Is Oprah a Racist?

[Richpo64]

Is Oprah a Racist?
By Burt Prelutsky
Friday, December 28, 2007
townhall.com

For nearly my entire life, I have been aware that there?s no explaining a large segment of the population. For instance, even as a kid, I found myself wondering why people would choose to drive really ugly cars, and, what?s more, I?m still wondering. We all can?t afford to drive Jaguars or Porsches, but we always have a choice when it comes to whether the car is red or blue or black. So how is it that Detroit would bring out pea green Fords or dismal gray Chevys and know there would be a market for them? It?s not as if they were sold at a discount. I would see people drive these putrid-colored vehicles and wonder if, just possibly, they were all colorblind. That?s how I?ve come to view people?s presidential preferences. Granted, being a conservative, I favor the GOP. But how can Democratic voters look at Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, and not gag? God knows that?s how I feel about Ron Paul. It confounds me that after his gaffe during the first Republican debate, he didn?t simply shrivel up and disappear. The very idea that a U.S. congressman could blame the tragedy of 9/11 on American foreign policy, suggesting that if we only pulled our troops out of Iraq, we?d have peace in our time, displays such blithering idiocy, it makes John Edwards look like a deep thinker. Long before Desert Storm, someone should remind Rep. Paul, we were having our bases bombed and our citizens taken hostage. And what does he make of Islamic terrorism in Bali, France, the Philippines, Japan, Spain and Russia, not to mention the barbaric response to newspaper cartoons and teddy bears? If, when Ron Paul fails to win the GOP nomination, he decides to run as a third party candidate, he should not want for campaign funding. Between the Democrats, who?ll want to encourage him to split the Republican vote, and Hezbollah?s looking to spread their anti-Israel bilge, Paul?s coffers should be filled to capacity. It?s a strange thing about third party candidates that they invariably serve the interests of those whom they allegedly oppose. In ?92 and ?96, Ross Perot did more to help Clinton get elected than Al Gore did. In 2000, it may well have been Ralph Nader?s candidacy, not Florida, that provided George Bush with his actual margin of victory. At this juncture, though, the wild card in the 2008 election is a woman named Oprah Winfrey. Not being a devotee of afternoon television, I?ve never watched her show. What I know about her, I?ve gleaned over the years from reading tabloid headlines while standing in checkout lines at the supermarket. So, I know she?s a billionaire who has lost and gained and lost about 4,000 pounds over the years, and I also know that she?s had the world?s longest engagement to someone named Stedman. A while back, though, I read a rather astonishing item in the newspaper. It seems she had declared that the only presidential candidate who would be allowed on her show was the junior -- the very junior -- senator from Illinois. Now I could understand that, being a Democrat, she wouldn?t want to put out the welcome mat for Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain or Thompson. But why carry water for Obama, but not Hillary Clinton or John Edwards? From my vantage point, I can?t see a scintilla of difference in their politics. They?re all left-wingers, after all, who believe that raising taxes is the solution to all problems. The only difference I could see was the only difference that I could literally see -- namely, that Barack Obama was darker complexioned than the other two. Was the fact that Obama?s sperm donor, a man who?d deserted his wife and little Barack at just about the time the umbilical cord was cut, sufficient reason for Oprah to give the guy her official blessing? If a Mormon TV talk show host refused to have any of the candidates on his show other than Mitt Romney or if Larry King banished everyone who wasn?t Jewish from his domain, I?m dead certain he?d face universal condemnation. So how is it that Oprah goes so far as to hit the hustings with Obama and nobody even says ?Boo??




W. Burt Prelutsky is an accomplished, well-rounded writer and author of Conservatives Are from Mars (Liberals Are from San Francisco): 101 Reasons I'm Happy I Left the Left.

Be the first to read Burt Prelutsky's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Copyright ? 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Not being a devotee of afternoon television, I?ve never watched her show. What I know about her, I?ve gleaned over the years from reading tabloid headlines while standing in checkout lines at the supermarket. So, I know she?s a billionaire who has lost and gained and lost about 4,000 pounds over the years, and I also know that she?s had the world?s longest engagement to someone named Stedman. A while back, though, I read a rather astonishing item in the newspaper. It seems she had declared that the only presidential candidate who would be allowed on her show was the junior -- the very junior -- senator from Illinois. Now I could understand that, being a Democrat, she wouldn?t want to put out the welcome mat for Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain or Thompson. But why carry water for Obama, but not Hillary Clinton or John Edwards? From my vantage point, I can?t see a scintilla of difference in their politics. They?re all left-wingers, after all, who believe that raising taxes is the solution to all problems. The only difference I could see was the only difference that I could literally see -- namely, that Barack Obama was darker complexioned than the other two. Was the fact that Obama?s sperm donor, a man who?d deserted his wife and little Barack at just about the time the umbilical cord was cut, sufficient reason for Oprah to give the guy her official blessing? If a Mormon TV talk show host refused to have any of the candidates on his show other than Mitt Romney or if Larry King banished everyone who wasn?t Jewish from his domain, I?m dead certain he?d face universal condemnation. So how is it that Oprah goes so far as to hit the hustings with Obama and nobody even says ?Boo??




W. Burt Prelutsky is an accomplished, well-rounded writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So effing accomplished and well-read that he admits he has NEVER watched Oprah, even once.
So perceptive and well-read he can see no difference between Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

A racist is someone who puts down other races. Oprah rarely puts anyone down, not even the Republicans. But how would this Neocon know that?

He's too small-minded. Toss him back.


I suppose it would be too much for you to actually voice an opinion more complex than an insult, Richiepoo

[Michael Tee]

I have to respectfully disagree with you, XO.  As an example of how "well-rounded" and "accomplished" a writer Prelutsky is, consider this little gem:

<<So how is it that Detroit would bring out pea green Fords or dismal gray Chevys and know there would be a market for them?>>

Obviously, a writer who asks the hard questions.  Who challenges us to the very limits of our intellectual capacity.

[Richpo64]

Considering that race is a driving force in liberal politics, questioning liberal motivations on the subject is certainly valid. Oprah is excluding people from her forum. Is it because of race? Is she supporting B. Hussein Obama simply because he's Black? I think that his race is her main motovator in this instance, but not to the extent that she's excluding others simply because they are White. Nobody in the media will ask this question of course, like BO, they would simply attack them as being racist simply for asking the question. It's the template again. It begs the question though, why aren't the race hustlers Jessy Jackson and Al Sharpton supporting B. Hussein Obama? I've heard they describe him as, not "Black enough." Is that because he's half White? Is it racist to think that way? In the convoluted world of liberal racial politics, who knows why these people do what they do.

[Richpo64]

What price Oprah?
The popular TV personality helps Barack Obama draw big crowds while her fans fume.
By TINA DAUNT
CAUSE C?L?BRE

December 28, 2007

WITH less than a week until Iowa's first vote is cast in the 2008 presidential election, the politicians aren't the only ones feeling the heat: Celebrities, who have become important players in the political fundraising process, are under increasing pressure to campaign for their favorite candidates in the early caucus and primary states.

But how a star -- particularly a supernova -- responds isn't always a simple matter of "yes" or "no." With the exception of Oprah Winfrey, who's been working the trail with mixed results for Democrat Sen. Barack Obama, most of the A-listers have opted to stay out of the spotlight for now. (Chuck Norris, who has campaigned everywhere for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican candidate, occupies a planet of his own.)

Although it's true that rallies featuring Winfrey in Iowa and South Carolina have drawn some of the biggest crowds of the campaign so far, Obama's people won't know whether they also triggered a backlash until election day.

Winfrey's website has been buzzing for weeks with angry postings about her involvement in the Illinois senator's campaign, something Hollywood, which always keeps its eye on the public mood, is bound to notice -- this is a town, after all, that measures success by weekly grosses and daily TV ratings.

One posting on her site, Oprah.com, accused the talk diva of being a traitor. (By Thursday, that message string had attracted more than 12,000 views.) Another poster told Winfrey to "stop pushing Obama down our throats." (There were 3,000 hits logged on that one.) Another said: "Do you really know Barack Hussein Obama? Scary & something we have to take into consideration!" (There were more than 4,000 views for that.)

"First of all I want to say that I am a HUGE Oprah fan," one poster wrote. "I love what she stands for. She is a strong woman changing the world. However, I have been extremely disappointed with her recent touring with Barack Obama. It is a manipulation and an abuse of her power and influence on the American culture.

"Let the American people form their own opinion, Oprah."

Since Winfrey announced over the summer that she was supporting Obama, more than 25,000 views of more than 345 separate discussions -- almost all of them centering on the campaign -- have been roiling along in the local and world news section of her website. By comparison, there were eight discussions going in recent weeks on the issue of global warming, which had generated about 1,100 views.

From the beginning, Hollywood A-listers have seen the potential for this kind of blow-back.

George Clooney, who also supports Obama and is a longtime friend of the senator, has been reluctant to campaign in person, not because he's worried about the effect on his film career but because experience has taught him that a celebrity's presence can hurt a candidate.

In a dinner-party conversation in Rome recently, Clooney said that Obama's people have been urging him to go out on the trail. "I've told them that having me out there would hurt more than help. I know they don't see it that way."

He added: "I didn't even campaign for my own father." (Ultimately his father, newscaster Nick Clooney, who ran for Congress as a Democrat in Kentucky several years ago, ended up losing his bid. His Republican opponent blasted him for having "Hollywood values.")

Several months ago, producer Mike Medavoy had a blunt assessment of celebrity endorsements: "Who cares?"

This week, however, he announced that he was going with Obama. "I've been looking for a leader who, above all, will lead by example," Medavoy blogged on Huffington Post. For the record: Medavoy's wife, Irena, is a huge Obama fan and fundraiser. His endorsement may win him more points at home in Beverly Park than it does votes for Obama in Iowa.

A few others hitting the trail this holiday season include singer Bonnie Raitt and actor Tim Robbins (for former Sen. John Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat) and Magic Johnson (strong for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat).

Hollywood publicist Howard Bragman sees celebrity involvement as a good thing: It gets people thinking and talking about the campaign and reminds them they need to vote.

"The overall effect can be very powerful," Bragman said. "Let's be clear. I don't think endorsements can win a race, but it can catapult a candidate into a position where they have the ability to win."

But he also sounded a note of caution: Don't overdo it. "Celebrities can be seen as carpetbaggers," Bragman said.

Brad Pitt is following Clooney's lead in keeping a low profile: Although friends say Pitt has been leaning toward Obama, he has made it clear publicly that he has not made up his mind and won't be doing any campaigning soon. (He's also partnering with producer Steve Bing, an influential Clinton supporter, in an effort to rebuild New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward.)

Pitt told CNN's Larry King last month that he's "still listening," which is apparently what a lot of voters are doing.

(It's been decades since either party had a clear front-runner at this point, making this election a Hobbesian nightmare of all-against-all.)

Pitt, always willing to think outside the box, jokingly suggested to another interviewer that maybe Clooney should run for president. And if he doesn't want the job, perhaps Ben Affleck would be a good second choice.

Isn't that the story of both their careers?

tina.daunt@latimes.com

[Michael Tee]

I think the difference between Oprah and the other celebs is that Oprah has always provided life-style advice and tips on living to her audience, so they see her somehow as an adviser, which is not how the others are seen.  Also, she has a regular relationship with her fans, same time all the time.  More of that "trusted adviser, family friend" kind of vibe.  Somehow I just don't think that very many of the angry bloggers or correspondents are part of Oprah's fan base.  She isn't gonna lose much (if any) fan support and these guys who are pissed off would never have voted for Obama anyway.  Bottom line, her endorsement of Obama is a huge plus for him with very little downside for either one of them. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

<<So how is it that Detroit would bring out pea green Fords or dismal gray Chevys and know there would be a market for them?>>

Obviously, a writer who asks the hard questions.  Who challenges us to the very limits of our intellectual capacity.
   
=========================================================================================
This is not a sigificant question, but it is a hard one to answer. And it refers to a true situation. In the period 1949-1952, Ford was famous for putting out "barf green" cars, while Chevrolet made an inordinate number of dreary gray cars.

The "barf green" (this was the word we used to describe them with at Enoch Miller High School i Missouri) color was not available on either Mercurys or Lincolns. Mercuries came in black, dark blue, dark green, and white, so far as I remember. You could buy a gray Pontiac, but they were rare. The favorite color for the 1951-52 Chevy was dark green for the fastback. I had one of these, known as "the green urinal" from the date that Ray Brandt emptied a six-pack on its rear fender during a New Years Eve party in 1958. It was the most anti-ergonomic vehicle I have ever driven. After about two hours, a tiny, invisible midget would come out of the back of the front seat, stick a knife in my shoulder and twist slowly and painfully. I imagined he looked like a green Ben Gay bad guy in a derby named 'Peter Pain'.

I guess people bought these things because they were available, easy to fix, and cheap. I bought my 51 Master Deluxe only 7 years old for $150. It had 67,000 miles on it. There were not a lot of options: all GM cars drove about the same. They were pretty much the same thing, just some were longer than others.

But perhaps there is a more profound answer to this question. My father worked for a paint company, and pastel colors and white were the least likely to chalk up in a year or so of not being waxed. Brown, maroon and dark blue chalked up the fastest. There was a paint test farm we used to visit from time to time where they tested such things.

[Richpo64]

>>Bottom line, her endorsement of Obama is a huge plus for him with very little downside for either one of them. <<

I can agree with that. I don't think the majority of Oprah's fans are into politics anyway. Although if Oprah ran, she'd win in a landslide.

[hnumpah]

It seems she had declared that the only presidential candidate who would be allowed on her show was the junior -- the very junior -- senator from Illinois.

Did he happen to mention where he read that - what newspaper?

I don't recall hearing anything like that, and haven't been able to find such a quote anywhere. Though if she did allow only Obama on her show, she would be within her rights to do so, and it would not be any indication of racism, merely that she supports him.

[kimba1]

if she`s afro-centric
she`s a dangerously naive one
remember that all girls school she opened in africa.
she never knew how commonly unsafe these schools are to children.
she will be hard pressed in making a safe school over there
what I just pointed out is racist,which mean it will not be addressed despite how dangerous it is to children.

[Universe Prince]

Long before Desert Storm, someone should remind Rep. Paul, we were having our bases bombed and our citizens taken hostage.

Long before Desert Storm, someone should remind Burt Prelutsky, America was making foreign policy decisions directly affecting the Middle East.

[Lanya]

Oprah for President  (satire)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6V0AL878Ds

[Richpo64]

>>Long before Desert Storm, someone should remind Burt Prelutsky, America was making foreign policy decisions directly affecting the Middle East.<<

I understand Mr. Paul recently said Lincoln should never have fought the civil war.

And you're right about America making foreign policy decisions. It's in our best interest to look oout for our best interest. Mr. Paul is a laughing stock leading a bunch of losers.

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Paul was clearly right about the Civil War. Both the North and the South would have been far better off if the North had simply purchased the slaves and set them free. This is what happened in England, Brazil, Puerto Rico and Cuba, with no civil war. Even the slaves would have been a lot better off.

Paul may have some looney ideas, but he has a realistic view of history.

[Universe Prince]

I understand Mr. Paul recently said Lincoln should never have fought the civil war.

I believe his point was that the war not necessary for the end of slavery in the U.S. And considering that most other Western countries managed to end slavery without war, I think his point has some validity. I notice that you have not provided a single argument to the contrary. I doubt you will.

And you're right about America making foreign policy decisions. It's in our best interest to look oout for our best interest.

Looking out for our best interests, which is exactly what Ron Paul is talking about. The difference being whether one thinks war and nationalism or peace and trade is in our best interest.

Mr. Paul is a laughing stock leading a bunch of losers.

Spoken like a true authoritarian.