If woman are changing their minds on who to vote for from Hillary to Obama because Oprah shows up at an event, than I’m ashamed to be of that gender.

I really can’t believe woman are that fickle.

If so, It strengthens my support for the electoral college vote vs the popular vote in the general election that actually chooses the president.

I NEED SOME HELP ON THIS….IF 14% OF OUR POPULATION IS BLACK, 18% MEXICAN-LATIN, 35% MIXED-ETHNICITY (OR SUPPORTERS OF MIXED-ETHNICITY) THEN THAT LEAVES 33% OF THE POPULATION TO SELECT ONE MILLION OTHERS TO MARCH ON WASHINGTON FOR EQUAL RIGHTS IN 2012…

Go find a Republican redneck third-grade education level blog to post in. You will be much better received there

Oprah is helping to modify the gender and ethnicity issues of the Dem race by getting women to avoid a knee-jerk tendency to support Hillary Clinton.

She also affects the perception of ethnicity in the Dem contest. Rather than this being a “white” and “black” issue, it should be viewed as a complex aspect of multi-ethicity in American.

Oprah is mentioned in this context in the article ...

“Mixed-ethnicity Americans face challenges”

AmericanChronicle.com
January 30, 2008

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50835

If Clinton did this it’s the “gender card.”  If Edwards had tried something similar with blacks it’d be some sort of “card” as well.  When Obama or his surrogates do it, it’s just fine.

I’m sorry, but Oprah is an immensely wealthy woman (as are all the Kennedy women) who doesn’t have to worry about health care costs, a recession, or Social Security being there for her or her loved ones.  She’s set.  I, and countless other Americans, are not.  I hope everyone votes on the issues and not celebrity endorsements, especially since they have no stake in the policy issues the rest of us desperately do.

I went to Pauley Pavillion today with a lady friend. There were nothing but women speakers. I liked the 93-year-old Korean lady who spoke as a symbol of healing between the black and Korean people in L.A. The best speaker by far was Michelle Obama. She is highly intelligent at her words are to the point. She is going to make a great first lady. As we were leaving we got interviewed by a reporter from the N.Y. times. I got to say that I remember the days before the Kennedy assassination, when the civil rights movement was succeeding, when people really believed in their government and in the possibility of achieving great things through peace, and Obama brings back the feeling of those great years. Who knows, maybe my name will actually be in the paper tomorrow.

I also got stuck with doing phone banking calls. I’ll put in a few hours from home tomorrow.

By papeehara, February 3 : “MAANI HONEY: ..Chalmer’s comment was directed at my statement and then he realized that Michelle also uses “that instead of “who”:...”

Actually, my main statement was about something else altogether. Time and time again, I have noticed how easy it is for Maani and others to be so easily distracted sidestepped by intentionally misleading little ploys by those such as cyrena and papeehara. Merely discussing the pros and cons of our grammar won’t save us and it is no better than the proverbial ostrich which always shoved its head in the sand.

I was actually trying to discuss how Oprah Zeroes In on California Women which is the title of this topic you all seem to have difficulty with…........ and Tony Wicher’s comments yesterday…..........

His statements February 2 were:- 

“Oprah is the best bet for cutting into that gender identity vote:  Oprah in California. It seems like all I ever see at California Clinton rallies on TV is ...women….... Was that sexist? Oops! Excuse me…”

My response was:- “As a person (oops, excuse me, I mean M-A-N) who runs a blog on the Barack Obama website, your “brilliant strategy” to smear and denigrate Californian women is appalling enough. That you want a WOMAN to come and cut women down as a gender simply for your benefit as a misogynist male is something else altogether.

Then again, is her visit designed by The Ring to be solely playing the race card again? Is this now going to be a black vs white race and white or Hispanic women can go to hell??? Or perhaps Michelle Obama can somehow explain your “silliness” to you. In fact, why hasn’t she???”

Now, given that the LA Times has proved how utterly biased it is as a no-longer independent news source since it blatantly endorsed Barack Obama, how is California not being zeroed-in on by those with a pro-Obama agenda and what is it they expect to gain in the end??? Don’t tell me naively that its “change”, either, uhh. This guy is a proto-Neocon!

MAANI HONEY: ..Chalmer’s comment was directed at my statement and then he realized that Michelle also uses “that instead of “who”:

#By papeehara, February 2:  “So befitting THAT Oprah should be rallying the sheep for Obama since both seem to have the same…”

Just noticed that Michelle Obama uses the inanimate term “THAT” instead of “who” when referring to people. In that case, you must all be mere sheep, uhh!

“I don’t think there is a person of color in this country that doesn’t struggle with what it means to be a part of your race versus what the majority thinks is right.” http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/01/michelle.ob

Maani: don’t waste my time with your meaningless dribble…why don;t you focus on stuff that you can wrap your brains around??

Cyrena:

You said, “So, no matter how they may try…the Chalmers’, and the papeeharas, and the Maanis and everyone else who may have both racist and/or gender based biases…”

This is the second time you have made a not-quite-veiled suggestion that I am a racist.  This type of accusation is not simply insupportable, it is mean-spirited and malicious.  Once again, we see that, despite your many claims about me, it is YOU who sink to the lowest lows here on LieDig.  I have never suggested that you are a racist, or resorted to any name-calling at all.

I think you owe me a SINCERE apology - not just one of your flippant, sarcastic comments.

If you really believe me to be all the many, many names you have called me, then at least show me that you truly ARE the “bigger” person by apologizing.

Peace.

Papeehara:

You seem to be not only grammatically-challenged, but not very perceptive.  Doug’s comment about the grammar of “that” referred not to the previous sentence (i.e., your comment) but to the sentence that followed his parsing (i.e., “I don’t think there is a person of color in this country that doesn’t struggle with what it means to be a part of your race versus what the majority thinks is right.”)

In this regard, he is right that MO is misusing the word “that” instead of “who”: the correct phrase would be “I don’t think there is a person of color in this country WHO doesn’t struggle…”

Peace.

Tony, On this…

“...If Hillary takes California, it’s going to be women who do it for her..”

I’m inclined to disagree. But, ONLY because…from where I sit, (Oprah besides) the women I know in California are NOT likely to give our votes to Hillary.

Now, I’ll qualify that a bit; (or narrow it down, since California is of course a big state) within the academic communities, (and in this respect, I AM speaking for the majority of the state) the clear choice is Obama, and NOT Hillary.

Hillary has so far NOT been particularly well received within the academic communities of California, EVEN AMONG WOMEN. YOUNGER women, (in particular) don’t like her. My niece made that pretty clear to me, as recently as yesterday, and she appeared to be speaking probably more for her GENERATION, than her gender.

So, in reality, I think the identity politics regards to gender is very much out the door. I believe that the women of S.C. (at least the African-American women) proved that, when they were being targeted (by MSM of course) as having some ‘great challenge’ facing them in a choice between a black president, or a female president. (if only we could have a black female, eh?

Anyway, they were PISSED, in fact OUTRAGED at the innuendo and suggestion that they weren’t smart enough to override such identity issues, and make decisions based on the same relevant and important criteria that all persons of sound reason should use.

So, no matter how they may try…the Chalmers’, and the papeeharas, and the Maanis and everyone else who may have both racist and/or gender based biases, the divisive power of ‘identity politics’ in rapidly waning.

Because, that’s what ‘identity politics’ does..it divides to conquer. My own thoughts are that the “sheeple’ aren’t such ‘sheeple’ after all, if only because of what the past 7 years have wrought. In short, the disasters brought upon us by the old guard, have forced the ‘sheeple’ to finally look up, and pay attention…and particularly the generations who know that they will have to create for themselves, what we have allowed to be destroyed.

So, they aren’t looking at race, gender, or even class. (though Obama IS a very much embraced departure from the ‘born aristocracy’) because they are looking only to what will bring about a unification of our union..one that will include us ALL.

So, while Oprah may in fact bring some benefit to the female vote for Obama, the truth is that he could do it, even without that, and just as well.

I say that as a female who has NEVER been particularly impressed with Oprah, and I’ve become less and less impressed with her as the years have passed, and I’ve perceived her to be a distraction from the real issues that should be concerning us. So my point is that I have supported Obama WITHOUT the endorsement from Oprah, and I’ll continue to do so. I’m actually far more impressed with his endorsement from the Kennedy’s, (and Ted in particular) than I am with the support from Oprah.

Still, for others, her support will help, rather than hinder. NOT just among women, but among the general populace.

Here in California, we still have not rid ourselves entirely, of the old Barry Goldwater base. THOSE women of course, (and men as well) will most certainly hang with the Hillary crowd, along with the die-hard racists. Still, I said all of that to say that it will not be ‘women’ who would give the our State support to Hillary.

Never forget..we’re a LIBERAL Blue state, and even neo-liberal politics don’t hold much sway here.

Amen…

i AM AGHAST AT THE NOTION OF “M.O.” (LIKE IN JACKIE O) EXPLAINING ANYTHING TO ANYONE: “BLACKS WILL WAKE UP AND GET IT” OR BETTER STILL HER FAMOUS INTRODUCTION OF OBAMA TO THE HERD OF SHEEP: HE IS STINKY AND SNOREY (HOW APPROPRIATE…WHAT NEXT? HIS B.O. OR BETTER STILL PICKING HIS NOSE AT THE DINNER TABLE?? THE WOMAN HAS NO CLASS…SORRY. HAS A LOT OF CLASS BUT IN THE CORPORATE GREED DEPARTMENT.

Sorry Chalmers, you may be a master Obama blogger but you seem to be “Grammatically-challenged”:  the “that” in the sentence was not qualifying “Oprah” but the preceding “So befitting”.. tsk tsk!

Oprah is the best bet for cutting into that gender identity vote - ###By Tony Wicher, February 2: “Oprah in California. It seems like all I ever see at California Clinton rallies on TV is ...women….... Was that sexist? Oops! Excuse me…”

As a person (oops, excuse me, I mean M-A-N) who runs a blog on the Barack Obama website, your “brilliant strategy”  to smear and denigrate Californian women is appalling enough. That you want a WOMAN to come and cut women down as a gender simply for your benefit as a misogynist male is something else altogether.

Oprah might do so as a favor to another black person but she has to convince a white and a Hispanic audience as well. As 50+ of the nation is female (that is, women!), you might need to struggle to get it all through your thick head, Tony Wicher, that Oprah still might not want to divide her sex for the sake of an ambitious man.

Then again, is her visit designed by The Ring to be solely playing the race card again? Is this now going to be a black vs white race and white or Hispanic women can go to hell??? Or perhaps Michelle Obama can somehow explain your “silliness” to you. In fact, why hasn’t she???

#By papeehara, February 2: “So befitting that Oprah should be rallying the sheep for Obama since both seem to have the same…”

Just noticed that Michelle Obama uses the inanimate term “that”  instead of “who”  when referring to people. In that case, you must all be mere sheep, uhh!

“I don’t think there is a person of color in this country that doesn’t struggle with what it means to be a part of your race versus what the majority thinks is right.” http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/01/michelle.obama/index.html

So befitting that Oprah should be rallying the sheep for Obama since both seem to have the same “NON NEGOTIABLE COMMITMENT TO AFRICA” Long vile the United States of Africa!!!!

HE SHOULD REALLY BRING OUT the big guns: THE Nation Of Islam and Reverend WRIGHT.

It’s a great idea to bring in Oprah in California. It seems like all I ever see at California Clinton rallies on TV is old pols, women, and their henpecked-looking husbands and boyfriends. (Was that sexist? Oops! Excuse me!) If Hillary takes California, it’s going to be women who do it for her. Oprah is the best bet for cutting into that gender identity vote.