Oprah Showing Her Colors

The talkshow diva, Oprah Winfrey, is showing her true colors, not that we didn’t know already. Oprah seems to be hiding behind the “I don’t want to be political” excuse as a reason not to have the Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin on her show, despite apparent demands from her audience and staff. The Drudge Report is reporting that she is refusing to invite Sarah Palin as a guest on her show despite showering Obama with unbridled opportunity. Not that she has to, but what an affront to the public! Can we not see right through her?

In this historic year when Oprah has openly celebrated Obama’s rise to stardom, shouldn’t she equally be excited over the rise of Sarah Palin, if only for the sake of all the hardworking women who’ve never been on equal ground with men? What a shame that Oprah sees no problem with being a part of the political apparatus of the Democratic Party yet apparently refuses to give the first female nominee from the Republican Party an equal opportunity to share her amazing story and rise to stardom.

Can it be that she has no concern for the equality of women when it comes to their representation in public office, and not just public office, but the highest post in the world? What an achievment, to be on a presidential ticket. What a story for the world to hear. With millions of viewers worldwide, I guarantee that there will be high viewer ratings. The hypocrisy is deafening. Maybe the world should really hear of Oprah’s cowardice and lack of interest in fairness and equality.

Advertisements

22 responses to “Oprah Showing Her Colors

  1. Sarah Palin is loved and respected by her hometown. Oprah is hated in hers. Enough said.

  2. preach it brother!

    i have found all this quite amazing and nauseating all at the same time. its so hypocritical. and yet, people will flock to oprah and sit at her feet and worship her opinion.

    sigh

  3. Apparently Oprah is NOT loved by all. Indeed Jimmy Kimmel has been proved wrong.

    (Fist pump)

  4. Ahhhh, she KNOWS that Sarah Palin is kicking tail against her own personal candidacy choice and that ticks her off. It’s that simple.

    Sarah speaks too much truth for Oprah’s liking.

  5. Oprah can obviously do what she wants with her own show, but there will be repercussions either way. She must ask herself, “do I want to what’s right and proper, or do I want to continue to blatantly and giddily show my support for my idol Senator Obama?” She’s dug the hole for herself, and will make some decision, but will it be the right one?

  6. I am not an Oprah fan and I think I’ve watched her show once in the past 2 years. However, I will support her on this topic. Oprah doesn’t have to be equally excited about Sarah Palin.
    She does not have to have her on her shows, just because she is a woman who is rising in politics. She had Obama on, because she believed in him.
    Why do we as voters think she HAS to show support for a woman politician?Is it because she is a woman? That is as silly as expecting her to show support for any black politician running for office. She doesn’t have every black politician on her show and this is the first time she has publicly thrown her support behind any politician.

    If you want her to be fair and objective, the complaint she be that she doesn’t have both the democratic candidates and the republican candidates on her show. And even that is silly. It’s her show, not her staffers.It’s her company and she can do as she pleases and if her staffers do not like the way she is doing something they can leave and find another job. If the viewers are unhappy….stop watching.

    We will never continue to grow in this country if we support each other based on race and gender. Its silly and insulting.

  7. Are we sure this is a unilateral decision on Oprah’s part? It is a known fact that McCain isn’t interested in putting Palin in front of the press to answer questions.

    Maybe McCain’s camp wants to put unacceptable restrictions on the topics covered. We know McCain jettisoned an interview on CNN because someone actually had the journalistic integrity to ask someone from his camp some tough questions.

    Quite the rush to judgment here.

  8. Dee and HK thanks for the comments.

    Dee, good points. You are right, Oprah has every right to have whoever she wants on her show. It is also ridiculous that we have to separate ourselves, especially politically, based on the color of our skin, our gender or whatever else. It just seems to me that we just continue this theme of my team, your team and if you’re not on mine, I don’t want to have anything to do with you. I have not been perfect in that regard, have you? I think that’s one thing I have trouble with as far as political parties go. One gets a label, say Republican like me, and you wear that label and you let that label tell you what you say, who you are, etc. without ever discovering for yourself, though I’ve put a lof of effort in trying to do so. Even the media, as we’ve heard, seems to get caught up in that, too, or at least that’s what it seems (to either party) which too is silly.

    HK, you’re good for me. I agree I tend to rush to judgment. I am human. I have to admit, I’m an extrovert and I am quick to say what’s on my mind before I think about it much. That has gotten me in trouble more than once – especially with the missus :)Surely you have some similar fault? You’re right, maybe McCain’s behind the whole Oprah flap requiring strict restrictions. But I would think that if it were a decision made by the McCain camp and not Oprah, Oprah would be super quick to make that known and defend herself on that grounds rather quickly, wouldn’t you?

  9. Oprah may or may not just be chickening out on PAlin, or showing her political colors. I generally agree, Oprah probably would have come out with more defending herself if that was the case. Just throwing out something I’ve seen in that situation before that, in a surprising number of times, the interviewer doesn’t press the PR issue (making a big stink may dissuade future guests, so you quietly lick your wounds).

    But I’m not imagining McCain “protecting” Palin from the press, and I’m just really against that. Obama went on O’Reilly (that surprised me), if Palin can’t stand up to the media herself how will she stand up against tough world leaders in critical situations?

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-media-a-2.html

    My understanding of the LHC is that even though the speeds seem incredible to us, these types of reactions happen in our atmosphere all the time. If this was what was going to destroy us, our planet would have been eaten a long time ago, and black holes would be almost as common in the universe as solar systems. Besides, aren’t Christians pretty much waiting around for the end of the world anyway? From your perspective, if it isn’t this, it’ll be something, right?

  10. “That has gotten me in trouble more than once – especially with the missus :)Surely you have some similar fault?”

    What, me? Never!

    ;)

  11. Yeah, McCain shouldn’t be protecting Palin. If she’s going to be V.P. and potentially President, they owe it to the country and the world to have her completely checked out. I would say, and do say, the same thing about Obama. I’d say though that there appears to be a good bit of hiding going on with respect to Obama, too. There ought to be a little bit more forthcoming and scrutiny of Obama, his ties, his past, his everything, especially as he’s running for one step higher than V.P., President of the U.S., arguably the most highest and most powerful position in the world.

  12. “I’d say though that there appears to be a good bit of hiding going on with respect to Obama, too.”

    Can you really objectively believe that after he agreed to and went on O’Reilly?

  13. We’ll see what O’Reilly asks and if Obama chooses to answer and be forthcoming. It is a good first step though, just like Palin being interviewed by ABC. I think he’s holding back some.

    For example, seems to me that Obama has been pretty adamant that he is Christian and not Muslim and never has been {presumably because we’d all be scared if he was, after all that’s what the McCain camp is going to tell everyone, and btw he’s black. :) }. Now, I’m sure you’ve heard, he slips up with George Snuffaluphagus and makes a slip that perpetuates the belief by some that he really is Muslim.

    Add to that this: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_sutton_saudi/2008/09/03/127490.html?s=al&promo_code=692E-1&promo_code=2A89-1
    this: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74635
    and this: http://newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_muslim_mccain/2008/09/07/128559.html

    So, I think there’s still enough objective stuff out there to question if he’s not hiding at least a little and probably more. And that’s just on the Muslim issue. Add in that Rezko guy or whatever his name is, the whole Jeremiah Wright issue, and it all makes me wonder if there isn’t something more.

    Surely you couldn’t disagree that he’s not been 100% forthcoming, could you?

  14. Tip for the less Intarweb savvy: You are never allowed to imply there is “enough objective stuff out there” after you reference Newsmax.com.

    Twice.

    It would be like me referencing The Huffington Post and then saying “See! Unbiased sites agree with me!”

    You might think your bias isn’t showing, or that you’ve concealed it well, but you really haven’t. That’s not to say that people can’t be baised . . . we all carry our biases around. But you have to be self-aware about it. Then, you can work against your bias to try to achieve some form of objectivity (i.e. journalism), or embrace it in advocacy (i.e. pundit).

    I don’t know whether Obama has been 100% forthcoming, but I don’t know that McCain has either. 100% is a pretty tight tolerance, wouldn’t you say? Do you really believe there is any national-level politician who is 100% forthcoming? Were you happy with the records released by either George Bush of John Kerry about the respective military records they released? Candidates who have had affairs, multiple marriages, drug problems as youth (the closest of which to truth probably was, ironically, Bill Clinton with his “I didn’t inhale” story . . . *that* is probably as close to the truth as we’ve gotten from a major candidate in 30 years regarding drugs).

    So I’m not convinced Obama has been fully 100% forthcoming, but he, and McCain, have been heavily vetted by their own parties (you think the major political parties love it when it turns out they screwed their own party out of the Presidency because they didn’t check hard enough themselves? Ask the people who hitched their ride to Gary Hart). So I’m going to do my best to focus on the issues and not be bitter about people failing to see the genius of Ron Paul.

  15. Ron Paul has definitely not gotten equal airtime. I’ve been getting a newsletter with an article written by him for the last 10 years. I think if we wanted real change, Ron Paul would bring it. Something about how he talks kind of scares me but I’ve said on more than one occasion that I wished politicians would say/do some of what he says. If he had any shot at winning, I’d probably vote for him, still might. I’ve seriously thought about sending money to his cause but haven’t. I guess the realist or fatalist in me says it’s either Obama or McCain and I’ve got to pick between those two and honestly, I’ve pretty much limited myself to that.

    Of course none of these politicians are 100% forthcoming. I’m sure I wouldn’t want to know a lot about what they’re doing. It just bothers me when there’s a double standard with the politicians and when there’s one by the media. This “my team your team” when we should all be on the same team (America) just kind of stinks.

    For example, CNN has begun this in-depth investigative report in to what Palin believes and shows some things about her and weird people that might be scary to their viewers. That’s fine, the people need to know about who they’re electing. I’d argue that CNN hasn’t done an equal investigation into Obama’s alleged Muslim background, even though he’s been around for a few years now. I think or at least it looks to me that the media, most of them, is afraid of riling up Obama or having a negative effect on his campaign by showing equally scary things or weird people.

    Even though I just linked to Newsmax, I’m sure you’re aware that’s there’s more information available out there. Where’s your concern about the real media and journalist bias there? There’s talk about the bridge to nowhere deal and troopergate that they are investigating. Where’s the CNN investigation on Rezko, alleged donations from Saudi’s, the San Francisco dinner Obama had? And Palin’s for VP. Obama’s for President!

    I knew you’d say that about Newsmax, kept it in there just to see. If it’s a site you disagree with, you can be sure it is not objective. If it’s a site you like, then it’s objective. Your bias also shows. Those similar stories can be found on other sites. I have a feeling if I listed several “credible” sites with these stories, if you disagreed, it still wouldn’t be objective to you while it would be objective to others. Be careful about defining and casting judgment when you’ve certainly shown your own bias.

    I don’t know if Obama’s own mouth is credible to you or not. But he has many many times talked about how he’s a Christian and has never been a Muslim. Then he slips with Snuffaluphugus and says “my Muslim faith.” Now we both know it could’ve been a slip, but was it really? The point is, if he’s lying about it, if he’s saying McCain is going to say he is tryng to make people scared of Obama, but Obama really is Muslim or had heavy Muslim connections, shouldn’t he be honest about it? Don’t the American people deserve to know. Moamar Qadaffi says he’s Muslim, too. Maybe that’s subjective but some times you’ve got to take the subjective before you can make it objective. But coming from his mouth, hearing it with my ears, there is some objectivity to that. Afte all, they are his words which is pretty objective. It would probably kill you to say you would accept that as objective.

    It’s not my goal to be a journalist, I don’t have the time to do real reporting and investigation, and I’m sure not getting paid any money to be a talking head pundit. The blog is just my opinion which is known to change from time to time as new information develops or gets into my brain. Of course I carry some bias. I’m Christian, I have my beliefs and that’s what frames my worldview. I don’t think you can go anywhere on my blog and not realize that (though I can be judgmental).

    You have your own worldview as does all of the media. Journalism isn’t my day job. I don’t have time to write indepth investigative reporting articles with an unbiased style. I get to work, write what I think and see patients all day. It’s just a blog.

    I find few paid journalists/media who are unbiased and able to report just the facts without framing it, at least somewhat, around their own worldview. Chris Matthews? Keith Olbermann? Campbell Brown? Sean Hannity? Alan Colmes? Wolf Blitzer? Chris Wallace? and on and on. Tell me which of those millionaire journalists hasn’t revealed their bias. Bias is dangerous when it gets out of hand. So far, I wouldn’t say I’ve said anything that’s out of hand or not at least somewhat supported, whether or not you agree with it. Even so, thanks for seeing me as a journalist. Didn’t know I was. :) If I’ve said anything that doesn’t have at least some support, please let me know and I’ll claim it as 100% opinion.

    Back to Obama, it looks like from what I’ve seen so far, OReilly is hitting him pretty good. Obama’s fighting back too and is revealing more about where he stands on some of these issues. I think Palin ought to be interviewed and so should McCain and Biden. Let’s remember, this is not Obama v. Palin for president! Palin is running for Veep which is important but not the president. Yes, she’d be “one heartbeat away from the presidency,” but Obama would be THE PRESIDENT which should mean at least equal or greater scrutiny as compared to Biden or Palin.

    And issues, I’d say i’ve been focusing on issues. That’s the problem, this is an issue to people, though maybe not to you. Just because it’s not an issue to you, doesn’t mean it can’t be an issue to someone else. You’re pretty intelligent, you should realize that it’s an issue that’s important to more people than will vote for Ron Paul.

    Other issues that I see as important:
    – the economy
    – Iraq war
    – Abortion
    – Immigration
    – healthcare and healthcare refrom
    – election reform
    – stem cell research
    – Israel
    – Supreme Court Justices
    – Less government, more small business
    – Less U.S. socialism, more republic and democracy
    – MSU football

    Anyway, just my 30 cents.

  16. btw, not taking nutcases side’s here, just using it to point out that there is a fair bit of media unfairness and bias, by “real” journalists/media people, and the reporters should have an ethical obligation to report equally and fairly and not to steer the course of the election.

    I’ve always like Tom Brokaw, though he’s supposedly liberal, he seemed to stick to reporting and not opining.

    Interesting that NBC has recognized the bias to some extent in their recent handling of Matthews and Olbermann. Kudos to NBC for having the fortitude to do something about it.

  17. “I’d argue that CNN hasn’t done an equal investigation into Obama’s alleged Muslim background, even though he’s been around for a few years now. I think or at least it looks to me that the media, most of them, is afraid of riling up Obama or having a negative effect on his campaign by showing equally scary things or weird people.”

    I’m going to get a little snarky here, but did you sleep through the Wight coverage? It was definitely covered by the MSM, and Obama took a fair bit of heat for not taking a stronger stand, especially early on, when it came to Wright. Is it that you don’t watch the MSM and just get your information about the MSM from Newsmax?

    “Even though I just linked to Newsmax, I’m sure you’re aware that’s there’s more information available out there. ”

    From places more objective than Newsmax? Like all the sites that jumped all over the Obama fake birth certificate story? You are on the edge of tin-foil-hattery with this Muslim paranoia.

    “I’d argue that CNN hasn’t done an equal investigation into Obama’s alleged Muslim background, even though he’s been around for a few years now. I think or at least it looks to me that the media, most of them, is afraid of riling up Obama or having a negative effect on his campaign by showing equally scary things or weird people.”

    You’re talking apples and oranges. Obama’s “alleged” ties to Islam vs. Palin, who isn’t just proud of her evangelical background, it is most of the reason why she was picked as the VP candidate! If Obama went on TV and said from the get-go “I’m a Muslim, and being a Muslim informs me on policy decisions”, then hell yah you’re starting to talk apples and apples as far as investigating what that person is going to bring to their respective offices. But you’re trying to take an old and debunked idea–Obama being a closet Muslim, and fan those ashes looking for a flame. Has Obama ever done *anything* by way of proposing laws or using his position to advance the Muslim faith ahead of other faiths? Or maybe he’s like Dr. Evil, just biding his time in his secret, underground Muslim-lair until he’s President and then he’ll just impose sharia law on everyone . . . and demand one MEEEEEEELLION dollars!!

    There are plenty of things to attack Obama about. I hate his health care proposals. I don’t agree with a lot of his energy policy. But when you start talking about doing away with the “your team my team” mentality, it sounds extremely shallow when you turn around and pander to the Republican gossip machine.

    “I knew you’d say that about Newsmax, kept it in there just to see. If it’s a site you disagree with, you can be sure it is not objective. If it’s a site you like, then it’s objective. Your bias also shows. Those similar stories can be found on other sites. I have a feeling if I listed several “credible” sites with these stories, if you disagreed, it still wouldn’t be objective to you while it would be objective to others.”

    Is that why I sarcastically referenced the Huffington Post??

    You’ve got me all wrong on this count. I majored in journalism in college, and I know better than to categorize a source just based on whether or not I agree with its position. If all of these stories can be found on other sites that have actually have journalistic credibility, then why list Newsmax? If you have to go deep into the partisan jungle to find your story, doesn’t that tell you something? Now go back and read your words about teams and double standards. Do you troll The Huffington Post or DailyKos as often as you do Newsmax? Do you take those stories with as much credibility?

    What if, in response to all this inanity about Obama, I started pulling lefty “news” stories about McCain stealing the “cross in the dirt” story from a book he read and saying it was an actual event from his PoW days? Sure, one fellow PoW has come out in support of him, but those guys are all going to stick together anyway, right? After all, McCain has said that story in a couple different versions, and far as anyone can tell he didn’t tell that story before the book came out. It *smells* bad, and certainly would speak to his intellectual and political honesty.

    Where is the outrage?? *Why* hasn’t the MSM picked up on this!! After all, reputable sites like The Huffington Post have run it! And lots of blogs have picked it up! How did you put it? “[T]here’s more information available out there”

    And if that story isn’t good for you, there’s *lots* of stories like that one out there! Don ye olden tin foil hat and get-to-browsin’!

    “Even so, thanks for seeing me as a journalist. Didn’t know I was.”

    I didn’t say you were. I said there are certain paths you can take when you are self-aware of your biases.

    btw wtf would Muammar al-Gaddafi know about Obama’s faith? He wouldn’t have any idea.

    I’ll look forward to your next post on stem cell research.

  18. Nice to get you riled up this morning. I’m a little antagaonistic this am – got up at 5:30 to exercise and lose weight, I’m hungry. This is kind of fun this morning though. I should be ashamed, huh?

    I did see the Wright coverage and that was obviously stressing on Obama. I was referring to all the Muslim allegations as one example and saying I just haven’t heard much from MSM “here’s what we dug up on him” like is already quickly being done to Palin. Maybe because they’re afraid of him or whatever, we find only the fringe media finding this stuff. But it sure is MSM looking at Palin pretty hard along with the fringe elements. I wonder if Obama still holds to the Black Liberation Theology since he was a part of the church for 20 years, but I don’t make a big deal out of it. Have you seen me write about that.

    I wouldn’t say I’m having some Muslim Paranoia, if I did, I think you would have seen lots of posts on my site about it. In reality, my post that we’re arguing about was Oprah (and the Media) having a double standard. Far from Muslim paranoia. In the comments here, I’ve just been using that as one example (it could have just as easily been Rezko vs. the Bridge to Nowhere) and giving a couple of quick links that at least seem to give some evidence that there are lingering quesitons to back it up.

    Still, it makes it hard sometimes to flush down the toilet, when something that is “debunked” is followed by a picture of Obama’s brother or some school principal from Indonesia where Obama attended or a quote from Obama himself or even a crazed leader somewhere saying he’s Muslim. That’s just one example, again, of where MSM doesn’t seem to have investigated something as thoroughly and as vigorously as they seem to be investigating Palin who just appeared out of nowhere a week or two ago.

    More links than Newsmax, how about Snuffaluphagus interviewing Obama and it coming out of his own mouth. But point taken, he has not been I’m Muslim and proud of it. He says he’s Christian and proud of it but do we know what he believes in that regard? Still no investigation there, at least not to the point of putting on people that can’t communicate well talking about speaking in tongues. Still looks a little incendiary. and a little lopsided, which has been my basic argument, not the religiosity of said people.

    Pandering to the gossip machine. Yeah, okay. It’s either you agree with what’s going on or you don’t. I haven’t propagated gossip or defended it, again just questioning the authenticity of the journalists in their investigating. I haven’t even really attacked Obama except to say that I don’t think he’s being completely forthcoming. In fact the closest I’ve come to bashing him was when I wrote a post trying to be a little funny/mischievous questioning if he’s the Messiah, the Devil or just another man with a funny sounding name here: https://twocookiesaday.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/is-barack-hussein-obama-the-messiah-the-devil-or-just-another-man-with-a-funny-sounding-name-that-doesnt-look-like-all-those-other-presidents-on-the-dollar-bills/

    If you read it, you saw where I said I think he’s just a man who talks a good game. How’s that pandering? Just because you already know I’m a Christian from my other posts and our previous discussions, which both would stereotype me as Republican, doesn’t mean I’m pandering. Hearing Obama on ABC is far from pandering.

    I wish someone would let me know how to spell Qaddafi’s name, I’ve seen all kinds of spellings of it. Anyway, I thought it was pretty comical to hear him throwing his two cents in. Unless Obama has some kind of under the table friendship with Qaddafi, I wouldn’t expect him to know anything. No more than some of these “reports” about Palin that look blatantly wrong. And that is my point.

    Stem cell research? There’s a conversation.
    One thing I really think we ought to explore is taking umbilical cord blood at birth (otherwise it’s thrown away) and coming up with an effective system that stores and categorizes cord blood for future transplant patients. We do this privately and it costs us $150 dollars a year. There are lots of things that can be effectively treated with cord blood with generally less risk to the patient with good results.

  19. BTW, i go to CNN,ABC,Fox, CBS, NBC, Real Clear Politics, Drudge Report, and the Clarion Ledger multiple times on a daily basis. I hit Newsmax and Worldnet usually once a day – they don’t seem to update as much. My problem with MSM is that daily, each of those networks have the same stories sometimes verbatim by the same AP writer. I like to find out other stuff that’s out there beside just the big networks and often find more news/reports that aren’t picked up by MSM.

  20. Oprah? I don’t listen to Oprah. She has too many failed policy ideas, like diets.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s