Oprah: STOP IN THE NAME OF LOVE!

Toronto Star: Winfrey’s Golden Globes speech on Sunday night was a blast of feeling. She would make a splendid preacher but that is not what the U.S. needs

Nevertheless:

Guardian: ... one poll found 48% of US voters would choose Winfrey, with 38% voting for Trump.

[Now Oprah says ...]

“I never considered the question even a possibility,” [...] I thought, ‘Oh gee, I don’t have the experience, I don’t know enough.’ And now I’m thinking, ‘Oh’.”

And YayaCanada says:

What are you saying, girl?  That experience no longer matters? Or it's just a certain kind of experience that matters?

Oprah is Showbiz and politics is Showbiz - Trump is the ultimate proof of that, though Obama and Hillary were/are much better actors. The day has gone when the most capable and principled are even being considered. The masses must be tapped at all costs, and what's a few fibs among friends?

On the surface, Oprah has what people want in a President -- a powerful symbol of oppression overcome. It took two people to accomplish that in the Obama/Clinton era but, with Oprah, it takes only one - not to mention what a great example she is for the preponderantly obese -- look how sleek she's been able to make herself -- so important in a President.

Oprah Winfrey's stake in Weight Watchers sends share price soaring

But what's any of that got to do with the sane and effective administration of a country? Especially a country whose "leaders" generally tend to respond to the most forceful yanks on their strings? Besides, she doesn't have a wife to espouse (oh, I see what that word means) the Mom and Apple Pie causes with which "First Ladies" routinely get saddled ... does she?

How can I, as a woman and a non-racist not speak supportively about Oprah?

I'm for freedom for all humans, and Oprah is a human. I support the principles of freedom of religion, speech, association -- all the good things that get promised in charters of rights. But I'm not a fan of the fame/money/power hunger and the all-round chicanery to that end employed by too large a number of professors of Judeo/Christian ethics  -- and am especially suspicious of Oprah's reasons for turning her back on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Newsweek: ,,, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity [...] Oprah's decision to distance herself came as a surprise to Wright, who told Christianity Today in 2002 that when he would "run into her socially … she would say, 'Here's my pastor!' "

Obama is said (Slate) to have turned his back on that very same pastor, purportedly because of Wright's negative view of America in the eyes of God.

• In Wright’s eyes, America was sinful, and until it atoned for those sins, God would deny His blessings. Not God Bless America. God Damn America!

Obama/Oprah -- birds of a feather? Part of a grooming process?

There's a lesser-known reason that both Obama and Winfrey publicly ditched their Pastor - who is quoted (The Hill) as saying:

• “The same issue is being fought today and has been fought since 1948, and historians are carried back to the 19th century ... when the original people, the Palestinians — and please remember, Jesus was a Palestinian — the Palestinian people had the Europeans come and take their country” [...]
• He said African-Americans in the United States have much in common with Palestinians in Israel.

That was probably not the first, nor the last time, that Wright expressed such views about Israel/Palestine. Does therein lie the real clue to the defections of Obama and Oprah? And could it also be a significant factor in how both Obama and Winfrey became such darlings of the media, and so very wealthy? Have they been quietly groomed for political purposes?

It's not much of a leap to suggest that Oprah might be soothing her own conscience when she credits her religious faith with being the source of her success, albeit now couched in more vague "New Age" terms.

I'm all for positive thinking -- it's way more constructive than self-pity -- but motive always trumps mantra.

Obama allowed himself to become part of a system that in no way existed to improve the lives of African-Americans. Sure, he came up with a health plan of sorts, but it basically enriched the insurance companies, which are now raising their prices -- with the blessing of the Democrats in Congress, as a means to bring Trump down.

And maybe Blacks got more jobs - plenty were available for those willing to put their lives on the line in Obama's wars. In fact, the percentage of minorities in the military is quite high compared to "whites" considering that they come from a population half the size of that of "whites".

• Non-Hispanic whites remain the largest group of Americans, at 198 million, the Census says, followed by Hispanics at 57.5 million and blacks or African-Americans, at 46.8 million.

Oprah's an anomaly, as is Obama, and they may well have the requisite number of shady backers to remain "successful" as long as they toe a certain line.

Okay, this is just my personal ideology, but doing what one must do to gain control over anything other than one's own selfish proclivities is bound to be counter-productive in the long-run. If Oprah ever does make it to what is perceived to be "the top" she will discover just how far down the ladder of bona fide morality it's possible to stumble.

Sadly, it would actually be quite interesting to see her as POTUS. We'd learn more about her true nature. For starters, like Trump, she will inherit Obama's wars. Will she stop them "in the name of love" (YouTube) before she breaks too many hearts?

Image: Diana Ross & The Supremes: "Stop in the Name of Love" 1960's

---