PrintMay 1, 2010
Has Oprah 'made enough money' yet?
AT's Greg Halvorson posted a piece on the president's ad libbed remarks that he believes "at a certain point you've made enough money."
Some of the commenters on the post asked whether Oprah knew about her pal's indiscretion. Well, if she did, it didn't seem to make any difference when she was cooking up a deal with Proctor and Gamble to literally gamble with a new venture she has going; a deal to the tune of $100 million advertising dollars for a network that she has scheduled to start in 2011.
P&G, the manufacturer of dozens of household name brands like Tide, Crest, Tampax and Pampers, committed to a deal reportedly worth more than $100 million over three years. The agreement, which includes the purchase of time and integration into programming, is unprecedented in that Winfrey's network (OWN for short) will not be on the air until January 2011, does not yet have a full programming lineup and has no audience and therefore no basis for ratings, reach or demographics.
In the Marxist environment there are always exceptions to the rules that the state imposes on the general population. Obama would not be ruffling the feathers of the wealthy/elite/leftist Oprah because she fits into the Marxists' plan which promotes the equalizing of the masses (that is, all of them are poor) while allowing for uncapped profits by the rulers and cronies of the state.
To a thinking person, this whole affair of Obama and Oprah not being together and on message at first provokes confusion, but after some contemplation, the apparent dichotomy actually makes sense. The two big O's live split lives. Each has a public persona which varies from his or her private persona. The public persona is not culpable for the mistakes or misdeeds of the private persona, and vice versa.
Therefore, Obama will continue to make outrageous statements completely contrary to Americanism, and get away with it. Oprah will continue to make as much money as she wants, and rightly so, but continue to back her leftist president because he's good for business. The left hand could care less about what the right hand is doing as long as the dialectic doesn't require truth as an end result.
