Oprah balks at having Palin on her show

Oprah is in a pickle.
Does she stick to her mantra of empowering women or does she keep backing the black candidate?

obviously she chose her blackness over her womenhood...

sad

I could only find one, from July 2004, way before he was running for prez.

reply to post by intrepid

---

Repubs just can keep their Obama bashing in check and just assume things that arent true. Oprah has not had Barack on since he won the nom.

SHE DID NOT REFUSE PALIN

How do you come to that conclusion? First she supported Obama before Palin came on. Secondly maybe she does more than just spout party lines. Maybe she actually cares about real issues and her outlook falls in line with Obama.

In the Grand Scheme of Things this doesn't matter a jot. However, it's Oprah's show. It's not State funded and therefore it's her right to have whomever she wants on her show. Having Palin on would be the equivalent of endorsing an opponent of her own preferred candidate. Why would she do that? Also, every guest that's ever appeared on Oprah has been chosen or passed by the woman herself while I'm sure many have been rejected. I don't see the issue at all.

Its not an issue because its not REAL

AGAIN...

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 bknapple32

---

Okay, so Oprah says it's untrue and Drudge says it's true. Oprah says there was never any talk of Palin being on the show, which I find VERY hard to believe given that Palin is such a hot commodity right now, and Drudge says Oprah's staff was divided on whether to have Palin on the show.

Clearly someone is lying.

I would be more inclined to believe the person lying is the one who sticks up for McCain/Palin's opponent:

Oprah endorses Obama
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...

then


Source: latimesblogs.latimes.com...

But you maintain that she didn't refuse Palin. Okay, technically, she didn't. But in reality, she did.

If I told someone I would give them money eventually, but they never got it, could I still maintain that I never denied giving them money? Sure, I guess so, but does it make me look like someone who will never keep my promise? You bet it does. I no more believe Oprah will grant Palin an interview after the election then she would grant a common farmer an interview, especially if Palin wins.

Palin is what the far right wanted - an evolution book burnin', deer n' bear shootin', oil drillin', war fodder producin', gun slingin' creationist.

Wasn't McCain's first choice of VP an ex-Democrat? Seems even he has to bow to the superiors in the Republican party.

Oprah I think had Condi Rice on, so I can't see why she wouldn't have Palin on.

Ugh... The whole thing is turning into a freak show, if it already wasn't one.

If McCain was smart and didn't listen to his clearly idiotic advisers then he should have chosen Ron Paul.That would have given him a much broader field to play on then...not than Ron Paul would have accepted it though.

So, in your (liberal) mind, just because you don't like someone is reason to deny others from being able to watch and judge for themselves?

You're going to decide for everyone else based on what exactly?

We see this attitude a lot from libs and dems BTW.

Totally elitist IMO.

Regarding the candidates, if Okrah had Obama on, then in the interest of fairness she should have opposing candidates on as well. Even the hated (by the libs) O'Rielly will do that - he's having Obama on tonight, or was it last night?



[edit on 9/5/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211

---

elitist...lol... i love it when the right brings that term up.. See: Cindy Mcains $300,000 suit for elitist.

There are plenty of rich dems in Washington and Hollywood, far richer than McCain.

However, you and everyone else knows that when the term "elitist" is used, it refers to the arrogant attitude many dems/libs seem to have of being smarter/better than the "peons" that surround you, so you can think and decide what's best for them, not how much money they have.

If thats the right wing rhetoric you are going to accept, then there's no argument. But thats just not the truth.

The sad part is, most of them are high school drop-outs or non college educated!

Ben Affleck - need I say more? He's always in the front at the Dem conventions.

Academy award winning writer... Yep, a moron.

Love the avatar, shows the true mentality of where you are coming from.

Again,

Isn't the mantra of the democrat party that it is the party of the poor and downtrodden minorities, etc. And you tell them to just vote for you (no questions asked) and you will take care of them? That makes them out to be like children and the dem leadership out to be like their parents. However, since we are talking about all adults here, that is a very elitist attitude in terms of the dem leadership and those who share their philosophy.

Since you have no argument to that ...

The prosecution (of the dems) rests.

And when disagreed with, how soon they resort to name calling (see post directly above). Regarding avatar pictures, is that Marilyn Monroe "in drag" standing next to the picture of JFK?

[edit on 9/6/2008 by centurion1211]

How about this guys?

Alright, Oprah has said there haven't been negotiations. Guess what that means, no contracts have been drafted.

Unless someone within Oprah's staff comes out and says there have been VERBAL negotiations, Oprah's story is legit, until a Palinite proves the claim that Oprah is simply dodging her.

Nay, it seems to me that this is a republican rumor started to create controversy and divide the racist issue up even more, even moreso than the GENDER issue *omg*.

Oprah will have her on, mark my words, and she will slam her pinheaded arse into the ground on live television. That is only if the GOP will actually allow Palin to be on the show at this point. This is a shock story, folks. Meant to make Obama look even moreso like an elitist (which is the worst idea out there right now, actually.)

Editing to add that I would venture a guess that at this very moment, or one in the very near future, the Obama campaign will ask to have Oprah put her on (which she can do considering she is a talkshow host and not an MSM pundit) and that when Oprah makes news tomorrow morning or the next by inviting Palin on, Palin will decline.

She will decline accusing Oprah of racism! hahahaha!

If she accepts, she will give Oprah that nice check and get her face slammed in the process.


[edit on 5-9-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

oprah has a responsibilty to ensure the reputation of the minority population. its kind of like watching pimp my ride.

How old did you say you were? Did you get all the classes you wanted this year like metal shop and study hall?

drudgereport.com...

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."


She said she was going to take her first public stance in support of a candidate, and NOT use her show as a platform? That doesn't make any freakin' sense!! It's OK to have Obama (who she's backing), but no one else? That's using your show as a platform, Okrah!!!

"Love to have her on AFTER the campaign is over." Well, when she's the VP, she'll see if she can fit it into her schedule, chubby.