysis.

The same goes for everyone I encounter. When it comes to choosing political candidates to support, I follow the same process. What such a person says at one time gets compared with past performance and other statements before I make a decision.

That's just me, of course.

[LisaM]

251. Thank you.

This talk of Oprah as president is making me rather unhinged!!!

[Vilis Veritas]

256. What if people don't want politicians anymore? There is a perception filter to overcome.

The perception that all politicians are liars is pervasive in the real world.

People seem to flock to celebrity as they are often times (wrongfully so) put on pedestals due to their celebrity status and the fake characters they portray.

Cases in point.

1. Ronnie
2. Obama (biggest celebrity of them all, he has Rock Star Charisma and a brilliant political mind)
3. Trump
4. 2020 Celebrity to be determined.

We have been groomed by media for the last 70 years to accept the celebrity as our heroes.

This is merely the natural progression of the fast-food tv generations that lack sufficient critical thinking skills to decide what is true and just. The Kanye-fication of the poltical sphere is merely the result.

We made the bed, now we can accept it or perish. The only thing that the repubs have on us at this point is they embraced the celebrity due to their desire to control the wheelhouse and now we are paying the price.

My opinion.

[MineralMan]

271. I'm always suspicious of celebrity.

I haven't found it to be an accurate way to decide what I think of an individual. I don't make decisions based on such inaccurate assessments, so I dig in a little and find out more.

Celebrities often have a public persona that is not necessarily the same as their real persona. I want to know who the real person is behind the celebrity I see before trusting that person.

[Vilis Veritas]

275. I'm always suspicious of politicians.

I haven't found it to be an accurate way to decide what I think of an individual. I don't make decisions based on such inaccurate assessments, so I dig in a little and find out more.

Politicians often have a public persona that is not necessarily the same as their real persona. I want to know who the real person is behind the politician I see before trusting that person.

Same.

[MineralMan]

276. Exactly. That's why political decisions need to be made after

some investigation.

[Vilis Veritas]

282. I agree, never said anything else. I am merely trying to point out that the other side

has embraced celebrity and we are now looking at the possible destruction of this country and its institutions.

Obama had celebrity star power and a great political mind. We need that. Political savvy and celebrity if we are to win.

That is my only point I am trying to make. If we fail to get the star power and the other side has it. We may lose again.

That is my fear.

[MineralMan]

283. Obama was also a constitutional lawyer.

He was a state legislator and US Senator. He trained for the job of President. His qualifications are pertinent to the job.

I expect nothing less from a Presidential candidate, although I will vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless. I just want a really good one. Barack Obama was one such.

[Vilis Veritas]

291. President Obama also understood celebrity and star power. He used his charisma to win the nation.

I never denied his credentials.

I am trying to say, send some crony politician with no charisma on stage in 2020 and we will lose again. That is my fear.

I want a politician, but I want to win.

My fear is that we either embrace the Kanye-fication of the political sphere or cease to be relevant.

Again, these are my opinions and I am just a common man with no political experience trying to give y'all my point of view as someone who has always voted the party ticket, but these are my concerns.

Thank you for at least caring to have a dialogue.

I will go back to my normal life now and all you politically connected types can figure out what is best for me and the nation and like I stated, I always vote straight ticket dem.

[ehrnst]

296. I would think that about teachers

until I realized that they didn't owe me their personal lives.

If they were a good teacher, what they did or didn't do behind closed doors that didn't affect their classroom performance wasn't really my business.

I also don't need to know the personal secrets of the guy that fixes my plumbing to trust him to do the job.

That's an important distinction.

[get the red out]

259. I agree

It is going to take a D administration with governmental experience to even begin to clean any of this Trump mess up.

[Kilgore]

272. You Heretic!

Don't you realize she is "The Oprah"

[MineralMan]

274. A heretic, you say?

Indeed I am. In many ways.

[dlk]

279. Success in Business Doesn't Always Translate into Success in Government

How did the crazy idea that a successful business person would be a successful government leader ever get started, and worse, be perpetrated? They require very different, often contradictory, skill sets.

[MineralMan]

281. Very true. Thanks.

[leftstreet]

284. DURec

Thank you!

[MineralMan]

285. You're welcome.

I want our party's next presidential nominee to be someone chosen carefully for actual abilities. I don't want instant decisions on who should run. It's a complex job. I want to know where candidates stand on a wide range of issues and what experience they have that suits them for the job.

Sudden popularity and acclaim isn't one of my criteria. Never will be. We need to investigate carefully.

[gopiscrap]

287. add no career military fuckers either

[TomCADem]

294. Hate and Attacks on Strong Women Continues

Last edited Mon Jan 8, 2018, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Kamala Harris, Gillibrand and now Oprah who did not say a thing about running for President.

The misogyny continues.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

315. How is questioning the wisdom of electing to the presidency a tv personality

with no government experience misogynistic? Oprah has not said she's running, but all over DU and on the cable news shows it's all OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT just because she gave an inspiring speech on a showbiz awards show. I would have exactly the same attitude toward any male tv celebrity with no government experience who was being proposed as a presidential candidate. I would not support George Clooney or Tom Hanks or David Letterman or Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert, either, even though I like what they do in show business. This has nothing to do with misogyny.

BTW, I don't like Gillibrand much either because of what she did to one of the best Senators my state ever had.

[TomCADem]

316. Oprah Gave a Great Speech. Did Not Mention Running for President

Yet, the only thing that some folks can think of is clearing the field for their favored candidate.

For goodness sake, just appreciate and support the speech that she gave, yet 100 recs on a post attacking her. I just find that reprehensible when she should be applauded for what she said.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

317. It was an excellent speech, and brava to Oprah for delivering it.

The point is that on account of it, a whole lot of people jumped to the conclusion that this was her opening salvo for a presidential campaign, even though she herself did not say any such thing (although her partner liked the idea). And for all her good qualities she should not be president because she does not have the appropriate qualifications for that job. Pointing out that fact is neither hating on Oprah nor exhibiting misogyny.

[MGKrebs]

298. Sorry, but I don't like my choices being arbitrarily restricted.

We have no idea who will run. OK, maybe we have some idea, but we don't KNOW. So why not just say- "Please don't run Oprah"? Because that's what you mean.

But there is no context. The premise is faulty. Yes, experience would be nice, but if the choice is, say, Oprah vs. John Edwards, or Jerry Brown, I'd probably vote for Oprah (if the election were tomorrow).

Trump's biggest problem isn't his lack of experience, it's his immaturity (or maybe his insecurity, or maybe his dementia). A smart person could do that job well and fix things if they have the right temperament- to hire smart, capable people, and make good decisions. I could easily see someone like Oprah hiring a bunch of Hillary people.

If the mood of the country is such that we don't want an establishment president, then lets offer one who is smart and capable anyway. Just because they don't have political experience doesn't mean they also have to be an idiot. We'll have a primary to sort it all out anyway.

[bucolic_frolic]

301. Obama was an outsider, Trump was an amateur

They both won. Ok, Trump "won".

Career politicians are not widely respected by the independents

We must win on the merits of our policy, logic, common sense, tone, and the intellectual strength of our message. Like Obama did.

[disndat]

304. +1000

Biden fits the bill. 75 is the new 60!

[Nac Mac Feegle]

305. While I believe that she would make a good president under normal circumstances,

I believe the circumstances have changed drastically.

Donnie Two Scoops has poisoned the well for anyone from the Entertainment industry.

The work needed to repair his damage will preclude anyone without great amounts of political knowledge, skill, and competence.

The blatant corruption, glaring incompetence, and absolute ignorance of what the job entails will mean that anyone that doesn't come from the political arena will not be seriously considered, despite their qualifications.

It may take generations before someone other than a professional politician would be considered. First Reagan, to some extent Schwarzenegger, and now The Moron, should damage that avenue for along time.

[AllyCat]

306. Word.

[jimlup]

307. Sorry I disagree

[Firebrand Gary]

308. Personality is the number one characteristic, according to the American Voter.

So NO, I will not be signing on to your request. I'm voting for the person who's most likely to win and drive voter turn out like never before.

Why? Ruth Bader Ginsberg...

[3catwoman3]

311. Agreed - no amateurs.

It has been pointed out in other threads that there are few, if any, important jobs for which one would choose a person who had no damn idea how to do that job -

Your doctor/ nurse practitioner/ veterinarian - nope
Your dentist - nope
Your lawyer - nope
Your pilot - nope
Your mechanic - nope
Your plumber - nope
Your home builder - nope
Your hair stylist/barber - nope

Etc, etc, etc.

Of course, individuals doing all those jobs listed above would have once been new at them, but would have followed a specific course of study to prepare for those careers, and passed licensing/certification/ board exams. There would have been a basic level of knowledge and competence that could be expected, even of a novice.

Trump is a conman ( I liked the use, somewhere up thread, of "flim flam man" - ain't that the truth). He was able to convince too many ignoramuses that he had something to offer - "Oh, look. This guy doesn't know shit about anything. He's perfect for the job of POTUS."

[annabanana]

314. Boy Howdy am I with you on this!

Looking for career people with expertise and just enough political savvy and just enough guts and endless determination to get this train back on the tracks.

Now this person doesn't have to be as flat out gorgeous as Obama (Like THAT'LL ever happen twice in my lifetime).. but I really really want someone who knows wtf is going on in the world.

[fleabiscuit]

318. Non sequitur. All first time presidents are amateurs.

[NNadir]

320. A little bit of an "R" but the worst President of the 19th century was succeeded by an obscure...

...amateur, the worst President being the highly experienced James Buchanan who had been Secretary of State, Senator, Ambassador to Great Britain (when that was important), Ambassador to Russia, and Congressman.

The rank amateur who succeeded him was Abraham Lincoln.

We're going to need another Lincoln to be sure, and I'm personally disgusted with billionaires running for political office to be sure, but Obama, although a Senator, was in his first term as such, and was somewhat obscure in the beginning.

What he brought to the office was very much like what Lincoln brought, high intelligence, humor, grace, humility honesty and above all, high character.

I'm looking for another Obama. The order should have been reversed, although truth be told, Obama succeeded another President in the same class as Pierce, Buchanan, Calvin Coolidge, Harding and Trump as worst of the worst.

[Puzzler]

323. Amen!

-Puzzler

[bucolic_frolic]

324. I think what we really need is stronger ideology because that's where we fall short time and again

Obama was great but did not fight hard enough, perhaps because the polls had turned against him with the constant race-baiting Birtherism, and his majority in Congress was slim and evaporated quickly

We enter elections with sound, well thought out policies, but it never catches fire. We are neutered by Wall Street and free market economists. The poor, social safety net, environmentalism, income equality are obliterated by greed, and our candidates get no corporate donations if they go in that direction. The country is not run by politicians, nor by citizens, it is run by filthy rich, powerful, conservative corporate wealth. This time they sold it to Russian oligarchs and oil companies. Can''t you tell by the policies Trump has instituted?

[Sunlei]

326. I would like to see all those names mentioned as 2018s Congress, Senators & state Governors this yr

by 2020 all Republican agendas will be crammed on America, we won't have any "public lands" left- it will all be 30 year leased to corporations.

Hundreds of Thousands of prison slaves will work the 3 or 4 Corporate owned mega-factory farms, food processing, slaughter houses & sewing factories for 'comp' time against their decades of maximum sentences.

Thousands of tiny communities will need all revenue possible from ticket fines, HOA violations, home & cash seizures.

Meanwhile Ds will search for a "like-able" candidate forever and the Federal minimum wage will never be raised above $7.25 an hour. The 13th amendment will continue to be used to continue slavery, unpaid workers in America.

[MineralMan]

327. That would be fine, but it will probably not happen.

The well-known names of celebrities are not likely to appear on the ballot for those races. Al Franken was an exception, of course as was Sonny Bono on the Republican side some years ago. Those offices are just not enticing enough for names that are know widely, I think.

[Sunlei]

328. Very few people actually want to be a public servant in this Gov. Most are out for personal agenda.

On top of that our society generally dis-likes those few who really love ALL 'the people', work hard, try their best and are out trying to win elections for the good of all.

[Dem_4_Life]

330. Exactly! There are other ways to make a difference but DO NOT get in the way

It is going to take a lot to clean up this mess! These famous actors and business CEOs can make a difference in other ways such as supporting financially and physically (ex: stumping at speeches). We don't need 45 (2.0) we need ACTUAL leadership and someone who knows what the hell they are doing. PLUS we need to revamp our image across the world.

But right now we need to FOCUS on 2018 and (no premature 2020 distractions)!

[kskiska]

340. In many European countries, like France,

political leaders come from a certain class who've been schooled in diplomacy. An average Joe is not likely to be elected as leader of a country.