That’s correct. Trump’s ego trumps Oprah’s. How often is Oprah blowing her own horn and reading her résumé compared to Trump? Her body of work speaks for itself (and I’m no fan). Trump is always speaking for himself. Did you know he gets ratings? Just listen to him. He’ll tell you. Did you know he makes money? He’ll tell you that, too. And business deals, and smarts, and did I mention the ratings? He’ll suck just as much air out of the room as needed to look better than anyone else.

And, yes, Obama was already an ascendant candidate via the New Party with ACORN and SEIU, two incredibly effective ground-game vote gatherers, before Oprah. He had been fast-tracked, his aim to grab the Lefter-leaning Democrats. So of the hardcore Left, Obama was the chosen one before Oprah said “boo.” Oprah just legitimized him for the non-Clinton constituency which was significant and actually looking for competition against the Democrat Leadership Council, the Clinton’s product. Did she help? Sure, but she wasn’t in it for Oprah (per se) as much as she was in it for the history. Trump has no such comparable aims as evidenced by his threat to run third-party.

Also, “ego” does not mean “influence.” Both have influence but Trump has the ego. Oprah used her forum to help Obama but did not launch him. As I noted, he was already launched. Trump is using his to promote himself, two significantly different goals, which is to say Trump aims to “launch” himself… either into a presidential campaign or a self-promotion gambit.

Continuing with Santorum, as I said, I understand his decision to go to Trumpapalooza more than Gingrich’s; but to predict that Trump would pick Santorum over Gingrich? No freakin’ way. Santorum is arguably the most conservative “Bible-clinger” in the race. Does that at all mesh with The Donald? Now that would be a leap of faith. Even more likely is that Trump would endorse Gingrich over anyone because a) all but Santorum have bailed and Trump’s skin can be pretty thin guaranteeing Gingrich as “the best”, and b) Trump wants to be associated with a winner which, at this point, is working against Santorum. Brand Trump doesn’t want to lose, and, face it, Santorum is a “loser” right now. Trump will not be climbing out on a limb for Santorum. How will this be productive for Santorum even if he gets to talk again to the same people who would’ve already been following him? The audience for Celebrity Apprentice != the audience for Celebrity President.

Obama had considerable support. Obama’s candidacy had already been launched, Oprah providing a seal of approval where competition was limited to pretty much Clinton alone. And Oprah hasn’t nearly the ego of Trump. AnonymousDrivel on December 9, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Oprah didn’t launch Obama, and she doesn’t have nearly the ego of Trump? What’s the street name of what you’re smoking?

Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama was one of the most widely covered and studied developments of the 2008 presidential campaign. Winfrey has been described as the most influential woman in the world for her impact on the culture and her proven record as a taste-maker and trend-setter, and there was much interest in whether that influence could translate politically since she had never before endorsed a candidate. Winfrey first endorsed Obama in September 2006 before he had even declared himself a candidate. In May 2007 Winfrey made her first endorsement of candidate Obama, and in December 2007, she made her first campaign appearances for him. Two economists estimate that Winfrey’s endorsement was worth over a million votes in the Democratic primary race and that without it, Obama would have lost the nomination.

I didn’t mention Santorum by name, but obviously he was smart to accept, and get face time close to the Iowa Caucus that starts on January 3rd. He’s running for President of the United States it only makes sense to take advantage of media opportunities on a major network, it doesn’t cost his campaign to show up and debate on December 17th.

“Uh huh, Compared to when Oprah launched Barack Obama on her talk show, she over shadowed Obama, and hurt his campaign/”

You’re equilibrating Santorum with Obama? Santorum has negligible support. Obama had considerable support. Obama’s candidacy had already been launched, Oprah providing a seal of approval where competition was limited to pretty much Clinton alone. And Oprah hasn’t nearly the ego of Trump.

Add to the central issue that Trump has said he’s still considering running as independent and it’s pretty self-evident that this is all about Brand Trump, something Oprah never threatened. Trump is using this as an opportunity for self-promotion. Were he not, he’d have gladly declared he wouldn’t run for office and admit that the voters had already determined him not-Presidental material (practically, not technically) a few months ago when he was, once again, teasing the public.

So, yes, Trump won’t be launching anybody save for himself. Maybe by default Gingrich would be the beneficiary just because he was willing to play Trump’s game (you know, “loyalty” reward), but Gingrich is already the leader and has extensive name recognition. He doesn’t need Trump.

Michele Bachmann can bench press Chris Christie. I wouldn’t mess with her if I were you.

Finbar on December 9, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Well she could out run him anyway GRIN.

Sure, but Trump would suck all the oxygen out of the room because this is, ultimately, all about Trump.

AnonymousDrivel on December 9, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Uh huh, Compared to when Oprah launched Barack Obama on her talk show, she over shadowed Obama, and hurt his campaign/

I trust Michele Bachmann as far as I can throw Chris Christie.

KMav on December 9, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Michele Bachmann can bench press Chris Christie. I wouldn’t mess with her if I were you.

“Even the two people left on the dais for this want Trump to repudiate his assertion that he might run as an independent in the general election, which Trump tells Imus he won’t do.”

So Gingrich, the smartest guy in the room, didn’t figure this out earlier? He was in such a rush to show off his rhetoric that he didn’t understand the downside, one which pretty much everyone else noticed?

See, this is the risk of Newt. His overconfidence in his debating skills blinded his judgement. And that’s an issue with Gingrich… his judgement: full of ideas, even bad ones. As to Santorum he’s just desperate for a venue. It’s a bit more understandable but still an error. Could he get considerable coverage with less competition? Sure, but Trump would suck all the oxygen out of the room because this is, ultimately, all about Trump.

For a minute I thought Helen Hayes was still alive…

I hope the public wakes up to the fact they are being herded to the polls like cattle.

entagor on December 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Have you read some of the comments in the recent threads just on this blog? It’s better to appear smug and superior, and agree with the liberal media than to figure out the media is playing on people’s vanity. Well the they do have marketers working on the best way to manipulate the viewing public.

The media conditions the viewer to join them in their response to their coverage so the viewer can share in the smug feeling of superiority. Look at Chris Matthews does he have any accomplishments that could stack up to Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry or any government figure for that matter CEO Herman Cain has more accomplishments than Chris Matthews……but when he delivers his smug assessment because of a gaffe, he’s showing how superior he is to the candidates, but the problem is he has no accomplishments that equal the person he’s disparaging. Pavlov’s dog was conditioned to expect a reward. The reward for buying into media spin/manipulation is a false sense of superiority.

Donald Trump was able to force Obama to produce his long form birth certificate – he’s got the bragging rights. The liberal media is not happy with Donald Trump they do not want to see him benefit in anyway to the positions he’s taken. Of course the liberal media is spinning Trump’s debate as a negative thing. Newt Gingrich and apparently Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Don Imus, Laura Ingrham have figured out whats up with the liberal media trashing of the Donald’s debate. The RNC is simply trying to act as a gate keeper.

excuse me folks I’m still trying to learn how to cut and paste so if something looks really weird just bare with me

LaurRose on December 9, 2011 at 1:26 PM

I feel your pain, love, I screwed up my first one, and I’ll probably louse this one up, too.

I’ve always been a little leery of The Donald. Seemed to me like this debate was a platform by which he could attack the candidates, possibly for his own benefit?

I want to hear the debate.

I know what MSNBC or FOX would do if it was their gig. Trump is something new and worth watching.

If Trump makes a third party run, this debate will be important to the public. Besides, none of these debates are debates. They are floor shows presenting questions tailored to create certain responses. I prefer to hear someone sharp asking the questions, rigged or not.

What are they going to do, ask the one intelligent/clever question the night before the polls open?

Trump has something to say. I hope someone takes on Trumps’s questions, now, not later. The fact McCain and Rove disapproves makes me want even more to hear this event

I hope the public wakes up to the fact they are being herded to the polls like cattle.

I never understood why he candidates didn’t belittle the debate by using Eason Jordan as the fodder; he would seem the better target -politically- than Trump. Much easier to save face that way.
BKeyser on December 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Me too…

Remember Eason Jordan? Every conservative political blogger worth his/her salt knows and remembers who he is.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/12/05/trump-ed-up-you-wont-believe-what-eason-jordans-up-to-now/