TRIBE AND RACE: O’Reilly disagrees with Oprah!


Part 3—Or at least, that’s how it seemed: “In some cases,” is disrespect aimed at President Obama “because he’s African-American?”

Presumably, yes! It’s hard to know who would doubt such a claim. But how widespread is that type of disrespect?

That’s where the rub comes in.

It’s hard to measure the amount of disrespect which comes from that source. In the absence of any such knowledge, we liberals do sometimes tend to start making shit up.

We can’t tell you that Winfrey did that. At the start of Saturday’s column, Charles Blow offered part of her recent reply to a question on this topic:
BLOW (11/16/13): Disrespect, Race and Obama

In an interview with the BBC this week, Oprah Winfrey said of President Obama: “There is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs, in some cases, and maybe even many cases, because he’s African-American.”

With that remark, Winfrey touched on an issue that many Americans have wrestled with: To what extent does this president’s race animate those loyal to him and those opposed? Is race a primary motivator or a subordinate, more elusive one, tainting motivations but not driving them?
That highlighted statement is so imprecise that it’s barely a statement at all. (See yesterday’s post.) But that statement has now launched a thousand pseudo-discussions.

Consider the imprecise, subjective reaction offered by Bill O’Reilly.

O’Reilly began Monday night’s program with a “talking points memo” concerning Winfrey’s comments. He started by playing a fuller version of her exchange with the BBC (for text, see below).

“Now let's analyze Oprah's take,” Mr. O said. He started with praise for Winfrey:
O’REILLY (11/18/13): Now let's analyze Oprah's take. I have known her for decades—not well, but we've spoken on occasion. As I have written, I admire Oprah Winfrey. She rose up from very humble circumstances to become perhaps the most powerful woman in the world. And she did that—she did that on pure talent.

She also looks out for the kids. I have been on her program talking about protecting children. In my opinion, she is a good person.
Personally, we approve of that kind of talk. People who get their information from Salon, MSNBC and/or Media Matters may not know that O’Reilly often says things like that.

From there, O’Reilly went on to challenge Winfrey’s imprecise claims, making several unprovable claims in the process.

Please understand—O’Reilly never disagreed with Winfrey’s imprecise statements. In fact, to the extent that Winfrey made any definable statements, O’Reilly seconded them, offering mega-dittos.

Along the way, he praised Obama in certain ways too. But he seconded Winfrey’s statements:
O’REILLY: We all know that some Americans do despise Barack Obama because of his skin color. There will always be bigots. But the number is insignificant. And I submit that Oprah Winfrey and others who play the race card can't back up their statements with any facts.

The lunatic fringe will hate, no matter what. But legitimate criticism of Barack Obama is not race-centric. It is based on policy. The President wants to change America. He wants to impose a big government income redistribution situation. Many Americans like me believe that will weaken the country.

I have nothing personal against President Obama. In fact, he has joined with me to help thousands of wounded veterans. He has been great on that issue. But this nanny state play is causing tremendous economic problems. And that's where my criticism comes down.
It’s true. Legitimate criticism of Obama isn’t “race-centric.” But in this part of his memo, O’Reilly agreed with Winfrey’s basic statement. He agreed that “some” Americans disrespect Obama on the basis of race.

In fact, O’Reilly used stronger language than Winfrey did. He said some Americans despise Obama. He also said we all know this.

(For ourselves, we don’t know that. But that’s neither here nor there.)

How odd! As you can see, O’Reilly seems to agree with everything Winfrey definably said. And yet, in the bulk of his memo, he accused Winfrey of “playing the race card.” He seemed to think that he and Winfrey were basically in disagreement.

The pseudo-discussion began when O’Reilly began to assume what Winfrey must have meant by her imprecise statement. We can’t say he’s wrong in what he assumed. But we can’t say he’s right either.

The fuller passage below is where the disagreement began. Please note:

O’Reilly will go on to criticize Winfrey for making claims she “can’t back up with any facts” (see above). Given her lack of precision, it isn’t clear that Winfrey did that. But in this rebuttal, O’Reilly clearly does:
O’REILLY: Now let's analyze Oprah's take. I have known her for decades, not well, but we've spoken on occasion. As I have written, I admire Oprah Winfrey. She rose up from very humble circumstances to become perhaps the most powerful woman in the world. And she did that—she did that on pure talent.

She also looks out for the kids. I have been on her program talking about protecting children. In my opinion, she is a good person.

But Oprah definitely has a blind spot when it comes to politics. She, along with some others, uses a racial prism when analyzing public policy. There is no question that President Bush was attacked far more viciously than President Obama has been. But Miss Winfrey has not acknowledged that as far as I know. Both men had controversies—Bush the Iraq war, Obama healthcare.

So, is there an anti-WASP sentiment in America, President Bush being a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant? I would like to put that question to Oprah Winfrey but she has declined to appear on this program.

Her statement is even more erroneous when you examine recent history. This week we are marking the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination. He was hated and vilified by some because he was a Roman Catholic. Again the irrational hatred directed toward Kennedy, far greater than what Barack Obama has experienced.

So what Oprah Winfrey is doing is making an excuse for President Obama using race. And many other committed left-wing people who truly revere the president are doing the same thing.
Is Winfrey “making an excuse for Obama using race?” Maybe! Without question, some people who support Obama do things which resemble that practice.

But O’Reilly makes several highly questionable claims as he rejects what he thinks Winfrey said. To wit:

Was President Bush “attacked far more viciously than President Obama has been?” O’Reilly says there’s “no question” that he was. It’s hard to imagine what “facts” could “back up” that highly subjective judgment.

(In our view, it’s possible that Bush was attacked more viciously. We’d say the attacks on Obama have often been vastly more crazy.)

Second, was “the irrational hatred directed toward Kennedy far greater than what Obama has experienced?” Again, O’Reilly doesn’t seem to realize that this is a highly subjective claim, one which almost surely can't be established by “facts.” And by the way, most important of all:

Suppose O’Reilly’s claim is true. Suppose Kennedy did have to deal with a larger amount of irrational hatred. In what way would that make Winfrey’s claims “erroneous?”

It wouldn’t make her claims untrue at all! Winfrey never stated a view about the hatred aimed at Kennedy. In the literal sense, she merely said that Obama is disrespected “in many cases” because he’s African-American.

That imprecise statement is surely true. Plainly, O’Reilly agrees with it. But that statement has nothing to do with Kennedy. It stands or falls on its own.

In this presentation by Mr. O, you see the classic modern pseudo-journalistic pseudo-discussion. This type of pseudo-discussion virtually defines our broken and floundering discourse.

It isn’t clear that Winfrey and O’Reilly disagree on any facts, although in the end they quite possibly would. But somehow, out of literal agreement, a great dispute blew up!

O’Reilly agrees that Obama is disrespected by some on the basis of race. On a purely literal basis, that’s all Winfrey said. But by the time O’Reilly was done, it seemed we had sharp disagreement.

Tribal punditry works that way. Here’s how his memo ended:
O’REILLY: Finally, it is irresponsible of Oprah Winfrey, a woman of influence in this country, to say what she said to the BBC. The record shows that Mr. Obama is simply a president who is being criticized for some of his policies. And as the man himself would say: period.

And that's the Memo.

Now for the Top Story tonight. Reaction! Joining us from Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University law professor Charles Ogletree, who is a friend to the president.

So where am I going wrong here, professor?
To O’Reilly’s credit, he brought Ogletree on for a full segment. The discussion was civil throughout, if murky and almost completely worthless.

On balance, we’d fault Ogletree for that more than O’Reilly. Ay any rate, the segment ended like this:
O’REILLY: All right, good debate, professor. We really appreciate you taking time to come on tonight.

OGLETREE: And come to Harvard, come to Harvard, Bill.

O’REILLY: I think they're ashamed of me up there.

OGLETREE: Invitation on its way.

O’REILLY: I'm an embarrassment to them. All right, we'll see you soon.

OGLETREE: No, not at all.

O’REILLY: Thank you. Next on the rundown, Juan and Mary Katharine on reaction to Oprah Winfrey and Zimmerman getting arrested in Florida.
Please come to Boston! At any rate, here’s a dirty little secret: at this point, you get more diversity of viewpoint on O’Reilly’s show than you do on MSNBC programs.

That said, this was a classic pseudo-discussion of the approved modern type. First, Winfrey made highly imprecise claims which, in fairness, did seem to suggest a possible sweeping viewpoint.

In response, O’Reilly seemed to assume that Winfrey was assigning racial motives so broadly that she was even indicting him. He proceeded to argue against this assumed claim, which hadn’t literally been made.

Winfrey’s claims about Obama were highly imprecise. In rebuttal, O’Reilly made claims about Kennedy and Bush which were completely subjective. Beyond that, these claims didn’t address what Winfrey literally said.

So it goes as our broken discourse proceeds along jangled tribal lines. This pseudo-dispute followed Blow’s recent column in the Time.

Blow was highly tribal too. He dragged Rush Limbaugh in.

Tomorrow: Playing the Rush Limbaugh card

The fuller exchange: Here is the fuller exchange involving Winfrey, as played on O’Reilly’s program:
BBC INTERVIEWER: Has it ever crossed your mind that some of the treatment that Obama, and the challenges he's faced, and some of the reporting he's received, is because he is an African-American?

WINFREY: Has it ever crossed my mind? It's crossed my mind probably as many times as it's crossed your mind. Probably it's crossed my mind more times than it's crossed your mind. Just the level of disrespect when the senator yelled out, “You're a liar.” Do you remember that?

Yes. I think that there is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs and that occurs in some cases, and maybe even many cases, because he's African-American.
Maybe that happens in “many” cases! Winfrey’s statements were so imprecise that, in fairness, they only have meaning on the level of assumed insinuation.

O’Reilly assumed he heard an insinuation; he proceeded to define and dispute what he thought hew had heard. We aren’t saying he was wrong in what he thought he heard Winfrey saying. It just isn’t clear what Winfrey would have said about the extent of the race-based disrespect if her thoroughly worthless British interviewer had pushed her just a bit harder.

By the way: Joe Wilson, who yelled “You lie,” isn’t a senator. Everybody makes mistakes, of course. That said, how carefully has Winfrey considered her beliefs on this most crucial of topics? Especially on such a central topic, widely-respected people—and Winfrey is clearly that—should consider their statements with care.

We assume Winfrey’s a good person too. On balance, most people are.


  1. Bob, even O'Reilly admits that at least some of the vile directed at Obama is based on his race, even if he quickly poo-poos that as "insignificant."

    That you can't bring yourself to admit even that much tells me what a latte pseudo-liberal you are. I'll remember that the next time you call one of your few favorite targets don't care about black children.

    African-American people -- even Oprah herself -- experience subtle forms of racism that white people can't even begin to imagine.

    Want an example? Look at O'Reilly's comment that Oprah has achieved what she achieved "on pure talent."

    No, Bill. She achieved what she has achieved through talent, brains AND hard work. Why is the brains and hard work part missing from that equation?

    1. This is the state of American liberalism...when Bill O'Reilly praises Oprah Winfrey for achieving excellence within her field on her own & based on her talent, it's not taken as a compliment of the highest order, but rather as an example of subtle racism. Thanks for the reminder of how far away from reason some of you guys can be.

    2. Spoken like a true white male who can't even begin to imagine the obstacles Oprah had to overcome, both race and gender.

      And no, you don't overcome those obstacles on "pure talent" alone. That's another white man's fantasy.

    3. She's also overcome the possible stigma of being lumped in with idiotic perpetual victims, some of whom cannot even accept a compliment without whining. And, Lord, do they whine. Thank God she's smarter than that.

    4. Right. People of color, especially women of color, should rejoice whenever a white man offers them such a patronizing "compliment."

      Too bad O'Reilly didn't go farther and call her "a credit to her race."

    5. I bet that's what he was probably thinking, AmIright?

    6. The silliness of claiming that pro forma praise of a celebrity is actually racist because it wasn't enthusiastic enough illustrates how twisted our brutal national heritage has made us with respect to race. Oprah isn't a very nice person and there are many criticisms that might be made of her that go way beyond making a fuzzy remark about the motives of those who criticize the president.

      I find it odd that we idolize a plutocrat like Oprah, whose main function is to make herself richer by promoting consumerism with a list of her "favorite things" so that people will know what to buy each year. Oprah got rich by being willing to out do the sensationalist content of other talk show hosts. She is hardly a victim and pretending she deserves high praise for her route to success is ridiculous.

    7. Is Oprah Winfrey going to comment on the Knock Out Game, the Polar Bear Hunting Game? No, of course not. And she is not a good person. She is a pretty darned vile racist in her own right. She likes the white people who pander to her but other white people, well, she hates 'em. Wants 'em dead even.

    8. And no, you don't overcome those obstacles on "pure talent" alone. That's another white man's fantasy.

      Sometimes as in Obama's case your skin color enables you to overcome obstacles. I don't think it's racist to consider a person's minority status when voting, but let's not pretend that was not a significant, if not the most significant, determining factor that won an inexperienced nobody to win the Democratic nomination and presidency.

    9. Failure to acknowledge the obvious when it comes to race contributes to racial resentments, in my opinion.

  2. good thing no one watches MSNBC. bad thing so many watch OReilly Hannity and others like him. I think this says something about the liberal tribe. namely that they do not get mesmerized as easily by rank sensationalism. still it is not clear where the busy person goes for a little straight news.

    1. The discerning person knows that O'Reilly is news analysis/opinion and Hannity is basically conservative opinion. I would list some straight news sources for liberals & their lack of being mesmerized, but methinks they may still be fainting at an Obama speech after 10 minutes of chanting in unison "Yes We Can".

    2. They are neither analysis nor opinion. They are clown shows delivering a soothing message to people who think they have already got it figured out, and are looking for affirmation of "opinions" they already hold.

    3. Omitting the content of this very post, which even Bob notes has both sides represented, of course. (and further omitting that a previous commenter stated that O'Reilly was engaging in subtle racism for complimenting Ms. Wifrey....ahem)

  3. pretty tired old stab. Millions bring the Hannity perspective to the polls and to the workplace and to their children's minds. Many less even know about Maddow's nonsense much less go into the hate trance every time Palin or Coulter or Rush starts singing playing the pied piper

    1. Unless they read the NYT. Or watch Maher. Or Stewart. Or Colbert. Or the ChiTrib. Or the LAT. Or the AJC. Or any network news source. Or most college campuses.

      Yep, because the right owns two big editorial pages, talk radio and one cable news channels, the left cannot compete. They just all say the same things, at roughly the same time by sheer coincidence.

      It's just timing that almost everyone on the left says "junk policies" about insurance, starting a few minutes after the WH talking points were released. That & coincidence.

      Because openmindedclearthinkers (just ask 'em).

    2. The old false equivalence game. Because the NYT, LAT, AJC, et al, aren't part of the vast right wing echo chamber, that means they must be part of the even vaster left wing echo chamber.

      I've heard this nonsense at least since Spiro Agnew. It was bullshit then and bullshit now.

    3. You're right, dude, the NYT, LAT, AJC, etc., aren't on the left. Heck, neither is Obama. They're all moderate centrists. That's the ticket.

    4. Bone-gnawer was attacking the likes of Coulter in 2005 using the same bone-gnawing techniques - but lately it has been interminable gnawing on liberals.

      He needs to lighten up. he is a failure as a commentator - he should look to some other trade (comedy?).

      If he insists on blogging, we the public demand fresh librul-hate via-a-vis Zimmeman (has the fact that Z turned out to be scumbag made bone-gnawer drop that bone going forward?). Is the world going to spared endless outrage over the dastardly librulz' "He was told to stay in the car"?

      Enquiring minds want to know.

    5. No, they aren't "on the left." And that you think they are says more about you than it does about them.

      But you're right about Obama. Heck that lefty radical pushed through Congress a health insurance reform bill that was pretty similar to the one that the pinko Richard Nixon proposed 40 years earler, and even contained a new idea of "individual mandate" thought up by that socialist think tank, Heritage Foundation.

    6. 11:22, Bob won't resist the click bait of another Zimmerman post, and neither will his loyal followers anxious to retry that case for the umpteenth time.

      Perhaps he is trying to find a way to say, without looking like an idiot, that Zimmerman was pushed over the edge by the mean things Lawrence O'Donnell said about him.

    7. ///No, they aren't "on the left."///

      Of course they aren't.

      Have a nice day.

      [slowly backing away to escape the craziness]

    8. [slowly backing away to escape the craziness)

      I'm willing to bet that's MUCH easier than backing-up your nonsense statement about Obama, the NYT, and the LAT being liberal.


    9. Oh, man Berto, get real! We ALL know that the "NYT, LAT, AJC, etc" are wholly-owned subsidiaries of ChomskyCorp!

  4. IMHO Winfrey's vague statement about "some" and "many" would be taken by most people to mean, "Most criticism of Obama is based on his race." Or even, "Generally speaking, criticism of Obama is really about his race." It seems to me that O'Reilly properly responded as if this is what she had said.

  5. Nice to see so many people already taking Somerby's clickbait.

  6. Support Trayvon's amendment

  7. Oprah Winfrey never used her show and her celebrity to support any political candidate before Obama. When she threw her support behind him during the 2008 primaries, are we supposed to believe it was not because of race?

    Some white liberal people actively worked on civil rights causes because fairness (social injustice) mattered to them. Oprah and Obama threw them under the bus in 2008. But none of that matters because of our brutal national history (slavery), absolving Oprah, Obama and others who have gained positions of power from any responsibility for avoiding race-based decision-making in their own choices. That's why Obama's campaign and presidential staff has so few women (Asians, Jews, Hispanics or other underrepresented groups) and so many African Americans. Race is OK when it means handing out patronage and privilege to buddies, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong when it inspires choices of others with respect to Obama. Race is fine as an explanation for criticisms of Obama (or Oprah) but not when it comes to explaining successes. And only black people are allowed to talk about race, even to the point of complaining that there is no national dialog about race, but white people are racist when they mention race at all, patronizing when positive, hostile when negative.

    Those who value fairness cannot find it in today's discourse on race because it isn't a discussion. It is a blame game that cannot be won by anyone who is not African American. Conservatives get called racist when they express these sorts of sentiments. I am liberal and was part of the civil rights movement and I feel this way about Obama, Oprah, and today's confused racial politics.

    1. Imagine that. A black celebrity endorsing the first black candidate for president to win his party's nomination.

      Of course, that makes white people the victims again.

    2. A black celebrity endorsing a black candidate solely because he is black is just as wrong as a white person endorsing a white candidate solely because he is white. That kind of racial politics would make it impossible for any black candidate to every be elected to office, if white people engaged in it. Fortunately for black candidates, they do not. Why then, is it OK to engage in for black voters? Why should we accept it as normal or admirable when black celebrities do it? It undermines our political process by making race the basis for decisions, not character or experience or proposed policies, or any of the other factors that should be more important to our electoral process.

      We all become victims at that point because we all live in this democracy where the votes of others determine our fate.

    3. The nice thing is that Oprah Winfrey is so obviously miserable. All her money and fame and people pandering to her but her racist bile makes her a miserable, ugly person.

    4. Lots o' rich people like that, Lionel.
      Miserable pieces of shit, we call 'em.
      At least Oprah sometimes works to make the lives of the less fortunate a little bit better.
      Oprah is an outlier when it comes to miserable rich persons.


    5. Good lordy, 12:00 can you possibly be any more whiney?

      And if you think the only reason Oprah endorsed Obama is because he is black, well the cleaners called. You white sheets are ready.

      You can dry your eyes now about how mean black people are to white people and go pick them up.

    6. Anonymous @11:33A,

      Oprah is an idiot but she didn't endorse Herman Cain. Why do you suppose that was? After all, they're both black.

      John McCain is an idiot, too. And he endorsed Willard the Historical Footnote. They're both white. Was that the reason for McCain's endorsement?

      How many black people do you think hold named positions on the White House staff? How many are cabinet secretaries?

    7. So, I'm a racist for stating that I think it is wrong when people make race the main criterion in their voting.

      And you think black people get a free pass on anything mean they might do to white people. Why? Because white people as a group have insitutional privilege, no matter what the circumstances of that particular white person? Yeah, that's not racial thinking at all.

    8. Deadrat, Cain wasn't running in 2008. I can't see her picking him over Obama in 2012 because Cain is a Republican and a nut. I didn't say she would endorse any black presidential candidate -- she never endorsed Jessie Jackson either, and he was from Chicago. But, I don't think she endorsed Obama for his politics, his personality, his experience, or his charisma. I think she endorsed him to put a black man in office, mainly because she perceived he might have a chance to win (something previous black candidates lacked). She is an idiot, but not so much of one that she would actively support a losing black candidate or token candidate (such as Shirley Chisholm) when her audience is mainly white middle-aged working class women. She has always placed her own interests ahead of any principles. In 2008 she placed one group's racial interests ahead of the needs of the country.

      As to black people in staff positions, it was about 60% during the election in 2008 and slightly less after he took office. Among those with true access to him, the percent of African Americans is higher. Clinton was the only candidate (Repub or Dem) who had true diversity on her campaign staff, including many Hispanic and Asian staff members. Obama is especially low on Asian-Americans and has disproportionately too few women (compared to past Democrats or to Bush) and he pays them less than his male staff (on average). Responses to that criticism suggest it is because the women do not hold as high positions on his staff as men do -- big surprise.

      His appointments have been disproportionately African American, but I have no problem with him making up for past neglect. I do have a problem with the president using race to determine who he feels comfortable with and trusts because it keeps him from receiving input from a variety of sources. That is also a problem when a white president has no minority advisers (the movie The Butler shows such presidents asking Lee Daniels his opinion on racial topics), but that doesn't make it right for Obama any more than it was right to discriminate in the past. Becoming post-racial means setting aside race and looking at people as individuals. It doesn't mean working hard to get a black man elected because he is black and sufficiently acceptable to Wall Street and other other powerful factions that he might be electable. That is what I think happened in 2008.

    9. Anonymous @2:31P,

      Of course Cain wasn't running in 2008, and of course, you can't see Oprah picking him because he's a Republican, a nut, an ignoramus, a buffoon, and so much more. But curiously, you can't see Oprah endorsing Obama because he's a Democrat, a lecturer in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, a charismatic person, and so much more. She's black; he's black. And that's all you need to know her motivations. Did Oprah place one group's "racial interests" ahead of the needs of the country? How about the white people who voted for Obama? Or is it just the black people who voted for him?

      Just as an aside, remember that in 2008 we were in two losing wars and the worst depression since the 1930s. Presumably many people thought that voting out of power the party that presided over these disasters was what the country needed. But I assume you don't think black people thought that way, but rather saw skin color and stopped thinking.

      I don't know anything about Obama's campaign staffs. They're pretty much not public business, especially in campaigns that don't take public funds. Obama has had two black cabinet secretaries; the WPE had five. Obama has had seven female cabinet secretaries, tied with the WPE for the most. Clinton had five.

      I've taken a brief look online at the White House staff, and I'm not finding that sea of black faces. The Chief of Staff is white. The Council of Economic Advisors is all white (two men and a woman). Can you back up your claim that Obama's appointments have been "disproportionately African American"? Because I could be convinced with evidence, which doesn't include the movie The Butler. Sorry to break it to you, but that movie is fiction, even if Oprah is in it.

      You have constructed a fictional world of the interiority of some black people based on facts contrary to real world evidence.

    10. // you can't see Oprah endorsing Obama because he's a Democrat, a lecturer in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, a charismatic person, and so much more. //

      LOL at the pi$$ant list of accomplishments you could come up with to justify an endorsement for Mr. Cult of Personality. That's okay, most people are now aware of what constitutes a low information voter (bless their liberal arts degree'd hearts).

    11. As a Black woman "here" lets be clear. For years, there has never been any other race as president in this country, so white people have endorsed each other all of the time. Yes, we are all use to the "status qou". Why is it a problem for a black woman to endorse a black president? Is it a problem for us to stick together? Secondly, as a black woman, it shocks me how white people always wonder why we use the race card..... (we still get discriminated against for no reasons) other than the fact that we are not white. As in the first reply, white people will never understand why we have these concerns. They never have to worry about racial profiling, our men are targeted. As a black women in corporate america, I have had to work twice as harder than my white counter parts just to prove that I don't fit the stereotypes most white people have about us, based on what they see on television. I'm not stupid, I'm not angry, and further more, I'm not racist either. But in all fairness, those commenting in this post who are not black (will not) have to worry about your children being abused by the police, or yourself given a hard time because of the implications of white supremacy over hundreds of years. Things are easier for you...plain and simple because you are not black, that's what you need to understand. I'm educate, I'm not ghetto and I am lucky to have and love all of my white counter parts I've gained relationships with. In my 30s and our generation whether white or black, chinese, arabic, or any other....are able to embrace each other with out race being an issue. It is only an issue in older white americans. That statment made by Oprah was very correct and true. You do not experience what we do, so how can comments be made based on a lack of knowledge, that's why I'm here to inform you all! Get over it!!! We have been over it for years. Things are changing in this country, so embrace it. Dont get upset because a black woman, such as Oprah stated the facts. Its perfectly fine for her to endorse another black man who is president. For us, that is something to be proud of after so many years of repression! Sheesh, we can't be excited about our own improving! I'm sure when a mexican or chinese person also become president of the US ( it probably will happen), they will be just as proud. As stated before, white people have done it every 4-8 years. I don't care about that. There are some things Obama has done that I may not be fond of, which is not Obama care, so I'm black and I don't agree with all he does because of that. What I can say that I've noticed, which happens to me on a daily, is that they do not wish him to suceed so much that they complain about a website, as a main focus of a failed presidency!!! We all know that new Iphones, cars, and other sources of technology have issues. That is technology and it happens! It so unbelievable, because there are so many other important topics to discuss and thats all they can come up with. Some of the people I work with want me to fail, but do all of the work, while my white co-workers may get the credit! Those are things you do not experience as a white person. What I am stating is not of pulling any race card...this is what I go through. There is no other reason than the color of my skin! Yes, IT IS TRUE!!! Not a matter of anything else, I am just as qualified. Stop being upset about things we speak of that you don't deal with. Just understand and learn about people other than yourselves. Thats why republicans can't seem to get this changing demograpic on their side. I do have conservative views as well, so I am not that liberal. Some of you need a diversaties course, it won't hurt you. POINT IS: EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE NOT TREATED LIKE YOU ARE!!! Hope this helps you understand, straight from a black woman. Everyone have a great holiday! By the way....Kennedy was not killed for being catholic, that was not a good comparison, nor was it truth!

  8. It seems to me that what we have here is another example of one person (O'Reilly) subjectively interpreting an imprecise statement by another person (Oprah).

    It is long standing effort to remain entertaining while achieving high ratings by saying what his audience agrees with. Mr. O is very good at finding controversy where many others may not.

    His most common technique is to attach meaning (or an interpretation) to statements from the left that require some amount of subjective misrepresenting (or misinterpreting) the intent of a speaker making somewhat vague comments.

    Throw in a little hyperbole mixed in with some misleading assumptions and bingo -- you have an 'entertaining' Talking Points segment.

    Unfortunately, this is all too commonplace on any number of cable news programs.

    It is this kind of biased commenting that creates an environment where someone like J.D. Hill can interpret a friendly "fist bump" between Barack and Michelle as a possible "terrorist fist jab."

    1. His most common technique is to attach meaning (or an interpretation) to statements from the left that require some amount of subjective misrepresenting (or misinterpreting) the intent of a speaker making somewhat vague comments.

      Just like Bob's trolls!

  9. Criticism of Obama should be conservative-centric. His conservative policies are bad for the citizenry, and anyone buying into these nonsensical, conservative tropes deserves to be criticized.


    1. I don't even know what that means -- but please don't explain.

  10. Anonymous at 2:01 PM

    Proudly ignorant. Good name for a punk band.


    1. How about Conservative Trolls?

  11. But the most horrifying thing in this post is that O'Reilly compared Bush's Iraq War to....Obamacare.

    Yes, a pointless, unnecessary war that killed thousands of Americans and Iraqis is comparable to allowing millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans to purchase health insurance and be able to see a doctor and slowing our out of control national spending on healthcare! They could not have more in common!