Since Fox seems to lie in wait to race bait every Oprah Winfrey utterance, it should come as no surprise that the network accused her of endorsing Hillary Clinton only because of "identity politics."
Before an Outnumbered discussion, cohost Kennedy played a clip of Winfrey making her endorsement:
WINFREY: I really believe that that is going to happen and this is the truth… America, it’s about time that we made that decision. What this says is that there is no ceiling. That celling just went voom. You know, it says anything is possible. Yes, when you can be leader of the free world.
Although Winfrey was especially pleased at the thought of a female president, it’s not as though – as Fox tried to suggest – that was the only thing she liked about Clinton. As New York’s Daily News reported, Winfrey said in 2008, when she supported then-candidate Barack Obama over Clinton, “I have great respect for Hillary Clinton. …I think I’ve said this before and it’s true: Because I am for Barack does not mean I am against Hillary or anybody else.”
But the “fair and balanced” Outnumbered panel of four conservatives and one liberal suggested that “identity politics” was all Winfrey cared about.
KENNEDY: Oprah, as you may remember, was a big champion of the president when he was running back in 2008 and kind of snubbed Hillary Clinton. …Don’t you think it’s a little insulting for Oprah Winfrey, who has just been the apple of the cultural eye, to now tell people once again who to vote for, based on their identity?
Cohost Sandra Smith countered, “To be fair, she said ‘I’m with her.’ So she said she’s gonna vote for Hillary Clinton.”
But before long Smith complained Winfrey had not endorsed Clinton properly.
SMITH: What was missing from that endorsement was any ringing endorsement of Hillary Clinton and her experience and her track record and her policies. That seemed to be missing from that endorsement. I don’t know, I mean, if you’re going to endorse somebody for president, shouldn’t you tout why, exactly, it is, other than just their gender?
Kennedy set up cohost Harris Faulkner to criticize the endorsement, too.
KENNEDY: Harris, like you, I’ve got two girls. I would love to be able to tell them that in their young lifetimes we elected the first female president. But does it have to be by virtue of someone’s gender that we vote?
FAULKNER: You know what I’d rather tell my two girls? In our lifetimes, we elected the best female president and so that’s the question... If her only attribute for the job is her gender, that’s not good enough so - and Oprah knows this. She knows how to do this. She did this with the Obamas. She knows how to sell it if she wants to sell it so maybe there’s more coming from her.
Guest Pete Hegseth piled on.
HEGSETH: There’s no doubt that America is prepared and capable and ready of vote for a woman to be commander-in chief. Provided it’s the right one. We just don’t need a criminal who lies to the families of the fallen and who thinks she lives by a totally different set of standards. That’s why the left is reduced to, basically, saying, “Hey, yes, we want a woman but I can’t really tell you why.”
Julie Roginsky, the lone liberal on the panel, called celebrity endorsements “irrelevant” and said she could care less who they say to vote for. Roginsky said she’s not voting for Clinton merely because she’s a woman. But Roginsky said there is inherent sexism in the election system.
Kennedy ended the segment by snarking: "Coincidently, I’m not voting for her."
As if we hadn't already guessed.
Watch this latest attack on Winfrey below, from the June 16 Outnumbered.
From what I’ve seen of Trump’s campaign and the ensuing rhetoric from his supporters (based on the remarkably racist/bigoted comments and conclusions that have come out of his mouth), Trump has made it okay for the righties to leave behind their usual stealth mode, dog-whistle style of bigotry and openly express just how much they despise those who aren’t like them (in disturbing ways that go well beyond mere positions on political policies).
So why isn’t the “fair & balanced” FOX “news” also pointing out the identity politics happening with the voters who support Trump? That’s a rhetorical question, of course, as we all know why it is that majority of the FOX “news” talking heads don’t want to go there. I just wish Roginsky had at least tossed that one out for discussion. I think we may have seen a bit of squirming going on by the other 4 on the curvy couch and a quick change of subject.
Which begs the question: How many conservative white male bigots are going to vote for Trump because he’s a white male? Huh, FOX?