Firstly, I like Obama and I hope he wins. And I don't like Palin, and I don't like most of her views (she's a creationist for a start).
That said - Oprah not wanting Palin on her show is pretty trashy - and shows up, in sharp contrast, the differences between the British and American broadcasting systems. In Britain, a show like Oprah's would never be allowed to be so politically partisan. If Richard and Judy show were seen (as Oprah has so blatantly done with Obama) to endorse Cameron over Brown - they'd be taken off the air. Whatever one thinks about British broadcasting - in the political sense - it take even-handedness very seriously - you can't for example buy advertising time. And I think that's right.
It is so obvious that Palin would be a dream guest for Oprah, that it just looks a bit mean-spirited and unfair not too want her - and could have the effect of making people feel that Palin is being unfairly treated.

I don't believe everything that i read.

As for comparing Oprah Winfrey to Richard&Judy that is not a great comparsion as Oprah owns her own production company and her show. Richard and Judy don't have that kind of weight.

The principle is the same whether she owns the production company, or not. As for Palin "demanding" to be on her show - well, Oprah made it very clear that she wouldn't have her on it - so if Palin makes political capital out of that - who can blame her. My original point stands: party politics should be separate from the media. Otherwise it's too open for abuse. The BNP is a legal political party. What if Richard and Judy were to endorse them in the same way as Oprah has endorsed the Democrats? Would that be right? If it's alright for Oprah to use her brand name to support her preferred candidate..... you can guess the rest of this sentance.
I think it's best that we keep to the British system.
And as for Oprah - I don't know that much about her, but she gets on my nerves -big time. She really rates herself. Did you see her crying during Obama's acceptance speech? Nauseating.
ps. Rachie. Actually Richard & Judy do own their own show - that's why they've just moved it from Channel 4 to a digital channel - much to channel 4's annoyance.

Kunjufu
Robert Duval is a private individual. He doesn't have a chat show, and as such, he can support who ever he likes. My point is not to compare Fox with Oprah or any other American broadcaster. My point is that the American system of allowing political partisanship into TV is wrong and leads to this kind of abuse. As for the Palin camp wanting their woman to be on the show - who can blame them, if that is going to embarrass the Democrats. All's fair, etc...
And as for your point about Oprah not having any of the candidates on her show - well, really.... she has made it perfectly clear who she supports. And are you absolutely sure about that. I seem to remember her interviewing Obama (although I admit that I could be wrong). But regardless of that - she has made it very clear who she supports (and she is not a private individual - she does have a chat show).
You have to admit that the American system (whether Fox or Oprah, favours those with the most influence or money - and that's not very fair). Would you like to see political parties in this country being able to buy as much TV advertising time as they liked? You're on a sticky wicket here, mate.

\

Morris: Bollox...Robert Duvall a 'private citizen' GTFOH.... Robert is not on stage for his good looks... and I'm sorry but you're buying into the GOP hypocrisy AGAIN... even if it were true the Oprah is being bias...geez compared to the media lined up against Obama it still isn't a fair fight... I just love the way Europeans like to have ALL of the marbles...listen it has been pretty obvious that there has been a media onslaught against Obama during his democratic nomination, and now for the race for the White house you don't hear him bleating on about it..Yet the moment the other side gets a chance they pull out the bloody violin ..geez louise!!!

I don't know enough about the American media to really give an opinion one way or t'uther. But the Republican's are saying very much the same thing about media bias ... so who knows. But if the American media's anything like the British media - they probably love him.
As I said earlier - I like the man - he's probably the most inspirational political figure I've seen in my life time (excluding John Major). I just think that if he's not careful he's going to blow it, by appearing too be sure of his success. Remember Neil Kinnock before the 1992 election?

Oprah has had Obama on her show several times leading up to her announcing her official support of him.
She also admitted that this is the first time she's publicly stood behind a candidate and was clear from the beginning that she would not do anything that would conflict with that.
She mentioned in the article that she would love to have Palin on AFTER the election, so she's not saying no to her, she's merely saying no to helping her in the process of the election because it conflicts with her allegience to the Obama campaign and with all of the money that she has probably contributed to the goal of Obama winning I can understand why she wouldn't want to agree to anything that could corrupt that purpose.

Here it is in a nutshell.

Fox news is run by the klan and spends every second of the day dumping on Obama. Most of talk radio is run by the klan and spends every second of the day dumping on Barry Nosecandy Obama.

Oprah, black networks, and every "liberal" outlet treat Hussein Obama like the second coming.

Anyone who's not a republicrat or has one critical thing of substance to say about Osama or McCain can't get much more than a scrap of airtime.