SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Oprah Winfrey arrives with the Cecil B. DeMille Award in the press room during The 75th Annual Golden Globe Awards at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on January 7, 2018 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo: Kevin Winter/Getty Images)
Praise for Inspiring Speech, But Progressives Warn Against Folly of Oprah 2020 Calls
The answer to Trump is "to elevate politicians who do the politics better than the other guys"—not wealthy celebrities
Jan 09, 2018
Progressives loved Oprah Winfrey's speech Sunday night at the Golden Globes award ceremony, calling it "rousing," "extraordinary," and "inspiring." But the idea that Oprah should run for president? "Bonkers." "Hollow." "A bad liberal revenge fantasy."
"Billionaires cannot be trusted and we should not clamor to elect them, even if they're Oprah."
--Katherine Krueger, Splinter News
The notion that Oprah, a widely beloved celebrity billionaire, would be the perfect foil to President Donald Trump, a widely hated celebrity billionaire, has quickly gained traction among pundits and Democratic donors. On Twitter, #Oprah2020 spread rapidly almost as soon as her speech came to a close. NBC News tweeted (then deleted) a description of Oprah endorsed by a number of high-profile commentators: "our future president."
For many progressives, though, a news cycle filled with rapturous calls for a billionaire with no political experience to run for America's highest office was a troubling indication that Democratic partisans are "taking all the worst lessons from Trump's victory."
While noting there is little doubt that an Oprah presidency would be superior to a Trump presidency, Katherine Krueger of Splinter News wrote that she "can think of very few ways to make our current process of selecting a president more dystopian than watching your side's chosen ultra-rich person duke it out--on television, of course--to be crowned, er, elected, to running our country."
"Billionaires cannot be trusted and we should not clamor to elect them, even if they're Oprah," Krueger concluded.
The Intercept's Medhi Hasan echoed the assessment of Oprah as preferable to Trump "in every imaginable way"--but that "is a low, low bar," he quickly added.
"Is this really what most Americans want or what the United States government needs?" Hasan goes on to ask. "Another clueless celebrity in possession of the nuclear codes? Another billionaire mogul who doesn't like paying taxes in charge of the economy? And how would it be anything other than sheer hypocrisy for Democrats to offer an unqualified, inexperienced presidential candidate to the American electorate in 2020, given all that they said about Trump in 2016?"
Oprah, for her part, has not publicly expressed any desire to join the potentially crowded 2020 presidential field. While some claimed that she is "actively thinking" about mounting a run for office, Oprah herself denied having any presidential aspirations in an interview with Bloomberg.
"Liberals who think their program will prevail because of the nobility of their character have had the run of the Democratic Party long enough."
--Ashley Feinberg, Huffington Post
The fact that the "Oprah 2020" sensation is likely to continue regardless is an indication of just how far removed many pundits and political figures are from the crises confronting the U.S. and the rest of the world, argued Slate's Osita Nwanevu.
"Close your eyes and picture an ideal president. Someone capable of seriously engaging with...all of the challenges the 21st century will require us to face: inequality and economic stagnation for the vast majority of Americans, a healthcare system that still fails millions, and all the rest," Nwanevu writes. "Who have you pictured? Is it Oprah Winfrey? Is it really?"
Characterizing the Oprah 2020 phenomenon as cheap and anti-political, the Huffington Post's Ashley Feinberg concluded that the answer to Trump "isn't to elevate an aristocracy of celebrity right-mindedness, with Oprah or Tom Hanks ordering drone strikes with only the purest of intentions."
"The answer is to elevate politicians who do the politics better than the other guys," Feinberg writes. "Liberals who think their program will prevail because of the nobility of their character have had the run of the Democratic Party long enough. Time's up on them, too."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Progressives loved Oprah Winfrey's speech Sunday night at the Golden Globes award ceremony, calling it "rousing," "extraordinary," and "inspiring." But the idea that Oprah should run for president? "Bonkers." "Hollow." "A bad liberal revenge fantasy."
"Billionaires cannot be trusted and we should not clamor to elect them, even if they're Oprah."
--Katherine Krueger, Splinter News
The notion that Oprah, a widely beloved celebrity billionaire, would be the perfect foil to President Donald Trump, a widely hated celebrity billionaire, has quickly gained traction among pundits and Democratic donors. On Twitter, #Oprah2020 spread rapidly almost as soon as her speech came to a close. NBC News tweeted (then deleted) a description of Oprah endorsed by a number of high-profile commentators: "our future president."
For many progressives, though, a news cycle filled with rapturous calls for a billionaire with no political experience to run for America's highest office was a troubling indication that Democratic partisans are "taking all the worst lessons from Trump's victory."
While noting there is little doubt that an Oprah presidency would be superior to a Trump presidency, Katherine Krueger of Splinter News wrote that she "can think of very few ways to make our current process of selecting a president more dystopian than watching your side's chosen ultra-rich person duke it out--on television, of course--to be crowned, er, elected, to running our country."
"Billionaires cannot be trusted and we should not clamor to elect them, even if they're Oprah," Krueger concluded.
The Intercept's Medhi Hasan echoed the assessment of Oprah as preferable to Trump "in every imaginable way"--but that "is a low, low bar," he quickly added.
"Is this really what most Americans want or what the United States government needs?" Hasan goes on to ask. "Another clueless celebrity in possession of the nuclear codes? Another billionaire mogul who doesn't like paying taxes in charge of the economy? And how would it be anything other than sheer hypocrisy for Democrats to offer an unqualified, inexperienced presidential candidate to the American electorate in 2020, given all that they said about Trump in 2016?"
Oprah, for her part, has not publicly expressed any desire to join the potentially crowded 2020 presidential field. While some claimed that she is "actively thinking" about mounting a run for office, Oprah herself denied having any presidential aspirations in an interview with Bloomberg.
"Liberals who think their program will prevail because of the nobility of their character have had the run of the Democratic Party long enough."
--Ashley Feinberg, Huffington Post
The fact that the "Oprah 2020" sensation is likely to continue regardless is an indication of just how far removed many pundits and political figures are from the crises confronting the U.S. and the rest of the world, argued Slate's Osita Nwanevu.
"Close your eyes and picture an ideal president. Someone capable of seriously engaging with...all of the challenges the 21st century will require us to face: inequality and economic stagnation for the vast majority of Americans, a healthcare system that still fails millions, and all the rest," Nwanevu writes. "Who have you pictured? Is it Oprah Winfrey? Is it really?"
Characterizing the Oprah 2020 phenomenon as cheap and anti-political, the Huffington Post's Ashley Feinberg concluded that the answer to Trump "isn't to elevate an aristocracy of celebrity right-mindedness, with Oprah or Tom Hanks ordering drone strikes with only the purest of intentions."
"The answer is to elevate politicians who do the politics better than the other guys," Feinberg writes. "Liberals who think their program will prevail because of the nobility of their character have had the run of the Democratic Party long enough. Time's up on them, too."
Progressives loved Oprah Winfrey's speech Sunday night at the Golden Globes award ceremony, calling it "rousing," "extraordinary," and "inspiring." But the idea that Oprah should run for president? "Bonkers." "Hollow." "A bad liberal revenge fantasy."
"Billionaires cannot be trusted and we should not clamor to elect them, even if they're Oprah."
--Katherine Krueger, Splinter News
The notion that Oprah, a widely beloved celebrity billionaire, would be the perfect foil to President Donald Trump, a widely hated celebrity billionaire, has quickly gained traction among pundits and Democratic donors. On Twitter, #Oprah2020 spread rapidly almost as soon as her speech came to a close. NBC News tweeted (then deleted) a description of Oprah endorsed by a number of high-profile commentators: "our future president."
For many progressives, though, a news cycle filled with rapturous calls for a billionaire with no political experience to run for America's highest office was a troubling indication that Democratic partisans are "taking all the worst lessons from Trump's victory."
While noting there is little doubt that an Oprah presidency would be superior to a Trump presidency, Katherine Krueger of Splinter News wrote that she "can think of very few ways to make our current process of selecting a president more dystopian than watching your side's chosen ultra-rich person duke it out--on television, of course--to be crowned, er, elected, to running our country."
"Billionaires cannot be trusted and we should not clamor to elect them, even if they're Oprah," Krueger concluded.
The Intercept's Medhi Hasan echoed the assessment of Oprah as preferable to Trump "in every imaginable way"--but that "is a low, low bar," he quickly added.
"Is this really what most Americans want or what the United States government needs?" Hasan goes on to ask. "Another clueless celebrity in possession of the nuclear codes? Another billionaire mogul who doesn't like paying taxes in charge of the economy? And how would it be anything other than sheer hypocrisy for Democrats to offer an unqualified, inexperienced presidential candidate to the American electorate in 2020, given all that they said about Trump in 2016?"
Oprah, for her part, has not publicly expressed any desire to join the potentially crowded 2020 presidential field. While some claimed that she is "actively thinking" about mounting a run for office, Oprah herself denied having any presidential aspirations in an interview with Bloomberg.
"Liberals who think their program will prevail because of the nobility of their character have had the run of the Democratic Party long enough."
--Ashley Feinberg, Huffington Post
The fact that the "Oprah 2020" sensation is likely to continue regardless is an indication of just how far removed many pundits and political figures are from the crises confronting the U.S. and the rest of the world, argued Slate's Osita Nwanevu.
"Close your eyes and picture an ideal president. Someone capable of seriously engaging with...all of the challenges the 21st century will require us to face: inequality and economic stagnation for the vast majority of Americans, a healthcare system that still fails millions, and all the rest," Nwanevu writes. "Who have you pictured? Is it Oprah Winfrey? Is it really?"
Characterizing the Oprah 2020 phenomenon as cheap and anti-political, the Huffington Post's Ashley Feinberg concluded that the answer to Trump "isn't to elevate an aristocracy of celebrity right-mindedness, with Oprah or Tom Hanks ordering drone strikes with only the purest of intentions."
"The answer is to elevate politicians who do the politics better than the other guys," Feinberg writes. "Liberals who think their program will prevail because of the nobility of their character have had the run of the Democratic Party long enough. Time's up on them, too."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.