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
sorry Orchid for this mess. I noticed I tried to post this same article on April 2nd but only part of it got posted… at least now I got the link posted. With all the problems with my computer I must have forgotten I had tried to post this but the article does open the possibility that some may take Dean’s advice and the superdelegate issue is really open for grabs.
re: Obama’s “racist” comments…you do know that racism only applies to when a “white-caucasian” person says something derogatory…it doesn’t apply to an ethnic minority saying something racially derogatory about any other ethnic minority…LOL. Everyone will give him leeway regarding comments like that.
421 first and last post @ 03/07/2008 at 2:38 pm
The mayor of SF just returned from campaigning with HRC in Texas and he make a point of saying that Bill Clinton has really changed…his speeches are shorter and much more concise. He thinks Bill is making a big difference with his new toned down approach as shown in Texas and Ohio.
I’m glad Bill Clinton has made himself less visible. I believe he has been too outspoken earlier, and has damaged her campaign. Somebody on TV joked that when that phone rings at 3AM, Bill would climb over Hillary to answer it! :smile:
Also, I read when Chelsea was asked about her father and Monica, she said , “None of your business.” I find this a bit strong. She then said that ‘voting for my mother shouldn’t depend on what you think of my father.’ (Words to that effect).
She could have said, “That is in the past. My father is not running. My mother is the candidate.” Something like that.
After all, she wants her audience to vote for her mother. I’m sure that question will be asked again many times.
I’m at a slow burn with those who are blaming HRC for Bill’s NAFTA. They automatically assume that just because they are married that she supported NAFTA ‘as is’ when Bill favored it.
How can the public be so dumb??? They are assuming women automatically think and agree with their husbands…you’d think in these times, men and women would realize that many women don’t do that anymore.
I’m convinced that attitude is the reason why the polls show men consistently prefer Obama over HRC…because of simple sexism…”keep them pregnant and at home”…the mantra of the typical MCP…and they are still around despite women’s progress.
Definitely sexism. The masses ARE dumb. Not my words. I read this and I agree with it.
I’m sure if Hillary looks like Cindy Crawford, she’d be more popular. MCPs all over the world are basically the same. There is a CNN poll that says 76% of people are ready for an African American leader, but only 63% are ready for a female leader!
The mayor of SF also said that McCain is going to make mince-meat out of Obama if Obama is the nom because McCain is very experienced. He also said since the issues between HRC and Obama are so similar, in the final stint, it’s going to come down to character and personality…
McCain is experienced, but is his voice sexy enough? That is a very important question. :lol:
The masses also stare themselves blind on his promise to bring home the troops. He will have to rethink that if he wins. ‘Never mind, now I tell the masses what they want to hear. If I win, I’ll change it.’
Men don’t want to admit that women are better in many things. We are also better drivers!!! An insurance company said so!
there’s nothing else to talk about that already hasn’t been hashed and re-hashed.
True!
Just watched Rim Russet’s video. Very interesting.
——-
Can’t believe I gave him a new name!!! :lol: Sorry, Rim. I mean, Tim! Now I’m going to check his last name. I’m sure Russet is also wrong.
Okay, I will never get it wrong again. It’s Tim Russert. :smile:
436first and last post @ 04/02/2008 at 9:55 pm
Superdelegates urged to vote how they see fit. Dean says that popular votes shouldn’t be a deciding factor for those who most likely will pick Democratic nominee…….
“They should use whatever yardstick they want,” he said. “That’s what the rules provide for.”
In response to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s suggestion that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment and not feel bound by the standings after June 3 — the day the nominating season ends — Dean replied: “That’s what the rules say, and I enforce the rules.”
——-
Right, and Howard Dean is the boss! It’s silly of Obama and his backers to tell superdelegates how to vote.
Isn’t it a pity that the liberals have to choose between two firsts, first woman or first African American? I’m sure there are African American women who would have voted for Hillary but now choose Obama because he is one of them.
They are equally popular, which is why the superdelegates become so important. If I were a superdelegate I think I can be bought! I’d sell my vote for a lot, and I mean A LOT, of Lindt chocolates and Almond Roca. :lol:
I took a test once that answers where one stands on the political spectrum. Plenty of questions. Turns out I’m a Libertarian! My husband is a real Tory (conservative).
# 469 Orchid @ 04/06/2008 at 12:43 am
I love Almond Roca, btw See’s has a version of Almond Roca that is very addictive and so pleasing to the taste…but I’m a chocolate fanatic.
Speaking of Libertarians…see article. I have a Libertarian base as stated by their definition but the “definitions” keep flexing of what a Libertarian really is e.g. Barr below…I wouldn’t think Libertarian orientations would call for the impeachment of an existing President for, IMO, a trivial sexual tryst at taxpayers expense…that’s between Bill and Hillary.
link: cbs5.com/national/Presidential.election.2008.2.692797.html
(I eliminated http)
“New Presidential Contender Could Enter Race
Apr 5, 2008 3:30 pm US/Pacific
WASHINGTON (AP) ― Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr says he’s formed a presidential exploratory committee and may seek the Libertarian party nomination.
Barr says in a news release that he told Midwestern political activists at the Heartland Libertarian Conference in Kansas City, Missouri, on Saturday that the country faces a grave moral crisis and he feels he cannot sit on the sidelines.
The former Georgia congressman left the GOP in 2006 over what he called bloated spending and civil liberties intrusions by the Bush administration.
Barr became a darling of conservatives in the 1990s for his persistent attacks on President Clinton. He was among the first to press for impeaching Clinton.
New Presidential Contender Could Enter Race
WASHINGTON (AP) ― Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr says he’s formed a presidential exploratory committee and may seek the Libertarian party nomination.
Barr says in a news release that he told Midwestern political activists at the Heartland Libertarian Conference in Kansas City, Missouri, on Saturday that the country faces a grave moral crisis and he feels he cannot sit on the sidelines.
The former Georgia congressman left the GOP in 2006 over what he called bloated spending and civil liberties intrusions by the Bush administration.
Barr became a darling of conservatives in the 1990s for his persistent attacks on President Clinton. He was among the first to press for impeaching Clinton.”
Orchid,
you are absolutely correct, anyone who believes that any of the candidates will enact what they are advocating now is just plain stupid…a President can’t do it alone…it’s not in the constitution…duh…plus re: Iraq withdrawal, situations and conditions are fluid. Obama especially spouts promises but has no plan nor has he addressed what is to happen afterwards…this country has already been criticized by the Iraqiis (plural…did I spell that correctly) when the US pulled “out too quickly” the first time and wasn’t there for Iraq for the crucial rebuilding phase. The elected person whoever it will be, will probably change his/her stance on the troop removal…you can hear the whining and disappointment already…oh, too bad…too late, the masses already voted for that person because “the masses” wanted to blindly believe so much…get real…oh, oh…I feel a rant coming on….
re: Chelsea, she is inexperienced and young and is going through a major learning curve…give her time. I agree with your sentiments on how she preferably could have responded but she probably has her fathers temperament.
Re: it’s too bad that there is a Black running against a women, we’ve touched on this before. I reiterate from my earlier post Obama could have stayed out this one, he is young and has time to gain that lacking experience (especially international). HRC is older and her time was ripe, even Edwards time was coming. In some ways, by HRC campaigning for his Senate race, she is a mentor to him and if she had won for President this round, she could have really helped him on the next round, but now IMO it’s the prodigy competing against his mentor…que sera sera…it’s the democratic way.
When I first realized I slanted towards Libertarian, I was shocked but so be it. I’m so into the personal responsibility and individual liberty but really…it’s perhaps too progressive for the “masses”…after all it’s about “personal/individual” decision making not mass/group bandwagon, feel good, “waving hands in sync”…well you get the picture.
I have to share with you this quote I have hanging in my home office from a Newsweek article dated Dec 9, 2003. The article centered on two litigations. 1.) Liebeck vs McDonalds 1992, for her coffee being too hot when she spilled it on herself and 2.) Pelman vs McDonalds Corp 2003, where two teenagers litigated against McDonalds restaurant for making them fat. Here is the quote:
“How dumb are you, anyway? And, more important, whose fault is it? In the past couple of months, it has become clear that these two questions are increasingly central to understanding the American experience.” …says it all.
PS a Libertarian and a Tory Conservative in one household..hmmm, must make discussing politics interesting.
sorry Orchid, I just noticed I double posted that Barr-Libertarian article dated April 5, 2008 in the same post.
457 first and last post @ 04/06/2008 at 3:27 pm
…When I first realized I slanted towards Libertarian, I was shocked but so be it. I’m so into the personal responsibility and individual liberty but really…it’s perhaps too progressive for the “masses”…after all it’s about “personal/individual” decision making not mass/group bandwagon, feel good, “waving hands in sync”…well you get the picture.
I guess we’re somewhere between Republican and Democrat. There was a chart and I made a copy of that but of course I can’t find it now. I do remember that I’m not in the middle but one square to the left.
I have to share with you this quote I have hanging in my home office from a Newsweek article dated Dec 9, 2003. The article centered on two litigations. 1.) Liebeck vs McDonalds 1992, for her coffee being too hot when she spilled it on herself and 2.) Pelman vs McDonalds Corp 2003, where two teenagers litigated against McDonalds restaurant for making them fat. Here is the quote:
“How dumb are you, anyway? And, more important, whose fault is it? In the past couple of months, it has become clear that these two questions are increasingly central to understanding the American experience.” …says it all.
Yes, blame others is what people like to do. It’s other people who make them smoke, drink and eat too much of McDonalds food.
PS a Libertarian and a Tory Conservative in one household..hmmm, must make discussing politics interesting.
Like Matalin and husband. :smile:
I’ve been watching TV again, and Obama’s wife seems like a very bitter person. I also watched a Phil Donahue, an ex TV host, who also thinks that the troops should stay in Iraq to rebuild what they have destroyed.
How ignorant can people be! I hear that many in Pennsylvania don’t know about Obama’s pastor. Don’t they have TV, radio or newspapers in Pennsylvania??? Obama is flooding that state with ads. He’s got so much more money than Hillary. Are people really swayed by ads???
I also read in gretawire.com that his donations come mainly from the internet, including from Saudi Arabia.
456 first and last post @ 04/06/2008 at 1:26 pm .
New Presidential Contender Could Enter Race
——-
Clinton got in trouble because he was found out. I actually felt sorry for him, and his wife and daughter. Monica wasn’t a minor at that time. If she was ok with that, then that is her business, imo. Men!
I’m certain there are a lot of Spitzers out there.
If Bob Barr is serious, shouldn’t he come out already? It’s getting late! There’s also another one who might be interested in running. Forgot his name. He ran before and ruined it for the Democrats.
I’m sure Iraqi is singular, and Iraqis is plural.
ok, found the name. The consumer advocate Ralph Nader. I also hear NY’s Bloomberg might be interested.
Ralph Nader has entered the Presidential race every year since the late 60’s. His says his main goal is to make people “aware”, not to win…and also to keep his name in the news. I have a close friend who volunteered for him in the seventies, then got disillusioned by him because he really is no different than any other politician. I’m curious but obviously not curious enough to research it…but I’ve always wondered how he makes his personal money. Ralph Nader hasn’t figured out yet that he has become “a Jesse Jackson”…always getting his face in the news, supporting an issue but becoming somewhat of a “joke” by some. I’m not implying what they do is bad but there is the concept of “overexposure” which then turns the issue they want to bring to the front negative, just by associating their name.
BTW Ralph Nader already threw his hat into the ring about two months ago but it never makes the big news because he always does it! I’ve heard about Bloomberg too.
My understanding is that Barr did come out or was suppose to come out this week.
re: Clinton, there was Newsweek article out last week re: why men in Spitzer’s position cheat and the conclusion was because they become so powerful, they think they can get away with it. Also there are Lewinsky’s everywhere. I think there are not only ‘alot’ but many, many, many Spitzers out there even those who condemn others are oftentimes the most guilty…Gingrich…although he married the woman he cheated on his wife with…so in the eyes of those who are the first to condemn…it’s okay.
473 Orchid @ 04/10/2008 at 12:49 am
“Are people really swayed by ads???”
I was listening to one of those political commentaries and the consensus by the pundits was ads really do make a big difference. They played one of HRC’s new ads where she talks about her childhood and displays pictures of her mother, brother and herself…apparently an attempt to make her more “human”. The analysis was that this ad wouldn’t work and would probably never be seen because she has no money to air all the ads she has made. They also showed an Obama ad where his grandmother spoke on his behalf and some of the pundits thought it was odd that he would bring in the “white” grandmother he admonished earlier…I thought it was a smart move on his part to bring her out and in her words have her support him…shows no hard feelings between granny and Obama. I tried to find the video link but couldn’t…sorry
latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/oprahobama.html
A surprise: Oprah pays a real cost for supporting Barack Obama
(UPDATE: This Ticket item has aroused so much interest, traffic and hundreds of comments that a new one will be published Thursday morning. Please check back here then. After you’ve read this item and are ready to go to the new one, just click Top of the Ticket atop this page. Thanks for reading.)
Most of the attention on the O2 effect — Obama and Oprah — has been focused on how much the daytime TV cult leader helped her home state senator by endorsing him and appearing at all those rallies in Iowa and South Carolina with Barack and Michelle.
The 54-year-old Chicago TV hostess certainly helped raise a hefty chunk of change by loaning out her estate for that Obama fundraiser last summer.
Oprah Winfrey has long enjoyed an immense popularity tied to her long-running daytime TV show, which started in 1986, and helped give her favorable ratings around 78% by 1996. So well known is she that one name will suffice, as in our headline.
In one 1999 survey of the most admired and respected 20th-century women, Oprah (26%) came in only second to Mother Teresa (33%), who didn’t have her own TV show. And in 2003 a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 60% thought Oprah was a more powerful woman than someone named Hillary Clinton, a former first lady and senator, who drew only 28%.
Fourteen months ago, a Gallup/USA Today poll found 74% of Americans had a favorable view of the TV personality.
Then on May 1 last year, Oprah announced during….
the Larry King show that she was, for the first time, going to throw her considerable weight behind a political candidate — Obama. King’s suspenders nearly snapped.
“I think,” she told old Lar, “that my value to him, my support of him, is probably worth more than any check.” Although, to be honest, her estimated $2.5 billion in wealth could buy an awful lot of TV ads in Indiana. It might even be able to purchase the Hoosier State.
But little attention has been paid to the effect of Obama on Oprah. Now along comes Costas Panagopoulos, an assistant professor of political science at New York’s Fordham University, to ask and answer just that question.
Writing at Politico.com, he suggests the aging empress of TV has paid a price for getting into the dirty business of politics with and for her man Barack. By August last year, a CBS poll found her favorable rating had plunged from 74% to 61%, still twice as good as the president but nearly a 20% drop.
Around Thanksgiving she announced that not only was she supporting Obama, but she would campaign with him and we’d see if her political recommendation carried as much weight as her book recommendations. Oprah’s political travels produced a media feeding frenzy and a publicity bonanza with women routinely fainting in the front row. The campaign said her rallies produced 10,000 new volunteers.
Winfrey campaigned for Obama in Iowa, which he won, in South Carolina, where he won, and in New Hampshire, where he lost. We haven’t heard much about Winfrey since the voting started. Did she realize something we’re just getting? We heard only that she left the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ several years ago, reportedly over some of his more militant sermons that Obama says he never heard.
But 10 days after the campaign media explosion her favorable rating had dropped further to 55% and her unfavorable ratings for the first time climbed to 1 in 3.
A December ABC/Washington Post poll of Democrats found 8% were persuaded by her Obama endorsement, 82% said it wouldn’t matter either way and 10% said her recommendation had turned them off Obama.
Now, Panagopoulos has discovered an AOL TV popularity survey of 1.35 million Americans that found 46% said the daytime TV host who “made their day” was Ellen DeGeneres while only 19% chose Winfrey. Forty-seven percent said they’d like to have dinner with Ellen, while only 14% chose Oprah.
Apparently, neither Ellen nor Oprah were asked who they’d like to dine with.
Panagopoulos draws the conclusion that in these days of pervasive media, in reality, celebrity endorsements run the real risk of costing the celebrity more than they benefit the endorsee. So celebs may want to think twice before hitting the stump.
Whoopee,
can’t believe it Orchid…long article+link…no “awaiting moderation”…must be my lucky day. Thought you might be interested in how Oprah’s ratings are being affected…I’ve always like Ellen much more anyway.
re: #474 Orchid @ 04/10/2008 at 1:05 am
“Clinton got in trouble because he was found out. I actually felt sorry for him,”
I never felt sorry for Bill…he’s a big boy and got caught up in his own charisma…I did feel badly for Chelsea and HRC. If it is true that Bill and Hillary had this agenda i.e. he would be President, then it was her turn…he blew it for her and that made me mad…look at those who turned his indiscretion back on her i.e. “she should have left him,” “if any man did that to me”… blah, blah, blah, and subsequently judged her for his blatant mishavior…at least he could have chosen a more intelligent woman to have a “non-affair” with…his choice of women other than HRC are an affront to intelligent, successful women everywhere LOL.
“I also read in gretawire.com that his donations come mainly from the internet, including from Saudi Arabia.”
very interesting…and it’s not newsworthy??? geez
“Like Matalin and husband.”
and you know how I enjoy Matalin and Carville. IMO couples like them and you with your “tory conservative” husband make great relationships…neither is a clone of the other. I have such respect for two people who live together, share all yet are able to maintain their individualism especially when it comes to politics…opposites attract and you learn from each other and balance one another out.
thanks for the spelling clarification on Iraqi vs Iraqis.
My post has been ‘awaiting moderation’ for a couple of days now. Guess they (at JJ) have forgotten all about it. Can’t remember all the things I wrote.
Well, I’m sure you know we have a new ‘gate’ now. Bitter-gate! :lol:
I’m a few pages behind in the latest Angie thread. Somebody asked for you. I said you’re lurking for a while.
I see we still don’t have a new Angie thread yet, but I’m going to catch up now in the one that’s already over 2000 posts.
I saw somebody wishing you a happy birthday, so
“Happy Birthday and Many Happy Returns to you!”
We are in great need of a new thread!!! Fans don’t know what to do and are arguing. I don’t know what the argument is with Cliniqua, since I haven’t read all the posts, so I’m staying out of it. I do enjoy reading Cliniqua’s posts. Sometimes I think, wow, but they’re very entertaining. I’m just hoping x never reads Cliniqua’s posts. :lol:
I thought cook had left, but he is back.
Hi Orchid,
thanks for the birthday wish. I’ve not been keeping up with jareds JP threads consistently…too much to weed through and little time. I pop in once in a while and as much as I also enjoy PT and Cliniqua’s posts, not many of the sophisticated posters are posting much and I have problems with my computer loading quickly enough to view each page individually. The script error is really a problem! it jams and literally stops my computer so I don’t read with the “show all” feature which helps to skip faster. I got so frustrated.
Anyway right now I’m listening to the commentaries on last nights Clinton/Obama debate in Pennsylvania. They all agree Obama was too defensive and one used the term “pummeled” and that Obama was “rattled”. They praised Hillary’s open humor about what she refers to as “past baggage”.
The pundits are saying Obama didn’t have alot of great answers because they speculate he doesn’t know how to respond to them so he keep deflecting onto other unrelated topics. Unfortunately the masses may not “get it” and I think many have already made up their minds…thank good IMO for the independents which is the real target group …the real “thinkers” in the crowd.
btw, I’m glad cook is back, he can be one of the more potential posters and has added interesting insights to certain topics…after the bashing he got, he took the high road and I respect that. What do you think of the whole cook-FL event?
correction: should be he (Obama) kept deflecting on to other unrelated topics.
oops, found another one.
should be : “…thank goodness IMO for the independents…”
Orchid,
How do you think the William Ayers issue brought out the other night will affect voters thinking of Obama? It may be more of an issue than the Rev Wright topic especially if McCain starts to use it. OR do you think voters will see through bringing up this issue as only a negative ploy by HRC?
I think both the Wright and Ayres issues have damaged BHO. I just saw him speaking after HRC beat him in Pennsylvnia. It sounded more like a victory speech. Strange!
Remember his supporters putting pressure on Hillary to pull out of the race? She just had a double digit win! She can win the big states.
Very interesting! We’ll see. Que sera sera!
Hi Orchid,
she’s bacck…not to simulate the infamous JA line …
Terry MacCauflee, HRC co chair claimed today that her campaign raised $10M in one day since the PA win. She was $8M-9M in debt including the 5M she put in herself. Now at least she has a chance to put money into ads for Indiana where Obama is favored.
What is irritating for me is influencial media such as the New York and PA newspapers which criticized HRC for being negative on the campaign trail which is such BS…all politically astute followers know that when the race is as close as it is all candidates resort to negative campaigns and Obama will turn to this to when his numbers start to fall. Currently he doesn’t have to because he is the front runner.
The pundits aka Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews all said that by HRC wining double digit in PA, savvy superdelegates are going to wonder why couldn’t Obama close it??? He spent 3x’s more money in PA with more ads, was there for seven weeks I think they said and still couldn’t close it…this ads up to the question posed to and by the superdelegates…can Obama close it with McCain when with all his money and presence he couldn’t with HRC? The pundits were commenting that Obama has problem with this issue because when analyzing his campaign they have to question his overall effectivenes with all the money and time he has spent in one state and still couldn’t win it even in the single digit range. 795 superdelegates at stake who can change the outcome even if Obama has more delegates. I think that is a very valid concern. Both of them have won more popular votes than any candidate has in the past…that is how close they are… apparently the superdelegates see this, hence, it comes down to the practical question of who can beat McCain.
Money for Obama is apparently not the answer for him…he still has $40M which he will spend, but it’s not helping him as proven in PA…apparently he can’t say anything new to change voter opinion…that is really interesting. Even the pundits were saying Obama just has fire but no details…it will be interesting to see if the mass figures it out within the next primaries.
sorry for the misspelling should be …”they have to question his overall effectiveness, not effectivenes”.
473 first and last post @ 04/23/2008 at 8:00 pm
The pundits aka Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews all said that by HRC wining double digit in PA, savvy superdelegates are going to wonder why couldn’t Obama close it???
——-
Hi again FALP!
Yes, she won Pa decisively, but I read in democraticunderground.com that it’s ‘only’ by 9.2%. Don’t know what’s true anymore. That board has become so left-wing. The majority is pro BHO. The media is pro him too. The Obama supporters accuse Murdoch and other rightwingers of supporting HRC, but so what. Soros is supporting BHO.
bbl
There’s a new Angie thread.
Pages: « 1 … 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 » Show All
Comment and Share!
E-mail to a Friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and more!