Two days before Oprah Winfrey is to host a celebrity-packed fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, NBC's Andrea Mitchell championed her potential ability to “turn her magic into votes for Barack Obama” and ABC's David Wright marveled: “Imagine the power of Oprah in an Obama campaign ad.” In a soundbite, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile gushed that “O plus O equals opportunity for Barack Obama to win in 2008.”
On Thursday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams justified his show's story by asserting that Winfrey's “support for him [Obama] is getting new attention” -- attention NBC decided to give the topic. Mitchell admired how Winfrey “can turn a first-time author into an instant best-seller, single-handedly reviving an industry,” leading her to wonder: “Can the billionaire entertainer, and richest woman in America, turn her magic into votes for Barack Obama?”
Ted Johnson of Variety insisted: “It's a very big deal because Oprah, as we know, does not spread her endorsements lightly.” Mitchell concluded by noting how “Oprah was recently ranked the second most admired woman in America. Who was first? Hillary Clinton.” ABC's Wright took a similar approach on Thursday's Good Morning America: “Oprah's plug can turn a book into a bestseller, a movie into a blockbuster. And the question now is, can she turn a candidate into a President?” After citing how the guest list “includes Will Smith, Halle Berry, Jamie Foxx and John Travolta,” as he segued into the above-quoted Brazile bite, Wright oozed: “Oprah's fundraiser is just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine the power of Oprah in an Obama campaign ad.”
The fundraiser will take place Saturday at Winfrey's estate near Santa Barbara, California.
The Oprah Winfrey-Barack Obama story on the September 6 NBC Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Now to Democratic candidate Barack Obama campaigning on the West coast tonight in advance of a big party being held there in his honor this weekend. The hostess is Oprah Winfrey, and her support for him is getting new attention. Here is NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
ANDREA MITCHELL: She can turn a first-time author into an instant best-seller, single-handedly reviving an industry.
OPRAH WINFREY ON HER SHOW: What kind of response did you get to the show?
UNIDENTIFIED BOOK AUTHOR: The response was overwhelming.
WINFREY: Everybody gets a car!
MITCHELL: She all but invented the over-the-top studio giveaway.
WINFREY: Nothing in the world makes me happier than making other people see their dreams come true.
MITCHELL: But can the billionaire entertainer, and richest woman in America, turn her magic into votes for Barack Obama?
WINFREY ON SHOW WITH OBAMA: This is my Senator, my favorite Senator!
BARACK OBAMA: Oprah, you're my girl.
MITCHELL, OVER VIDEO OF GEORGE W. BUSH: Her popular show has long been a regular stop for politicians and their spouses. But now for the first time, Oprah is putting her money and star power on the line for a single candidate.
WINFREY: I've never, you know, spoken out politically about anybody. I think that he has the capability, certainly the potential, to be a great leader.
TED JOHNSON, VARIETY: It's a very big deal because Oprah, as we know, does not spread her endorsements lightly.
MITCHELL: She'll even open the gates of her lavish Santa Barbara estate this weekend for an Obama fundraiser, a ticket so hot even top Obama aides are fighting to get in. Why could Oprah's endorsement be so important? Because she reaches eight and a half million viewers each day, mostly women. Exactly the voters now largely supporting Hillary Clinton.
CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: A lot of times celebrities have tried to get political for other candidates and haven't had a lot of success. But Oprah is different.
MITCHELL: So different Oprah was recently ranked the second most admired woman in America. Who was first? Hillary Clinton. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.
The MRC's Scott Whitlock provided this transcript of the September 6 story aired in the 7:30am half hour of ABC's Good Morning America:
ROBIN ROBERTS: "But first in this half hour, as we said, Oprah Winfrey has announced that she is backing Barack Obama for President. With her millions of loyal, devoted fans who follow her advice every day, an Oprah endorsement sounds like a pretty good thing for Obama. But will the Oprah effect, well, can it be effective in the world of politics? ABC's David Wright has more. David?"
DAVID WRIGHT: "Good morning, Robin. Oprah's $50 million estate outside Santa Barbara is called 'the promised land' and for a candidate, that's no exaggeration. Oprah's plug can turn a book into a bestseller, a movie into a blockbuster. And the question now is, can she turn a candidate into a President?"
OPRAH WINFREY: "I'm going to become a political activist."
WRIGHT: "As she told Larry King, she has never before played the king-maker."
WINFREY: "My support of him is probably worth more than any check that I could write."
WRIGHT: "The fundraiser this Saturday is expected to raise at least $3 million for Obama."
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-ILL): "Oprah, you're my girl."
WRIGHT: "Cell phones and cameras, strictly banned. Guests will have to ride a bus to ‘the promised land' and sit on the grass once they get there."
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, HUFFINGTON POST: "This is not going to be arriving by limousine and doing the red carpet and sitting comfortably around a dinner table."
WRIGHT: "The guest list? A closely guarded secret. It reportedly includes Will Smith, Halle Berry, Jamie Foxx and John Travolta. Among the featured performers, reportedly, Stevie Wonder. And Oprah's fundraiser is just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine the power of Oprah in an Obama campaign ad."
DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: "She's putting her brand next to his brand and O plus O equals opportunity for Barack Obama to win in 2008."
HUFFINGTON: "This is a pretty unique moment in Oprah's history given how incredibly cautious she is about what she endorses, about what she aligns herself with and how protective she is of the Oprah brand."
WRIGHT: "Is there a potential downside for Oprah? Could she lose viewers? Most say no. At this point, the only downside is that it could make viewers discount some of the other political interviews she conducts."
BRAZILE: "I think it will give Barack, you know, finally the kind of second chance that he needs to catch up with Hillary Clinton."
WRIGHT: "Now, keep in mind, Oprah's core audience is women. So any vote that she steers Obama's way comes straight out of Hillary Clinton's strongest potential voting bloc. So it will be very interesting to watch. Diane? Robin?"
ROBERTS: "Also, she shares the same hometown in Chicago, so they've known each other for a while."
DIANE SAWYER: "That's right. That's right."
The online version of the GMA story.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center



MITCHELL: But can the billionaire entertainer, and richest woman in America, turn her magic into votes for Barack Obama?
MITCHELL: She'll even open the gates of her lavish Santa Barbara estate this weekend for an Obama fundraiser, a ticket so hot even top Obama aides are fighting to get in. Why could Oprah's endorsement be so important? Because she reaches eight and a half million viewers each day, mostly women. Exactly the voters now largely supporting Hillary Clinton.
DAVID WRIGHT: "Good morning, Robin. Oprah's $50 million estate outside Santa Barbara is called 'the promised land' and for a candidate, that's no exaggeration. Oprah's plug can turn a book into a bestseller, a movie into a blockbuster. And the question now is, can she turn a candidate into a President?"
DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: "She's putting her brand next to his brand and O plus O equals opportunity for Barack Obama to win in 2008." 









Comments Policy
Anything that may keep
September 6, 2007 - 22:14 ET by Felicity RandAnything that may keep Hillary up at night (since Bill's certainly not doing it. . .oh bad image. . .sorry. . .nevermind) makes me happy.
Despite my dislike of Obama, he is stealing some thunder from The Enabler. My hope is that she'll be forced to have him as a VP.
I think if Clinton gets the
September 6, 2007 - 23:06 ET by motherbeltI think if Clinton gets the nomination, she's going to have a tough time choosing between Obama and Richardson. Blacks will stay with her no matter what; she might need Richardson to pull the Hispanic vote. Besides, I don't think she would want a VP (Obama) that would draw that much attention away from her. From what I've heard and read about her, I don't think she's that confident.
You're right though, the Oprah situation has got to have her worried.
Uhh
September 7, 2007 - 13:12 ET by blogonator"Besides, I don't think she would want a VP (Obama) that would draw
that much attention away from her. From what I've heard and read about
her, I don't think she's that confident."
Have you read ANYTHING about her? Most articles describe her as a calculating, robotic figure that is not emotional at all, and your description of her is of a woman that wouldn't allow Obama as a VP because she can't take the ego damage. It's ridiculous to think that, if she already was that far ahead, that she would be worried about "losing her thunder" when that would only help her.
blogonator
September 7, 2007 - 17:47 ET by SportPoliticsWord is she could win if she puts slick willie on the ticket as her VP.
I wouldn't be surprised if combined 1/3rd of the vote in that case comes from overseas "minders" from the UN and it's "interested nations", as well as the dead, the illegal immigrants, and a thousand lawyers with ballot box and diebold access stuffing and hacking the thing to the gills.
She wants hubby as VP, so she can really put her powertrip in full monte positioning.
The other bit of old news is her little overheard talk on stage with Edwards about how they have to get rid of the other "non-serious" democratic candidates.
Of course she and Edwards lied about that... it's on videotape with audio but they just came right out and lied about it.
I think she lies at any opportunity, and even when she doesn't have the opportunity to, she does anyway. No way I'd ever vote for that.
lib doctrine "Oh but you've got to have a lying conniving con artist to be able to make it through the politics of personal destruction field nowadays. It's all part of the game and who plays it the best."
Nope sorry, those not already insane and corrupted beyond recompense believe so, but not this guy.
Duncan Hunter '08
How is it anyone is supposed to believe in a President being able to clean anything up or do anything correctly when going in they're already known as a lying piece of trash ?
That's why after Reagan died I gained a GREAT DEAL of respect for the man. The reports coming out were glistening with integrity even in his personal life, from left wing haters.
Hitlery is far down the scale from that, it is unimaginable to even consider her, as well as for the fact she and her hubby already hogged up 8 years. She is a PIG, and has no respect for anyone else in this nation, or for fairness, or for any other quality or ethic this Nation holds dear even in it's Constitution. She considers the peaceful exchange of power a mere formality, and will break the rules of respectable conduct pretending it never occurred and cannot even be an issue.
How is it we have this FREAK - who had 8 years in the White House wih her husband, and now she expects to spend more time there as ruler ? How can ANYONE who is a PATRIOT even consider it ?
This will be an interesting
September 6, 2007 - 22:48 ET by midnight cowboyThis will be an interesting one to watch. Oprah is putting her credibility on the line. Thunder Thighs Hilary or Oprah, one or both will come out damaged. If Oprah gets personal and attacks Hilary, the schrill one will waste no time throwing back the mud, ala David Geffen. Hillary slamming Oprah that will be juicy. Oprah has two things going for her, deep pockets and deep loyalty. Hilary has sleazy connections and mob type tactics. I hope they destroy each other.
Me Too
September 7, 2007 - 08:45 ET by mytwocentsI'm with you on that one, buddy. I hope they both go down in flames. Just for the record, I don't think too much of Oprah's credibility.
Hm.
September 7, 2007 - 13:09 ET by blogonator"Hillary slamming Oprah that will be juicy."
It's nice to know that, to you, politics is nothing more than a refined version of Jerry Springer.
I have to wonder, do you view conflict in general as "juicy"--the same adjective that one would use when describing a steak? And, if so, do you support the Iraq war for that primitive, barbaric reason?
It's nice to know that, to
September 7, 2007 - 13:36 ET by MightyMouthIt's nice to know that, to you, politics is anything but a refined version of Jerry Springer. That would be naive on your part as politics is one of the most self centered endeavors humans can engage in.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Interesting.
September 7, 2007 - 14:01 ET by blogonatorThis is the second time you've quoted what I've said word-for-word while changing around the words. Do you think this tactic somehow adds to your argument?
Politics is "selfish" because a lot of people think that and it's easy to feed off of their bias. Being a congressman pays far less than many prestigious jobs in law, business, etc.
Though I'm interested: how is it "selfish", in your view?
I said "self centered" not
September 7, 2007 - 14:10 ET by MightyMouthI said "self centered" not "selfish". It's easy to be "non-selfish" with other peoples money.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sorry.
September 7, 2007 - 17:16 ET by blogonatorYou're right, I apologize.
Still, you can replace "selfish" with "self-centered" and I think my point would still stand.
Meanwhile the LA Times announced Thompson w/ ...
September 6, 2007 - 22:51 ET by Gary HallMeanwhile the LA Times announced Thompson's entry into the race w/ a front page story titled:
The Bi-line was:
Somehow the little bit later in the story about how at some point he was working 4 jobs at one time to pay his way through college was left out of the thrust of the news. I'd imagine that few Democrats made it that far.
Okay?
September 7, 2007 - 13:16 ET by blogonatorWho cares? Or are you the type of person that, when asked about important presidential traits, puts things like "courage" over "intelligence"?
It's much more important to know how intelligent Thompson is than to know how hard he worked in college. He could have worked 8 jobs while taking 25 hours worth of credits, but if he doesn't have the reasoning skills to review intelligence he is presented with adequately, then he's not capable of making intelligent decisions that the leader of a country should be making.
Wow blog... You've got it
September 7, 2007 - 13:22 ET by bigtimerWow blog...
You've got it all figured out eh?
I can't wait until you are saying President Thompson...
ROFL....
A reproduction of your response
September 7, 2007 - 13:35 ET by blogonator"Wow you're so smart you sound like you know what you're talking about.
Insert sarcastic response that isn't actually a retort at all and pure mockery here.
I can't wait until you are saying President Obama..
ROFL LMFAO LOLOLOLOL LMAO LOOOOOOOL"
I can do that too. It doesn't make me less or more correct. What you are doing is mockery and contributes absolutely nothing to the course of this discussion.
blog... I haven't missed
September 7, 2007 - 13:37 ET by bigtimerblog...
I haven't missed your leftist twisted BS one bit.
to give you consideration
September 7, 2007 - 13:39 ET by blogonatorAll right, I'll take you at face value
1) How is it "leftist"? (easily supported)
2) How is it "twisted"? (more difficult to support)
3) How is it "BS"? (completely arbitrary, impossible and fallacious)
Go.
We will not elect and
September 7, 2007 - 13:40 ET by bassndudeWe will not elect and Islamist educated anyone as a president. Dream on kid.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Amazing.
September 7, 2007 - 14:06 ET by blogonator"Because when people following Islam say 2+2 they're wrong but if Christians say 2+2 they're right!!"
Have you actually thought about that statement?
The best schools in America, such as the Thomas Jefferson High School of Science and Technology, are neither Islamic nor Christian yet I have a feeling that you would support a Christian one moreso.
Sounds good to me - you
September 7, 2007 - 14:10 ET by TruthMongerSounds good to me - you can be right for the wrong reasons - a stopped clock is correct twice a day:)
With age comes that kind of groovy wisdom...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
...well as a result of this
September 7, 2007 - 13:43 ET by TruthMonger...well as a result of this sophmoric retort you are indeed slightly less correct now - I have the exact measurements if you like:)...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Uh...
September 7, 2007 - 13:55 ET by blogonator"well as a result of this sophmoric retort you are indeed slightly less correct now"
This is blatantly wrong. I could be a child rapist pedophile neo-nazi and if I said 2+2=4 it would still be correct. One irrelevant statement does not make a correct statement "less correct", it is either correct or it isn't.
hmmm...my measurements may
September 7, 2007 - 14:04 ET by TruthMongerhmmm...my measurements may be off...
(checking)
nope - you are less correct! Amazing...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Hmm
September 7, 2007 - 14:07 ET by blogonatorMy measurements show me that you're completely wrong.
And...wait!
I have no measurements for this sort of thing!
And neither do you!
Amazing! What conclusions can we draw from that?! (Your response is baseless.)
(another baseless
September 7, 2007 - 14:12 ET by TruthMonger(another baseless response:)
...and now you're even wronger:(...
stop the bleeding man - while you have time...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Indeed I have!
January 22, 2008 - 22:30 ET by blogonatorThankfully, I won't ever have to say that because Thompson dropped out.
ROFL....
blog, that is a rather
September 7, 2007 - 13:36 ET by bassndudeblog, that is a rather simplistic view. Borders on profiling. Courage figures in leadership. Critical leadership values are, Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. If a man possesses these qualities, he would be a good leader. Many of these qualities require courage, none require more than average intelligence.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Let's see
September 7, 2007 - 13:52 ET by blogonator"blog, that is a rather simplistic view. Borders on profiling."
And how is it profiling?
"Courage
figures in leadership."
Anyone capable of using logic will take the logical decision, making courage irrelevant. e.g. if your math leads to the conclusion that you need to invade X country, then you invade X country. It's not a matter of "courage." IQ is exactly that--the ability to reason.
"Critical leadership values are, Loyalty"
So if your data shows that your country is in decline, and you should do X action, you would support Y action because it's the loyal thing to do? How can you prove that being loyal is somehow better?
"Duty"
Obviously. Anyone that takes the office of president is going to do their job, unless they're an idiot and want to be impeached. That's not a "presidential trait" so much as "common sense."
"Respect"
In what way? Respect towards what?
"Selfless Service"
Anyone that follows facts, data, and logic is by nature selfless in that they reject their own bias towards something in favor of what reasoning shows. That's not a "trait."
"Honor"
You can define honor as anything, and it's culturally relative. That's a negative trait to have because you're bound by something completely unobjective.
"Integrity"
Uh, there are varying forms of "integrity" depending on what moral system you adhere to. I'm pretty sure that everyone in nearly every government in the world thinks their leader is a great guy, with so much integrity that they can use it as a paperweight. Something so arbitrary as that is not a good "trait."
"Personal Courage"
It seems like you just made that trait up. "Personal" courage as opposed to just regular "courage"? Give me a break. At this point you're just picking things that sound nice.
"If a
man possesses these qualities, he would be a good leader."
And why's that? I gave my reasons.
"Many of these
qualities require courage, none require more than average intelligence."
I highly doubt you know what "average intelligence" is and what that entails. Only 25% of Americans have a bachelor's degree ( http://www.census.go... ), so that means that "average" is not possessing a college degree. Many intelligence reports are NOT forgiving in the way they are written, and require quite significant intelligence to read on a daily basis and still remember all of them. The presidency is definitely NOT a job for "average intelligence", and facts support that.
So, in a government....
September 7, 2007 - 14:04 ET by Karma...."of the people, by the people, for the people", you want to add an IQ requirement to be elected? Character over ego anyday.
No.
September 7, 2007 - 14:12 ET by blogonatorI want people to elect a smart person. I have no trouble voting for someone smarter than myself, and neither should you.
"IQ" !DOES NOT EQUAL! "Ego"
"Character" is not measurable, and it's arbitrary. I can say "[insert dictator of choice] had character." and you would have no way of proving me wrong. Logical reasoning ability is measurable, as evident by the LSAT and IQ tests in general.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines "ego" as "An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit." while they define "intelligence" as "The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." and also "The faculty of thought and reason."
Do those sound anything alike to you?
Blog, do you think Obama is
September 7, 2007 - 14:14 ET by TruthMongerBlog, do you think Obama is experienced enough to be prez? If so then how? Be specific. List at least 5. This is due in 15 minutes...then we'll have recess...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
re your obama statement
September 7, 2007 - 16:59 ET by blogonator"Blog, do you think Obama is experienced enough to be prez? If so then
how?"
I think experience IN THIS SENSE doesn't matter because you can't have presidential experience without being president. I think he has good judgement, which does matter, as is displayed in his policy.
"Be specific. List at least 5. This is due in 15 minutes...then
we'll have recess... "
1) energy policy
2) church and state policy
3) net neutrality policy
4) iraq war voting history
5) health care reform
If you want more, just google "obama's policies" or "obama's positions" and you should find good results.
Like I said.
September 7, 2007 - 14:26 ET by KarmaCharacter over ego anyday.
I seriously don't care who you want people to elect. I will vote strictly on character and I don't think there is much you can do about it. You're only reinforcing my convictions. Blog on.
blog, you cannot break down
September 7, 2007 - 15:38 ET by bassndudeblog, you cannot break down life or leadership into mathmatical equations. Math has little to do with life in general, unless X = Right and Y= Wrong. That works. There is no gray.
P.S. Following your math logic, you would have been aborted during mid terms.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
uhh
September 7, 2007 - 16:59 ET by blogonatorUsing X and Y as an example is not math, just reasoning. I could have said "orange" for X and "apple" for Y and it would have meant the same thing.
"Math has little to do with life in general"
Math has quite a lot to do with life because many things in life can be explained by math. I'm not even talking about complex math, but math you would learn in high school, such as statistics, algebra, etc.
"P.S. Following your math logic, you would have been aborted during mid terms."
How does that follow my "math logic"?
blog, you measure
September 7, 2007 - 15:44 ET by bassndudeblog, you measure intelligence by the level of education? That is beyond ludicrous. That is just plane insanity. Just because someone did not attend collage is not a reflection of their IQ, nor their intelligence. I know some folks with masters degrees that are dumb as a rock. Nice folks, but just plain idiots. Your starting to remind me of them.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
re: intelligence
September 7, 2007 - 16:53 ET by blogonator"you measure intelligence by the level of education?"
No.
However, as IQ increases, so does the probability of having a college education.
In other words, the people that are intelligent but don't have a bachelor's degree are few in number.
"I know some folks with masters degrees that are dumb as a rock. Nice folks, but just plain idiots."
And how would you measure this? Do you know their IQ and /or capacity to reason or do you just perceive them to be idiots?
blog... Rush read some
September 7, 2007 - 17:01 ET by Clear thinkerblog...
Rush read some stats on air not to long ago that showed that the majority of millionaires in this country had no degrees. And a good portion of those never graduated from High School.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
And?
September 7, 2007 - 17:11 ET by blogonatorThe majority of highly intelligent people tend to go into fields like physics and math. Of course they're not going to be millionaires - they have no interest in that.
I find that statement questionable, though, because IQ is highly correlated to income, at least to some extent. The data about how leaders tend to be most effective when slightly higher than their average holds true.
edit: additionally, that doesn't refute the statement that the probability of getting a college degree tends to increase as IQ does.
Ok, now that is just plain
September 7, 2007 - 17:22 ET by bassndudeOk, now that is just plain BS. Talk about narrow minded, self indulgence.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
How is a correlation narorw minded and self indulgent?
September 7, 2007 - 17:35 ET by blogonatorerr... seriously? How is a correlation narrow minded and self indulgent?
There's an entire book about it called "IQ and the Wealth of the Nations", among others. Additionally there are tons of statistics that show that income increases with level of education.
Ct... He is full of
September 7, 2007 - 17:15 ET by bigtimerCt...
He is full of himself and BS.
Clear
September 7, 2007 - 17:23 ET by BlondeI once sold a horse to a multi-millionaire who couldn't read! He took me for a ride in his helicopter, too. Long, long time ago.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
The probability of having a
September 7, 2007 - 17:23 ET by bassndudeThe probability of having a college education is directly proportional to the parents ability to pay, federal grants and loans. Not IQ.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Blog you are just to
September 7, 2007 - 15:51 ET by Airforce_5_OBlog you are just to analytical for your own good.
Logic: Facts; Data; What are we? Computers?
Sorry but you must be the kid who got his rear end whipped everyday at school.
Everything in leadership can be explained away because it doesn’t fit your model.
It is obvious you never spent a day in the military or in any team sport any were. All these traits that you conveniently try to explain away are what made this country what it is: The mightiest nation to grace the face of this earth.
It is those Traits that make Logical human beings go out and defend the freedoms you enjoy every day. Duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, courage and, may I add, Hard work, are what make young people take up the mantel to defend and protect. It is those traits combined with the natural human desire to be free that makes us who we are.
Intelligence is great and vital but it does not make a leader. In your estimation it only takes intelligence to be a leader. Sorry blog your argument doesn’t hold up. Some of the greatest minds never went to college. My father had an eighth grade education and became one of the lead electrical engineers at the GE plant in Wilmington NC. This is not the place to be “throwing around your degree” my friend.
We are encouraged to educate ourselves and I know that I want my kids to go to college but above all I want them to have those great traits you so easily dismissed.
You may sound intelligent blog, but you have yet to prove it.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
re:
September 7, 2007 - 17:19 ET by blogonator"Blog you are just to analytical for your own good.
Logic: Facts; Data; What are we? Computers?"
Intuition, instinct, anger; what are we? Gorillas?
We can program AI that can already outperform us in math and chess. Do you think that, in the future, we're going to somehow hit a stumbling block, Moore's Law will be proven invalid, and our technology will stop advancing? If anything, we're going to use technology to continuously improve our own human entity. Once we can augment the intelligence of our offspring, we've become "post-human." Jews do that already artificially by "marrying Jewish."
"Sorry but you must be the kid who got his rear end whipped everyday at school."
And you are, what? The one that flunked?
Sorry, a million beatings would not make me less correct or more correct. I've said this before.
"Everything in leadership can be explained away because it doesn’t fit your model. "
Is it that it doesn't fit my model, or that they don't matter? Really, you're not being objective.
"It is obvious you never spent a day in the military or in any team
sport any were."
Interesting that you say that.
The relation of IQ to leadership in the military is that you want someone slightly smarter than the rest, but not too smart. It doesn't really matter if they're 170 or 85, the one with slightly higher intelligence tends to be the better leader.
The military conducted a study with predator missiles (you can google this). For each successive tier of IQ, they required 1 less predator missile to hit the target. That means that the highest IQ soldiers would have saved $8,000,000 more than the lowest IQ soldiers.
In other words, more intelligence makes more productive soldiers. But intelligent people also tend to be less violent, so you're going to find less of them in the military. That says more about the military than it does about intelligent people.
"All these traits that you conveniently try to explain
away are what made this country what it is: The mightiest nation to
grace the face of this earth."
That's pure rhetoric. What made America what it is was a bunch of white guys killing a bunch of other white guys until the other bunch decided to back down and let them call themselves "America."
I'm pretty sure EVERY OTHER NATION BESIDES AMERICA thinks the same thing about their nation too. What makes you correct over them?
"It is those Traits that make Logical human beings go out and defend the
freedoms you enjoy every day."
Do you actually expect to find anything that says "researchers find that MIT students enlist in military because they like freedom"?
Give me a break. Some reasons that people that enlist in the military could be because recruiters are persuasive, they don't know any better, they get financial benefits, and they like to kill brown-skinned people, among many others.
"Duty, respect, selfless service, honor,
integrity, courage and, may I add, Hard work, are what make young
people take up the mantel to defend and protect."
I'm pretty sure that soldiers from any military on the planet use that same logic for their soldiers that our soldiers happen to be killing in "defense." That's EXTREMELY arbitrary.
"It is those traits
combined with the natural human desire to be free that makes us who we
are."
Uh, there's a "natural human desire" to be free?
There's a "natural human desire" to kill, have sex, and eat obsessively, among other things. And, given trends in Islamic countries, they tend to like theocracy, so I would say that you need some evidence for that statement.
Besides, desire is programmable. We can modify our own desires by basic conditioning. High school students learn this in psychology class.
"Intelligence is great and vital but it does not make a leader. In your
estimation it only takes intelligence to be a leader. Sorry blog your
argument doesn’t hold up. Some of the greatest minds never went to
college."
It takes PRIMARILY intelligence to be a leader because all of the necessary information to be a leader can be found out from reasoning, which intelligence is by definition.
Going to college does not equal intelligence though it is indicative of it. Chris Langan dropped out of college and his IQ is 190+. Generally, as IQ increases, thus does the probability of having a college degree.
"My father had an eighth grade education and became
one of the lead electrical engineers at the GE plant in Wilmington NC.
This is not the place to be “throwing around your degree” my friend."
I addressed this prior.
"We are encouraged to educate ourselves and I know that I want my kids
to go to college but above all I want them to have those great traits
you so easily dismissed."
....Okay?
I want my kids to go to college and I don't want them to have those "great traits." How is this relevant? Do you think I'm going to be afraid to dismiss your children?
Obama just cannot win period
September 7, 2007 - 13:55 ET by TruthMongerObama is a senator - that is a huge disadvantage - same for Thomsen and Clinton of course. But at least they have weathered huge political storms. Obama is only a one-half-term senator with little experience and virtually no legislative track record to speak of. He is just not capable of running the POTUS position at this time - it's way too soon. It's a complete pipe dream a this point....
There is absolutely no way Americans (along with the usual non-Americans behind the scenes) would install him as president at this time. It's completely impossible...
Just the number of American voters that would even seriously think of voting for Obama would not nearly be enough for him to win the election...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Uhhhh
September 7, 2007 - 14:15 ET by blogonator"Obama is a senator - that is a huge disadvantage - same for Thomsen and
Clinton of course. But at least they have weathered huge political
storms."
If not Democratic Convention '04 then what do you define as a "political storm"?
"Just the number of American voters that would even seriously think of
voting for Obama would not nearly be enough for him to win the
election..."
Right, that's why a majority of polls show Obama beating the republican frontrunners
Again I ask - do you think
September 7, 2007 - 14:22 ET by TruthMongerAgain I ask - do you think Obama is qualified to be president? If so how?
Fred and Hilary have been at the top of cut-throat national politics at least 3 times as long as Obama...you want a list of the storms - that could take a while...
I would not call visiting a convention of your own party a political storm by any means...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Haha.
September 7, 2007 - 16:07 ET by blogonatorI'm not a registered democrat. If I register as a democrat it's just to vote for Obama.
"Again I ask - do you think Obama is qualified to be president? If so how?"
He was president of the Harvard Law Review. You have to be quite intelligent to get that position.
But I'm guessing that's not convincing to you. His energy policy. His policy on separation of church and state. His policy on net neutrality. His health care reform plan. etc.
The idea that Fred and Hillary are better because they have more experience has holes. For example, pick any candidate that you disagree heavily with that had a lot of experience. For me, it's Bush and for you I would assume Carter or some other democrat. It's not a question of experience but a question of judgement.
There's not really a way to experience being president other than being president. Being First Lady is being experienced with being First Lady.
Quick and easy
September 6, 2007 - 23:29 ET by third eyeInstead of a Democrat primary this year I urge liberals to consider a text message vote, winner takes all.
Of course there is always the danger Ron Paul might come out of no where and win it.
Chicago....home to
September 6, 2007 - 23:38 ET by MidAmericaChicago....home to obama, hillary,jesse jackson, durbin, capone.
Downstate Illinois gave us Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.
You be the judge.
You forgot, MidA
September 7, 2007 - 01:58 ET by Scout FinchRichard Daley.
Which one? dad or
September 7, 2007 - 02:46 ET by MidAmericaWhich one? dad or son?
I thought about the old man but he busted left wing protesters heads at the '68 democrat convention so I gave him a pass.
The son isn't too far from the dad in being an old time democrat boss of a big city. Let me put it this way, he wouldn't fit in in San Francisco or any other modern lefty political circle.
We used to disagree with democrat ideas now we are alarmed by them.
Wow.
September 7, 2007 - 13:06 ET by blogonatorSo you should vote for a candidate based on where they come from? Or are you saying that a candidate's merit is based on what people their hometown has produced?
Following that logic:
1. Hitler lived in Germany
2. Einstein lived in Germany
3. Einstein is instantly wrong because so was Hitler.
Please, take a logic course.
Einstein was a socialist.
September 7, 2007 - 13:25 ET by MightyMouthEinstein was a socialist. Please take a history course.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
and?
September 7, 2007 - 13:31 ET by blogonatorThat's an ad-hominem and doesn't make him or his work incorrect.
I don't know where you read that, nevermind giving me a source for that information, but nevertheless it's irrelevant. A person's political leaning does not affect their person, their body of work, etc.
One of the smartest people to have ever lived, William James Sidis, was a socialist once, too. Are you anti-intelligence because at one point intelligent people supported socialism?
You were the one that mixed
September 7, 2007 - 13:38 ET by MightyMouthYou were the one that mixed politics with intelligence. Not me.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Einstein lived in
September 7, 2007 - 13:44 ET by TruthMongerEinstein lived in Germany? Then who was the Einstein living here?
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Maybe it was baby einstein.
September 7, 2007 - 13:51 ET by MightyMouthMaybe it was baby einstein. Would be about as applicable as blogs Hitler - Albert example.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
...well for that matter
September 7, 2007 - 13:58 ET by TruthMonger...well for that matter baby Hitler lived in Austria - just like....ARNOLD?!?!? dut-dut-daaaaaaah!!!
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Yeah.
September 7, 2007 - 14:20 ET by blogonatorIndeed. And the 9/11 hijackers and Ronald Reagan both lived in America OMG?!?!?!
and yet we still have the
September 7, 2007 - 14:27 ET by TruthMongerand yet we still have the original fact remaining that Chicago produces criminals, and many are elected to national office...
While Germany hasn't really produce anyone of note...nice cars tho...
I'm glad you took us in a really fun circle...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Aaaand
September 7, 2007 - 17:44 ET by blogonator"
and yet we still have the original fact remaining that Chicago produces criminals, and many are elected to national office..."
I have to explain this again:
Replace "Chicago" with Idaho, America, Germany, WHEREVER. As long as it has more than enough people to fill up the average American university, it's going to have criminals.
Though I don't know where "many are elected to national office" came from. The point was that Chicago "had produced shady characters" and not "had produced shady characters THAT WERE ELECTED".
"Shady" is quite arbitrary too. How do you define "shady"? I think Giuliani, for example, is shady. How am I wrong?
edit: I just noticed this
"While Germany hasn't really produce anyone of note"
http://en.wikipedia....
also: pretty sure that doesn't include Americans that have German ancestry, such as Dwight Eisenhower, which according to this: http://factfinder.ce... is 17% of the US population.
Einstein.
September 7, 2007 - 14:19 ET by blogonatorHe lived in both places at different times.
Hitler also lived in Austria, as did Mozart.
People can move. I know, it's an amazing concept.
And?
September 7, 2007 - 14:18 ET by blogonatorBesides the inherent obvious fact that intelligence affects any mental activity one can engage in, I asked "Are you anti-intelligence because at one point intelligent people supported socialism?", *not* "Who mixed politics with intelligence?"
Your answer needs to address the former.
No, if you read your
September 7, 2007 - 15:15 ET by MightyMouthNo, if you read your initial idiotic post . You will see that you were comparing politics to intelligence by using Hitler (or any Chicago mayor) to Einstein (a socialist). My point is that Hitler and Einstein may have not been that far apart ideologically (at least at first). Soooo your lame ass comparison fails (notice the ad-hominem now please).
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I don't think you understood.
September 7, 2007 - 15:37 ET by blogonatorMy "initial idiotic post" and "lame ass comparison" proves that whether they're the same ideologically or not is irrelevant. You can substitute "Einstein" with any genius and "Hitler" with any tyrant that happen to come from the same area, and it would have the same effect. It proves that where one comes from does not disprove one's truths.
Einstein lived in Austria,
September 7, 2007 - 13:45 ET by bassndudeEinstein lived in Austria, not Germany. Your logic is out to lunch, along with your IQ and your ability to read and comprehend.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
wait - so did
September 7, 2007 - 14:02 ET by TruthMongerwait - so did Hitler?!?!?
So what does this all mean anyway? The larger point still holds - Chicago has produced a ton of shady characters - and it's a Democrat stronghold...
Omaha is Republican - now who came out of there - the nice and friendly wild kingdom guy?!
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Did you read my reply?
September 7, 2007 - 14:25 ET by blogonatorI illustrated before that the place of origin has absolutely no bearing.
"The larger point still holds - Chicago has produced a ton of shady characters."
If you need another example, so has every US State and every nation on the planet.
Earth has produced a lot of shady characters too watch out!!!
Not Delaware, or Idaho -
September 7, 2007 - 14:29 ET by TruthMongerNot Delaware, or Idaho - and a quite a few others...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Hm!
September 7, 2007 - 14:38 ET by blogonatorhttp://www.thebestpa...
Pretty sure you won't like him, and he's from Idaho.
But basic statistics proves you wrong. There are invariably going to be rapists/murderers/etc in ANY major political entity (by that I mean states, provinces) unless it's completely barren like most parts of Siberia.
Just use google:
http://www.google.co...
and, if you need to, replace "serial killer" with "rapist", "murderer" or anything else that you find to be "shady."
blog... You are a hateful
September 7, 2007 - 14:44 ET by bigtimerblog...
You are a hateful little man and a useless idiot.
You know absolutely nothing about Idaho buddy.
One thing about it....it is obvious with a link like that you prove you are nothing but a leftist twit...
You do that by the link.
Idaho is a very red state and for that you can't stand it.
Btw...I would love for you to meet my husband and have the guts to show it or say any of that tripe to him...you gutless wonder.
bigtimer...
September 7, 2007 - 15:07 ET by blogonatorbigtimer...
(notice how I address your name before my post with well-placed periods to elevate what I am about to say)