OlderRoseanne Barr Hates Oprah
Actress/comedian Roseanne Barr has made some wild accusations in her latest blog about talk show host Oprah Winfrey and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Here’s a summary of what she said (with spelling and grammar fixed):
– Barack is an empty suit selling “hope” in lieu of Truth
– Oprah helped to elect Arnold Schwarzenegger. I have no doubt that she voted her purse by doing this, as she is a large land owner in California, and that ilk fears Dems because they do not want to pay their “fair share” of Cali tax.
– Oprah has given us Dr. Phil. If that was not offensive enough to decent thinking people, now she brings us Obama. He has no ideas, no plan and nothing to add other than the cynical pacification of the masses with bedtime stories about hope.
– Oprah, you play the race card and the gender card too. You are a closeted republican and chose Barack because you do not like other women who actually stand for something to working American Women besides glamour, angels, Hollywood and dieting!
– It is historical that Oprah, beloved of women, chooses a flashy man with small credentials over a seasoned woman politician with 35 years of experience…and sells that to the female demographic who look to her for inspiration!
OUCH!!!!!
Share This Post:
515 Comments
Start with the symbol above the comma.
Followed by the letter ‘b.’
Then the symbol above the period.
Type what you want bolded.
End the bolded sentence(s) with, again, the symbol above the comma.
Followed by a forward slash.
Then a ‘b.’
End it with the symbol above the period.
If this doesn’t work, I give UP!
Orchid @ 02/12/2008 at 12:05 am Okay, it’s lower case.
375 My computer keeps losing what I typed. Now, let me see.
To bold:
1)First type the symbol above the comma.
2)Type the letter b.
3)Type the symbol above the period.
4)Type what you want to see bolded.
5)Type the symbol aboe the comma.
6)Type a forward slash.
7)Type the letter b.
8)Type the symbol above the period.
See if this works.
371 first and last post @ 02/11/2008 at 6:22 pm
You know Orchid, it never dawned on me re: a McCain-Clinton combination but it is a wonderful idea. If the political pundits were discussing a McCain-Lieberman ticket, then maybe it’s possible. I have not heard any discussion as to why that is not feasible and I would think that would be a hot topic.
——-
I got the idea from what you typed in your post, #366.
Me:
…and I like the possibility of McCain-Lieberman now…Don’t know about you, but if it’s McCain against Obama, I hope McCain wins!
You:
I totally agree with you. I was thinking the same thing…talk about a first if that combination is a win…….Did you also hear the Bill Clinton comments about HRC and McCain…he said they truly like each other. I heard her talk about McCain and she sincerely raved about McCain.
I’m trying to watch less news on TV now because I don’t want to be annoyed. it looks like BHO is winning. I’m still keeping my fingers crossed for HRC. I hear that Bill has been less than helpful. Actually, some said he caused her to lose votes. What do you think?
As for the super delegates, they say that people like to back a winner, and since it looks like he is winning, he’ll get (most of) their votes too.
Why don’t you try/test bolding. The first few times I tried to tell you how to do it, somebody/something messed up my posts.
you are so funny Orchid…I had to “bust a gut” over your 14 attempts to show me how to bold…thank you for explaining …I’ll be back later at disciphering your instructions with twenty more posts!!! LOL, sorry but I’m giggling again…two compulsive detailed posters hogging this thread trying to “bold.”
After reading this mornings news about another Obama sweep…I started to get annoyed at the mass acceptance of his lack of experience and the “hope” thing. It really just shows how much everyone has had it with Bush and his missteps and poor judgments…he may have single handedly brought down the Republican Party. Historians will tell.
However to get me through my disappointments I just have to remind myself that it is not over yet, even the pundits are saying so. Despite my criticism of how elections are carried out…I’m not a fan of the electorate and think it should be abolished, the superdelegate process may work in HRC’s favor this time.
You may know more than I do about “superdelegates” and how they work but my understanding is that superdelegates are designated true “politicians”, governors, senate and congressmen, heads of parties at state levels, etc. The creation of the Superdelegate was to break any close of tie vote at the nomination level. Superdelegates were the target group Ted Kennedy was aiming for when he endorsed Obama…however here is the catch…1. pundits are claiming Superdelegates in some areas already have cast their vote and support for HRC and can’t change their vote…why I don’t know. Currently she has more superdelegate votes than Obama 2. the “Clintons” behind the scenes at the Superdelegate level have strong influence and pull because of their past dealings within the party and government level.
So until the pundits say Obama is a lock and they haven’t even said that about McCain!…I’m paying attention. Pundits have also said it is so close to call that it only takes one slip from either Obama or HRC to change the direction.
Orchid, don’t get disappointed…just think of the ole’ saying…”it’s not over until the fat lady sings.” When I played competitive USTA tennis (at a local level, I’m obviously not a pro or anything) my partner and I used to say that to each other even if we were down a set and often we did come back to win…one commentary I heard stated “don’t ever count the Clintons out, they have come from behind before and succeeded.”
re: #386 Orchid @ 02/13/2008 at 12:38 am
“I hear that Bill has been less than helpful. Actually, some said he caused her to lose votes. What do you think?”
I think he did in South Carolina, but she and I literally mean she, HRC, from what has been discussed in panel discussions, has reined him in and I don’t know if you’ve noticed that since SC, he has moved into the shadows more working the phones with Chelsea. Apparently the new Clinton strategy is to bypass Texas etc (Texas has the next largest electoral votes to get) and focus on the Superdelegates which is what Bill and Chelsea are doing.
Some have said it is wrong to bypass visiting and spending money into Texas, NOT necessarily because of losing votes but because she will be out of the news for a long period of time which they all say is not good…you don’t want Obama to get all the news because that is what the public tends to focus on…and you and I both know how the public jumps on flashing short-termed news from our readings of the JP threads.
“As for the super delegates, they say that people like to back a winner, and since it looks like he is winning, he’ll get (most of) their votes too.”
The Superdelegates have no rules! As elected politicians, technically he/she is supposed to vote according to their constituents will, but as history has showed with Gore, even electorates don’t vote according to the popular vote which is why they should be abolished IMO. The Superdelegates being free to vote for whomever they like MAY vote for HRC because of her experience AND from my understanding, she has more political clout within the political sphere of the senate/congress and the Democratic party. You know since Bill Clinton left office and she became Senator, every political pundit has said she wouldn’t survive because of bad feelings during Bill’s Presidency…but all that I’ve heard and read have said that she amazingly has mended many connections within the Senate and has made friends, allies and strong associations with both parties. I read quite awhile back that many Republican Senators suddenly have this great respect for her because they didn’t know her when first lady as well as they know her as Senator and they are impressed. She really has been getting rave reviews from her peers…now these are the very people who as superdelegates may in a tie only mind you…put her in office. I’m not making this up btw, this is what is being said.
Orchid, forgot to tell you something.
did you hear yesterday Obama’s latest comment on the Clinton supporters (meaning the Clintons themselves) saying he lacks experience?
I’m going to paraphrase…I heard it on the radio…he said now they have steamed me, peeled me and want to boil all the hope out of me…my first impression was he’s good! it’s the poor me, victim game again and we know how well that works…the stupid voting public won’t figure that out…this statement alone makes me cringe and I dislike him even more.
my apologies, caught another error. In my post:
#387 first and last post @ 02/13/2008 at 11:29 am
“The creation of the Superdelegate was to break any close of tie vote at the nomination level. ”
should be:
The creation of the Superdelegate was to break any close tie vote at the nomination level.
be back later to work on your bold instructions.
Orchid,
listening to Chris Matthews and secretary to HRC and one of her primary advisors, she was saying that HRC’s new tactic is to start being more specific and detailed versus Obama’s as Matthews puts it “sweeping oratory about change”,
Clinton is going towards a “solution” message versus the current “change message from Obama. HRC campaign will be to start countering Obama by saying you are coming up now with changes that HRC already came out with…great tactic. He did the same thing with the budget and I’m surprised no one called him on it…She came out with her proposals first, then he came out with a proposal which pundits say is little different than hers. Obama gets his ideas from her! She now will be promoting that she knows how to push buttons to get change behind the scenes versus someone with no experience.
I’m so surprised…well maybe not…that the masses haven’t figured him out yet!!!
Orchid,
cbs news article on superdelegates. My previous post on superdelegates were pretty accurate except they do not vote just if there is a tie, they also come into play when one of the nominees does not reach the necessary electoral votes which is more likely than a tie. (http eliminated)
/www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23147072/
391 first and last post @ 02/13/2008 at 8:06 pm
I’m so surprised…well maybe not…that the masses haven’t figured him out yet!!!
——-
Like I said, many people shouldn’t be allowed to vote!!!
I saw on CNN that there are nearly 800 superdelegates and each of their votes equals 3000 normal votes.
You know, I was thinking, if HRC loses, she could blame her husband, and they might end up splitting. What do you think?
Orchid,
excerpt from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23153925/
dated today…subtitled “Clinton camp ready to take potentially incendiary steps to build up count”
“Neither candidate is expected to win the 2,025 pledged delegates needed to claim the nomination by the time the voting ends in June. But Mr. Obama’s campaign began making a case in earnest on Wednesday that if he maintained his edge in delegates won in primaries and caucuses, he would have the strongest claim to the backing of the 796 elected Democrats and party leaders known as superdelegates who are free to vote as they choose and who now stand to determine the outcome.”
“Mrs. Clinton’s aides said she could still pull out a victory with victories in the biggest primaries still to come, including Ohio and Texas next month. ”
Read this and tell me what you think:
“Much for Mrs. Clinton depends on shoring up her support in the portions of the electorate — including women, low- and middle-income voters and Hispanics — that have provided her with victories in key states.”
“Hillary does better with blue-collar voters, working-class voters, union members,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat who has not endorsed anyone in the race. “Barack does better among African-Americans and younger voters and upper-income voters. If that holds, Ohio tilts toward Hillary.”
Which candidate represents the majority of Americans??? Who represents the most disenfranchised overall??? Unfortunately the group HRC does represent are those who are so disenfranchised the reality of the importance of their vote has not enlightened them, they are too concerned with the basics of living and they need help from higher up more than any of the groups Obama supposedly gets his support from…one of the reasons HRC is having difficulty getting financial donations is because she has to look to smaller amounts from a larger number whereas Obama can receive a huge donation from one “upper income voter”.
however Orchid…all is not lost if neither one can get the 2025 electoral delegates, then the 796 x 3000 (according to your knowledge) superdelegates kick in and we won’t know until June.
Re: 393 Orchid @ 02/14/2008 at 12:13 am
“You know, I was thinking, if HRC loses, she could blame her husband, and they might end up splitting. What do you think?”
HRC is in such a precarious position. I don’t think she is the “blaming” kind of person. As a true feminist and I believe she is, feminists strongly believe in take responsibility for yourself. HRC has approached everything in her campaign in that manner even the debacle with Bill in SC…yes he made a big mistake in SC but Bill hurting Hillary’s chance for political achievement in a bid as President really all began with his philandering IMO. It was okay in Arkansas but on a national level where there is less acceptance of such behavior for someone who becomes a symbol for the country, that’s when he hurt her. Because of the time (his Presidency and his enemies were looking for something to build on) and place (White House) Lewinsky did him in and subsequently brought Hillary down too…consequently Hillary couldn’t make any “right” decisions in the public eye…eg strident indignant feminists believe she should have left him, to men who disliked her already that decision may have confirmed she was “a typical woman anyway” incapable of making strong decisions (which is totally inaccurate because the decision to stay with Bill was probably the strongest and most difficult decision she has ever made thus far.) Up to the Lewinsky fiascal, HRC was really not known that much other than by insiders who knew how smart and assertive she was…I did mention before that the pundits at the time were confirming that although he was the scholar, she was the brains behind his decisions and he sought her advice on most everything…although he made the final decision.
Re: your thought that if she loses, would she leave him?…I don’t think so. Firstly, the reasons why couples do not divorce (children, economics, social acceptance, image, loneliness, religion etc) far out weigh those who do get a divorce. I read an article once that out of the 50% who do stay married, 25% of that 50% are still not happy but stay married.
Secondly, as a couple they do not fit the statistical profile of a couple who divorce i.e. more typically seen in non professional, “uneducated”, lower socioeconomic group, non-white, non-church going etc.
As I had mentioned in a way earlier post upthread to someone else, working through a relationship by discussing and coming to a mutual resolution is the way HRC and Bill handled the Lewinsky situation…as a couple they survived despite the public and humiliating nature. Bill knows how to reign himself in, I think he is impulsive with his words and re-actions but he is no dummy and once burned, will behave for her sake.
As a couple, they have been through “tougher times” than most couples short of the death of a child and had to share everything in the public eye to boot. That in itself bonds two people together in a very profound way.
Bottom line…I believe she really loves him and he loves her and if the old adage is correct, “for better or worse”…they’ll stay together.
sorry Orchid, for my long posts…I get really verbose.
oh Orchid,
I just heard of another possible combination being rumored. McCain and Rice as Veep!! that would be really something!! The comment was if McCain went that route, it would really shake up and upset the Democratic party!
What do you think??
Ideally it should be Clinton-Obama against McCain-Rice, but if HRC doesn’t make it, I prefer McCain-Rice!
I try not to watch the news now but couldn’t avoid picking up that HRC is not doing well at all. I AM sad!
oh dear Orchid…I feel badly you are sad.
I understand your disappointment but perhaps you need a break from all the political hype..it can get intense.
Long ago as a UCB student while on my first overseas trip alone while in Greece I met a NYU Phd student (who I thought was the love of my life at the time) who wisely said “you won’t be disappointed if you don’t have expectations”…those words changed my life at a very young age…unfortunately he didn’t, LOL. I used to disappoint easily and I guess with age one becomes realistic to the fact that what is, is and the world won’t end, just make what you can better.
As a country we survived the Bushes. No matter who ends up as President, the system was set up with checks and balances and the President has to have the approval of both Congress and the Senate. We forget that the lower elected officials (Congress and Senate) collectively make a big difference and often your state elected officials make the difference. Yes Bush may or may not have lied about WMD in Iraq but that is unusual.
“IF” she doesn’t get the nom this time, HRC IMO may choose to run again and she still will be younger than McCain is now.
Think Scarlett O’Hara…”tomorrow is another day.” (do Rhett and Scarlett get back together?…don’t tell me you think “not”, we don’t know)….to be continued applies to HRC’s future political career…try not to be sad.
Orchid,
maybe this will perk you up. And Matthews doesn’t even like HRC.
//hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/14/666102.aspx
ABOUT HARDBLOGGER
Hardblogger delivers opinions and analysis on the latest political news by MSNBC anchors, correspondents, analysts and contributors.
The Clintons always perform well under pressure Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2008 4:21 PM by Chris Matthews
Bill Clinton is at his best when his back’s to the wall. Beaten for re-election in Arkansas in 1980, given up for dead politically, he came roaring back in 1982. Knocked off-stride by the revelation of his Vietnam-era “draft letter” on the eve of the 1992 New Hampshire primary, he walked door to door handing out videotapes to voters. His message: I can’t get my message across through the media, so I’m doing it myself. (Of course, reporters like me, I was with the San Francisco Examiner, walked along with him. I have a picture of candidate Clinton greeting my young son that brisk Saturday morning before the primary). The emergence of the self-styled “Comeback Kid” was just around the corner. That Tuesday he would make the very best of an eight-point loss to declare himself the moral winner of the 1992 New Hampshire primary.
The same thing happened when President Clinton got into trouble in 1994. When the Democrats lost control of Congress, he buckled down, pulled in his sails, brought **** Morris aboard and declared the era of big government was over. He also signed the Republican-drafted welfare bill, while ultimately hanging tough in defense of affirmative action.
Hillary Clinton has been equally at her best in bad times. In 1998, with Monica clouds overhead, she went up to New York and campaigned for senate candidate Chuck Schumer eight times, winning tremendous respect for sticking to her job, not just as First Lady, but as a vital national Democrat. I’ve said this the wrong way before. Let me say it right now: Hillary Clinton’s grace under pressure in those dreary months gave her a political lift she’d never enjoyed before. Her national approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s to just above the 70 mark in one poll. Her toughness in walking through fire had much to do with the strong invitation from New York Democrats, U.S .Congressman Charlie Rangel led the parade of welcome wagoners, to begin competing for a senate seat of her own.
This ability to look good under fire, and, let’s face it, look not quite so good when things are going swimmingly, seems to be an essential, even predictable pattern to the Clinton family’s political chronicle.
Look at Senator Clinton’s relentlessness in the brutal weekend before this year’s New Hampshire primary. Beaten by Obama in the Iowa caucuses, her poll numbers seemingly in full erosion, she kept at it, giving speech after speech in giant rooms, just as her husband had done back in ’92. And, unlike him, she came in first, winning a primary that many in her and Obama’s camp thought she would surely lose.
So here Senator Clinton comes again, her husband aboard and sharing in the challenge, plotting a comeback in Ohio, Texas and then on to Pennsylvania. Their Mapquest tells them what they have to do: win those states, wrap up as many superdelegates as possible, get the Florida and Michigan delegates counted. It’s a daunting ambition. That said, it is in this very terrain, uphill and hard slogging, that these two have performed, separately and together, at their lifetime best.
399 first and last post @ 02/15/2008 at 1:54 pm
I understand your disappointment but perhaps you need a break from all the political hype..it can get intense.
——-
That’s exactly what I’m having. A break. It’s great. The less news I watch, the better I feel. Anyway, it’s not over until it’s over.
Thanks for the positive posts.
PS
What exactly is going on with cook and Felinelilly? I haven’t read all their back-and-forth but I’m guessing they’re getting very chummy!
Pages: « 1 … 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 … 21 » Show All
Comment and Share!
E-mail to a Friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and more!