Oprah Winfrey, Presidential Timber

Who would have thought the Cecil B. DeMille Award presentation at the Golden Globes would become newsworthy? Last year Meryl Streep made headlines for eviscerating Donald Trump, this year many heard Oprah Winfrey's acceptance speech as a kick-off of her presidential campaign.

The thought of Oprah as presidential candidate has existed in the ether for years. I remember after 2004 some hoped she would run, when there was desperation in the Democratic party. Well, there's desperation again, with no clear front-runner for the nomination.

Seth Meyers joked about it early on (suggesting Tom Hanks as Vice-President) but the media mogul's speech got people talking about it, and she has not squashed any talk of it. Her companion Stedman Graham, said she would love to do it, and her longtime friend Gayle King, who previously said she would never do it, has changed her tune.

So, let's consider it. Certainly The Stable Genius has proven that anyone with a lot of money and a gift for self-promotion can be president, and Oprah is that in spades. She's been a household name now for thirty years, and I'm sure has a higher Q rating than Trump. She's kind of his polar opposite: self-made (she grew up in abject poverty), a reader of books, and a humanitarian. She's also black and a woman, which are obvious.

Does she have what it takes to run? Politics is a nasty business, does she have the belly for it? I think a woman of color who has risen this far is probably a lot tougher than she lets on. I'll bet she doesn't just get coffee at board meetings.I don't think she'd stoop to Trump's level and criticize opponents, especially in the primaries. She might have other people do that.

Is it a good idea? Trump has shown that presidents without political experience are disasters. Does Oprah know anything of foreign policy or tax law or mining regulations? Perhaps not, but do we have confidence that she will surround herself with better people than Trump did? The biggest drawback about Oprah is that she is susceptible to quacks like Dr. Oz and Jenny McCarthy. To be fair, that was on a talk show she wanted people to watch; I don't know if we can take it to the bank that she endorsed these people. But it would certainly be a hot topic during a campaign.

Would she be good for Democrats? As far as the presidency goes, Democrats like to propel unknowns to the throne. Think Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, all of whom were unknown to the general population just a few years or even months before their candidacies. Hillary Clinton was well known, perhaps too well known. I would expect that someone who is a complete mystery may shoot of nowhere, just like those three. But why not have a billionaire on the liberal side? She can self-finance, she doesn't need to introduce herself to anyone, and most people have a high opinion of her, even Trump (he said back in 1999 that if he were to run he'd ask her to be his running mate). Conservatives hate her, but they will hate anyone the Democrats put forward--trying to capture the thirty something percent that approve to Trump is folly.

I'm intrigued by the idea, and think she could win. If she were running in a primary against a progressive like Tulsi Gabbard, would I vote for her? Probably not. But I'd sure has hell vote for her against Trump.

The winner of next year's Cecil B. DeMille Award has big shoes to fill.