Oprah and Maria and Arnold: A Softball Disgrace (long)

Should someone be elected governor just because he and his wife had a chummy, chatty interview with someone who’s been
their friend for nearly 30 years?

Should someone be inflicted on millions of people just because he had the courage to make a “personal journey” decision to
enter politics?

His wife loves him and supports his “dream” (which, if successful, would affect all of our dreams). Does that mean we should
all support his dream?

Code Pink, the women’s peace group, was trying to get Oprah to ask Arnold and Maria the hard questions. It now appears that
she largely missed that opportunity. Focusing mostly on her personal friendship with the gov wannabe and his wife, she only
brought up the controversial topics in the most timorous way, and accepted the vague, evasive replies offered by the couple.

Actually, it was a disgraceful display of narcissism and self-absorption. The whole “personal journey” angle tends to obliterate
questions about the personal journeys of millions of Californians. The “man I love” angle obliterates questions about why the
rest of us should love him enough to accept him as our governor. The “I want to contribute something” angle obliterates the fact
that millions of people would like to contribute something, but we only want the best one of them to be governor.

Arnold admitted he’s still learning about the issues. There are others who have mastered the issues. So why should Arnold be
governor instead of any of them?

Most hilarious of all was Maria’s appeal for the press to respect the couple’s “privacy.” For Pete’s sake! We are not talking
about a celebrity couple that made a controversial artistic decision or business endeavor, we are talking about a couple that
wants to take over our state and change all of our lives! We have the right to know if we’re electing a sexual predator to the
highest office.

If Arnold and Maria are so concerned about privacy, why didn’t Arnold respect the privacy of a forty-year-old woman on the
set of “Terminator 2” whose breasts he reportedly pulled out and fondled without being invited? That would be enough to get a
non-celebrity jailed and registered as a sexual predator for the rest of his life! This man’s celebrity arrogance is truly disgusting.

Most disgraceful of all, for Oprah, is the fact that she showed so much care and concern for her longtime friends without
displaying the slightest bit of concern for the people of California. Throughout the whole charade, no one mentioned a single
important issue in California, except toward the end when Arnold made some vague references to the economy and Workman’s
Comp. Hey, Oprah! You may have been immersed in the world of celebrities for years, but this is not about your friends; it’s
about millions of us non-celebrity Californians!

The least Oprah can do is invite other California candidates on her show. If she doesn’t, then today’s show was nothing more
than unpaid political propaganda. Surely Oprah is sophisticated enough to know that when you give air time to an active
political candidate, you are helping their campaign. At least, she knew this three years ago, when she gave equal time to Bush
and Gore.

Some other observations:

Instead of asking Arnold and Maria, straight up, whether the allegations were true, Oprah timidly asked whether there was
anything “behind” the allegations, and whether there was “some of that” exaggeration when Arnold gave those interviews.
Instead of saying that the allegations were untrue, Maria said that people can say what they want in a free press, but did not
mention the existence of libel laws as a check on that. Instead of saying the allegations were untrue, Arnold repeated his excuse
that he “said outrageous things” to publicize body-building, and that he didn’t remember any interviews or parties. Way to
dodge!

Arnold said that the 70’s were a “crazy decade,” but nobody, neither Oprah nor anyone else, mentioned the vilest allegation of
all: the incident on the set of “Terminator 2”, which Premiere Magazine reported as happening in 1991. It seems that everyone
in the big media would rather forget about that one, when that’s the one that should be forgotten least of all: it’s the incident that
comes closest to non-consensual sexual assault. (And if it’s not true, why wasn’t Premiere ever sued for libel?)

Some delightful Arnoldisms:

He doesn’t care that all the big Democrats, like Bill Clinton, are coming to California to fight the recall, because, Arnold
self-righteously preens, “it’s between me and the people…I talk to the people.” Well, actually, Clinton and Davis are talking to
the people too, at churches and town meetings. Sometimes, unlike Arnold, they take tough questions at those meetings.

He justifies his avoidance of every debate but one on the grounds that he’ll only go to the “biggest” debate, the one on
September 24. “I didn’t compete for Mr. Venice Beach, I went straight for Mr. Olympia!” What Arnold fails to mention is that
that debate, which he calls the “biggest” one, is the only one where the candidates get the questions in advance. Nobody on the
show mentioned that Arnold has also ducked press conferences, interviews with any interviewer who isn’t a personal friend or
who might be tough on him, town hall meetings where the guests haven’t all been specifically invited, or any situation that may
be unscripted or unfriendly. Basically, he’s coming off as a coward rather than a man of the people.

He says that the opposition to the recall is based on the Democrats’ concern about the 2004 presidential race rather than “the
issues facing California.” Well…I didn’t hear very much about “the issues facing California” on this show, either.

Some delightful moments from Maria:

“He doesn’t care what people think of him.” Ummmm…since he’s trying to get people to vote for him, doesn’t it sort of
matter what people think of him? This could only be seen as a Freudian slip from an elitist mindset.

And, the BEST MOMENT of the show: Maria covering her husband’s mouth!!! Isn’t that just an apt metaphor for Arnold’s
whole campaign??? :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Don’t be fooled! Don’t vote for the “Hypocrator”!

To begin with, this rant (in no way is this a debate) belongs in the Pit, or possibly IMHO. But I’ve got it on the screen now and I’ll humor you with a response.

If Oprah were doing a hard news show I would agree with you. But the primary aim of the Opra Winfrey Show is entertainment. These are her friends, and she can hardly be expected to ambush them like Mike Wallace would.

Again, where is the disgrace in telling one’s own story?

And these masters of the issues would be…?

I think you should find a truer definition of “sexual predator.” A person who attended orgies (if he did) and had consentual sex with many partners may be a libertine, but he is certainly not a predator. That comment, made by a political enemy, was libelous, and ought not to be repeated here without attribution, never mind proof.

Premiere Magazine is hardly a news source. Of course, as Jay Leno says of all the tabloid press, they “check, recheck and check again” to make sure they get their facts straight. :rolleyes:

Oprah need not concern herself with California politics, because she lives in…wait for it…CHICAGO. Again, her show is purely for entertainment. If you want hard news, read the Los Angeles Times or the Sacramento Bee, or some other real newspaper. If you get your news from the tabloids you will never dispel ignorance.

I’d love to see 135 (or so, it keeps changing) California candidates appear on a Chicago based entertainment show. I’d especially like to see Oprah interview Mary Carey. Bet that’d be fun. :wink:

I mentioned libel above, but the fact is that people in the public eye rarely sue for libel. This is partly because their public status makes their libelors relatively immune from legal action, but mostly because suing for libel just focuses more public attention on the (usually false) allegations.

[quote]
Arnold said that the 70’s were a “crazy decade,” but nobody, neither Oprah nor anyone else, mentioned the vilest allegation of all: the incident on the set of “Terminator 2”, which Premiere Magazine reported as happening in 1991. It seems that everyone in the big media would rather forget about that one, when that’s the one that should be forgotten least of all: it’s the incident that comes closest to non-consensual sexual assault. (And if it’s not true, why wasn’t Premiere ever sued for libel?)

I have to agree with all but that last sentence. That “debate” is like a final exam where you’ve had the test weeks in advance.

I won’t be voting for Arnold. I just think this “debate” of yours is really a rant.

P.S. If the Republicans had fielded a better candidate in the last real election, perhaps they could have simply replaced Gray Davis without this cynical end run around the electoral process.

Governor Davis? That man has been in politics all his adult life and he still managed to screw it up.

I have a question about '“equal time”. I heard that stations wouldn’t be broadcasting Arnolds movies because they would have to give ‘equal time’ to other canidates. Sounds kinda silly. ButIFthere is a basis for that view, wouldn’t that be in the same boat as the Oprah show? True, it’s based in Chicago, but it IS on network TV here in California.

What’s the skinny?

So, you’re saying that her interview there was in contrast to her usual, hardhitting, controversial interview style?

Arnold may be revealing more than he wishes with his analogy between bodybuilding competitions and debates:

He didn’t “go straight to the Mr. Olympia” as he says – in fact, he first entered the 1968 Mr. Universe contest, in which he lost to Frank Zane, a smaller, thinner guy with good hair. :slight_smile:

So you claim that Oprah should be interviewing Juanita Broaderrick?

Wow, I guess Clinton really did have all those people killed! If he was innocent, he would have sued for libel, so he must be guilty!

Thanks for opening my :rolleyes:

Regards,
Shodan

Every time I express a strong opinion here that people disagree with, they say it’s not a “real” debate, possibly in an attempt to get the mods to kick it. They said the same thing about my Chile 9/11 thread. Ho hum. Debate, rant, it’s in the eye of the beholder.

Re: the people here who are saying that Oprah has an entertainment show, that she’s based in Chicago, that she’s not a hard-hitting interviewer, that it’s perfectly innocent and acceptable for her to interview her friends…folks, there IS an equal time issue here, even leaving aside the silly question about Arnold’s movies. As Oprah herself admitted at the beginning of the show, she was interviewing Arnold and Maria BECAUSE Arnold was running for governor. Anytime a nationally syndicated show gives air time to a candidate during a political campaign, it amounts to a political commercial. Wouldn’t you have been willing to criticize Oprah if she had ONLY invited Al Gore on the show in 2000, without also inviting Bush? Or vice versa? California campaigns are not that much less important than national campaigns, especially if you happen to live over here. :slight_smile:

I am not referring to what Art Torres said – I am not taking my cue from him. (Please note that I used the word “reportedly” and other qualifiers, so no libel here.)
Nor am I referring to Oui magazine. Actually, I have no problem with what Arnold described in Oui magazine, assuming the gang bang was consensual. I have no problem with other people living libertine lifestyles, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. For instance, I would not call Larry Flynt a sexual predator.
But it doesn’t stop there, with Oui magazine! My concern is with the NON-CONSENSUAL stuff, specifically the uninvited groping, of which there are many known examples. If you or I carried on like that, we would get our ass thrown in jail.
As for attribution, I cited my source, and the stuff that happened even more recently (the groping in England in 2000) is well-known and documented.
If it were only the Oui magazine interview, and some crude comments, I would have no problem with Arnold. But this difference is crucial: INVITED vs. UNINVITED. There’s a big, fat, red line there, and I believe there are different instances on different occasions of Arnold crossing it.
(Curiously enough, the LA Times published an article today juxtaposing Arnold’s crude comments with his documented respect for women’s intelligence, independence and so on. That still doesn’t excuse his conduct.)

And your basis for saying that is…?

Premiere magazine is not considered a tabloid. From what I have seen of it, it’s a glossy that mainly acts as a booster for the entertainment industry – previews of upcoming movies and so on. It has fewer exposés than complimentary articles about the stars, because that’s in its interest.
That still does not discredit Premiere when it runs the occasional investigative story.
Here, incidentally, is a letter from the author of the Premiere article in the current LA Weekly, giving a possible explanation for why these particular allegations have not been more widely noted. (Fourth letter down.)
BTW, some celebrities have in the past successfully sued the tabloids for libel, Carol Burnett being a well-known example.

Oh, please. What I would like to see is Oprah giving equal time to the FRONT-RUNNERS, Arnold’s principal rivals in the campaign. According to poll numbers, there are only 4 of them now, and those are the ones who keep getting invited to the debates: Bustamante, McClintock, Huffington and Camejo. Inviting them on the show would be a snap for Oprah.
Every presidential election also has hundreds of ballot-line and write-in candidates. You wouldn’t seriously suggest that all of THEM be invited to the debates, or Oprah’s show?
**

Please define “debate” and “rant”.
Is any strongly-worded opinion automatically a rant, hence not worthy of debating?

Ahem, I did not claim that Oprah should be interviewing anybody other than Arnold’s campaign rivals. I certainly did not claim that Oprah should interview Arnold’s putative gropees.
Re: Clinton, if there were anything credible to the rape, murder and harassment allegations (and I’m making no judgment as to that), then yes, it certainly needed to come out. The consensual stuff (Monica) didn’t need to come out. I make the distinction there.
And yes, I think Clinton should have sued for libel. After all, he was getting sued while in office. Maybe if he had sued back, the country would have been spared that ridiculous impeachment spectacle.

Well, at least tclouie admits to watching Oprah. Admitting that there is a problem is always the first step…

But he didn’t sue, and therefore we must presume that he is a murderer and rapist.

Right? Or does that only apply to Arnold?

And why do you think allegations of sexual assault by Clinton are just allegations, about which you “make no judgement”, but allegations about Arnold are “known examples” sufficient for you to label him a “sexual predator”?

Do you feel that every interview should be an attack interview? Do you agree, for instance, that every reporter who interviews Bustamante should confront him with accusations that he is a racist?

Regards,
Shodan

Since you brought up Clinton, please tell me the source for the murder/rape allegations, and I may be able to tell you whether I consider that to be a credible source. I already mentioned the source for the allegation about Arnold, and I believe that source to be credible (which is not the same thing as 100% guaranteed true, only that it merits further investigation).

Please read my posts more carefully. I did not say that Arnold is a sexual predator. I said that the people of California have the right to know if he is one. Don’t put words in my mouth.

You seem to be playing sophist games, to wit, “it’s impossible to know what’s true.” Please, just tell me if you believe the allegations against Arnold to be credible or not. For that matter, since you brought up Clinton, why don’t you also tell me if you find the murder/rape allegations against him to be credible. Take a stand, go out on a limb and say what you believe.

I think it was OK for Oprah to softball the interview if she intends to invite other candidates on her show and treat them the same way.
I think it was, well, more or less OK to only invite Arnold, as long as she did a hardball interview and showed both sides of everything.
But to do neither, in my opinion, is irresponsible and does a disservice to the voting public.

They should ask him why he used the n-word. But they should not assume that his participation in MEChA indicates racism, because that is a ridiculous and spurious invention of right-wing talk radio.

Well, some would say that Arnold was mighty sexy in Predator

Well, most rants are strongly-worded opinions. If you’d offered a question and followed it with debatable logic - instead of loaded questions and a rant - then you’d have a debate.

To address the issue of equal time versus showing his movies, I think the solution is clear: simply show the Terminator to give off the impression that Arnold is an evil robot from the future, then show T2 to give the impression that Arnold is a good robot from the future - for a sense of balance. This way, the voters won’t be quite sure just what kind of robot Arnold is, and they won’t be swayed either way.

I was using your own standard, which seems to be that any allegation that does not lead to a lawsuit must be true.

Juanita Broaddrick made her allegations of sexual assault against Clinton on Dateline NBC. You will have to decide for yourself if that is a more credible source than a movie gossip magazine.

It seems better established than your accusations against Arnold.

I would imagine what side of the political fence you are on is going to affect your view of the accusations against the various candidates for California governor.

Regards,
Shodan

Making allegations on TV is not the same as having a credible source. Dateline NBC was not a source, it was a platform for her accusation.

Well, I thought I asked rhetorical questions, which are quite common in debates. Could be that “loaded questions” and “rhetorical questions” are pretty much the same thing.

My OP was full of value propositions and fact propositions, all of which can be debated. Any “rant,” as you call them, can be debated.

If you feel the value and fact propositions are in error, then refute them.

If you feel the OP is “unreasonable” or using unfair tactics, then all you have to do is point them out: “That’s a straw man, that’s ad hominem, that’s a broad brush, that’s a logical leap, that’s an emotional appeal, etc.” If I committed any of those in my OP, then point out where they are, specifically.

But in NO WAY does any of that mean “this is not a debate.”

If you don’t feel up to the debate, then fine. Nobody’s forcing you to debate. But DO NOT try to short-circuit the discussion by claiming “this is not a debate.” I view that as an attempt at censorship.

Once again, putting words in my mouth. Please re-read my third post: “credible does not mean true, it means worthy of further investigation.”

Heh. It seems that real journalists agree with me. Oprah’s “interview” was either too softball or needs to be balanced by having other candidates on her show.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&s=pollitt

Excerpts:
"What was the lowest point in Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver’s appearance on Oprah? Was it when the three of them chortled and beamed about how exciting it was for Arnold to learn about “all those issues” he’ll have to deal with as governor (“Like are they at your house to–teaching you stuff every night?” Ms. Winfrey asked)–and the audience applauded? Or was it when Schwarzenegger compared his refusal to participate in more than one debate to the way he had skipped over the Mr. Venice Beach contest and gone straight for the Mr. Olympia title–and the audience applauded? Hurray for the candidate with no experience, no information and no knowledge! Bravo for the candidate who won’t stoop to defending his platform–or even explain what it is!

The purpose of this hourlong infomercial–but why, Oprah, why?–was to give Schwarzenegger a chance to debunk his image as a male chauvinist boor with Oprah’s huge, mostly female audience, and who knows, maybe it worked.

[snip]

Celebrity is thicker than sisterhood. Now that she has jumped into the California recall, the New York Times rightly called on Oprah to invite all the major candidates onto her show."

What the heck does Clinton have to do with this thread? Is there any real reason to bring him up at all?

And I don’t buy this notion that all talk shows of any type have this journalistic obligation to the public, even the popular ones. Sorry.

tclouie, is your name freepacifica?

:smack: … and a little searching tells me it is.

Carry on.