re: #218 ObserverArt

Question, because I think you bring up an important point.

Would she know better?

The reason I pose the question is it goes to what I posted about seriousness for the office.

If she would know better about not appointing some of the woo-peddlers she has had on her show…why does she put the woo-peddlers on her show in the first place?

Add in she actually interviewed and asked Trump about a presidential run knowing his reputation and does it make one wonder if all the stuff associated with Oprah’s show was just to make money (similar to Trump’s many questionable BS businesses)?

Are there similar traits between the two as far as business drive and using questionable people and products to make money?

(If we are doing anything…we have the Oprah for President vetting process underway at LGF)

That’s a fair point. Why do I think that though? I think if she were nominated and elected by the American people, she’d be smart enough to see that the American people would not want McCarthy as Surgeon General or similiar appointments. You do make a fair point though about those she’s had on the show though. As I said though, right now, I’m leaning Harris’s way. Immigration is my baby issue and I think she’s the best to speak on it given her sponsorship of DREAM and I think she’s the only one who has both parents for immigrants that is running. I do like Booker, Gillibrand, and Duckworth too. Cory for his criminal justice views, Gilirband because she’s shown leadership (one of the first Senators to support SSM for example), and Duckworth because she’s tough as hell and would be good on vets issues.