Oprah balks at having Palin on her show

See thats the thing with you conservatives.. always using fear as a reason.

She has NOTHING to be afraid of. She just doesn't like the lady.

Dude, I've lived on the border most of my life, been to the States numerous times. I'm very well read. Now, can we put my credencials aside and discuss the topic?



I think you better reread my posts, I said she WOULD bring in the rating. That could be my fault though, sometimes I slip into speaking Canuckistani. Kinda sounds like English but, you know.

I realy can't see any other reason, or why she even has to justify it either






This election just gets more and more amusing

Didn`t Oprah get badly burnt, ratings-wise , when she (allegedly) choose race over gender during the Clinton/ Obama Nomination race.

Shes between a rock and a hard place again . Perhaps the conversation should move off what she has or has not between her legs , and get down to the actually policies.
Does Sarah Palin have that much in common with Clinton , besides the obvious ?



edit; duplicate word

[edit on 5-9-2008 by UmbraSumus]

If she does not want her on her show then it is her right...like someone else said it's her show.God knows we have heard Bill O'Reilly say that enough on his show.It comes across as childish in my opinion for what it is.It also in my humble opinion shows that she is for Obama simply because of the color of his skin. As I said in another thread...No man or woman should hold the office of the President of the United States of America because of the color of their skin.
Unless afirmative action has reached the White House now.

[edit on 9/5/2008 by CaptGizmo]

Why would you be. You scream "bias" at anyone or anything you disagree with. And just because I'm a staff member I'm not going to hold my tongue.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Okay, then I'm misunderstanding your post - help me out here. You said that Oprah would do it in a heartbeat if it meant stellar ratings, aka money.

It sounds like both agree that Palin as a guest would produce high ratings. So why would she make a business decision not to have her on?

Don't mistake 'curiosity' for 'popularity'.

As for Oprah, it's not as if this were some news program. It's entertainment, she has no obligation to put anyone and everyone on her show.

This is just a case of Oprah showing her true colors and her political biases. She's forgetting that the same people who put her on the top, can also bring her down.

I hope people are paying attention, and just change the channel and boycott her sponsors. Once she starts losing revenue, I'm certain she'll have a change of heart.

Sarah Palin is the poster child of Oprah's whole show isn't she? She's a woman. She's a successful woman. She's a woman raising a family. She's professional and beautiful. Isn't that what Oprah's show and magazine been about from the beginning?

But when it comes down to it; it is Oprah's show and she can say no to anyone at anytime and doesn't have to give a reason why. That's what America's about. We don't need some one telling us how to run our business and if you don't like it then don't watch her show or buy her magazine.

I don't watch her idiotic show or buy her magazine. In my opinion they're comparable to Jerry Springer and Teen Beat magazine. I simply object to her arrogance, and hope her viewing audience will note her bias and change the channel. She needs to be brought down a notch or two.

the Drudge report is a very right wing site. Untrue reporting on Drudge. Even with this statement on the link. The main page of Drudge still reports this a s true.


OPRAH'S STATEMENT: "The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

reply to post by LLoyd45

---

Oh she will be if she doesn't have Palin on her show. If McCain & Palin win the election will she have her on then?

reply to post by bknapple32

---

Well you just answered my question. She will have her on after the elections and it's ultimately her decision.

I can't imagine anyone turning down a Palin interview,

Can you imagine if O'Reilly, turned down Obama, dear god, there would be hell to pay.

Oprah doesn't need to have Palin on the show, this is ultimately her decision.

But it opens a can of worms politically. Oprah is obviously in bed (figuratively) with Obama and this does fuel arguments about media bias once again.

A couple of questions because I don't watch her show, can't stand her really. Did she have Obama or Biden on her show? Is she going to? Not from what was quoted above. So how does it show her "bias" if she doesn't have any of them on her show?

reply to post by wutone

---

Once again, and I'll keep posting it till people stop acting like this story is true. Scroll up ...... SHE DIDNT REFUSE AN INTERVIEW WITH PALIN

Actually, she did:

"I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

She won't interview Palin until after the election is over, yet she's already shown her political bias because she has had Barack Obama on her show TWICE before she publicly endorsed him.

And now, there's the question as to whether she's lying. She said, "There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show."

Yet Drudge says half of her staff really wants to have Palin on the show, indicating quite the contrary.


[edit on 5-9-2008 by sos37]

Barack has been on her show twice before she publicly endorsed him. She also attended Rev. Wright's church with the Obamas once, but I don't think she went back a second time.