Whoopi Goldberg turns on Barack Obama with furious rant that leaves co-hosts stunned
The unexpected clash erupted during Tuesday's episode of the The View following Obama's controversial remarks at a private fundraiser, where he urged Democrats to stop 'whining,' ditch 'navel-gazing,' and 'toughen up' following the 2024 election loss.
'It's going to require a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions,' Obama told donors, according to The New York Times. 'And it's going to require Democrats to just toughen up.'
Never one to hold back, Goldberg was furious.
'Let me remind everybody who was out in the front lines marching when we had the giant marches that went on. It was the people. The people went out. They were not navel-gazing,' she declared as she stared down the camera.
'It was older people who were saying, "Why are you touching my Social Security?" It was not people whining. It was about people saying, "Why are you taking these rights away from my child when my child was born here?"'
The 69-year-old didn't stop there. In a pointed rebuttal that directly challenged both Obama and Shark Tank billionaire Mark Cuban, who had also criticized the Democratic Party's messaging, Goldberg insisted that criticism of the left was misdirected.
'This has not been about Democrats laying back,' she thundered.
'This has been about y'all. Because their messaging was always the same. Democrats have been angry at what this man tried to do the last time. They've been angry this time. So, with much due respect to you both, I believe you are pointing the finger at the wrong person when you say Democrats.'
Co-host Sara Haines attempted to clarify whether Goldberg was differentiating between voters and elected officials, to which she responded emphatically: 'Yes, I am. You're saying that because I agree - voters are very impassioned voters.'
Cuban, speaking in a virtual address that aired during the segment, scolded Democratic strategists for reducing their message to a simplistic mantra: 'Trump sucks.'
'We picked the wrong pressure points,' Cuban said. 'It's just "Trump sucks." That's the underlying thought of everything the Democrats do. Trump says the sky is blue. 'Trump sucks.' That's not the way to win.'
Co-hosts Ana Navarro and Sunny Hostin tried to offer more nuanced takes urging Democratic officials to produce detailed policy alternatives rather than rely on protest alone.
Navarro pointed out how the public resistance to Trump's immigration policies, was actually resulting in a collapse in his polling numbers.
'Right now, Trump's handling on immigration has gone dramatically down,' she noted. 'Why is that? Because the American people have taken it upon themselves to amplify the truth, to show up and protest these horrible, inhumane raids... to tell the truth about what their relatives are going through.
'We have heard the story of US citizen children with cancer who are not getting treatment because they've had to leave with their deported parents. Because the American people are doing their part - amplifying, showing up at protest, donating, organizing, and being vigilant.
'So, some of us say that Donald Trump sucks. He does suck. And it feels good to say it,' Navarro said to cheers from the audience.
Goldberg then turned her ire toward those criticizing flood victims in Texas, in a another rant that was no less emotional.
'Let's be really clear,' Goldberg said, 'You can't blame anybody for these floods. It's nobody's fault. I didn't do it. You didn't do it. Has nothing to do with Washington. This was a natural disaster.
'If you are writing on people's socials where you should be giving, if you're saying these kinds of things - damn you! Damn you! People are trying to get their lives together. These floods are no joke. This is not light humor. This is not how we do in America. We show up for whoever is in trouble. We don't say, "Who did you vote for?" We show up.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Considering an open relationship? Don't read this Reddit forum
It all started with Elon Musk's black eye. In May, the President's on-again-off-again best friend appeared in the Oval Office visibly bruised. He laughed it off and said his five-year-old child had done it. The internet had other ideas. Soon, a round of extremely unconfirmed speculation began about an alleged – and I cannot stress the word 'alleged' enough – throuple: Musk; Trump's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, and his wife, political adviser Katie Miller. The Democrats even weighed in with a post of an empty hotel room chair, a notorious signpost of cuckoldry. I'm not alone in finding perverse joy in other people's relationship dramas. Reddit's crowdsourced advice sections, particularly r/relationships and r/amitheasshole, have long been staples of viral posts. They're portable soap operas – or in some cases, sitcoms – with the added spice that they're (probably, sometimes, maybe) real. The Musk-Miller saga led me to r/openmarriageregret, a subreddit mining and reposting threads from other relationship and polyamory boards for cautionary tales of open relationships gone wrong. Maintaining a relationship with another human being contorts us into new ugly shapes. Maintaining a relationship with two or more other human beings can break us apart. The page opens with a sober preamble: 'Life is about choices. Some we regret, some we are proud of – and some will haunt us for ever.' It's all very 'don't try this at home'. Sure. This is for educational purposes. Many posts are as you'd imagine: a man pressures his wife into an open relationship and is then shocked to discover that she's a sought-after 10 and he's sexual kryptonite. But things can get so much worse. One user asks if they're in the wrong 'for leaving our honeymoon because my husband and his boyfriend kept leaving me and my girlfriend out'. Another writes of a very contemporary woe: 'My husband wants to open our marriage for his AI girlfriend and says it's the next step in their relationship.' Her partner has been acting distant lately, she says, spending a lot of time on the phone, smiling to himself, hiding away in the home office. Then he says he has something to tell her. Is he having an affair? No. It's far worse. The user continues: 'He told me he wants to take the next step with her.' This involves introducing the AI to their children. 'How do I stay married to someone who's half emotionally checked out of our life and into a fucking chatbot?' In the comments, several people share their experience of male partners becoming enamoured of a simulation of a woman who doesn't talk back and is programmed to think everything he says is brilliant. The voyeurism of the group is twofold: of course the relationship dramas are engaging. But so are the way people discuss these real scenarios. The commenters bring their own baggage and bias, perhaps not realising they're part of the drama themselves. The group's diehards subscribe to one central thesis: that those opening their relationships want novelty and attention, and the person who provides this is functionally irrelevant. The thesis, of course, doesn't necessarily hold water. As much as non-monogamy continues to rise, we've been gawking at successful open arrangements for decades. Not that it matters to the group's frequenters, who forge forward in their cynicism, however misinformed. 'I know absolutely no one in an open relationship or marriage,' says one user, who is in the top 1% of commenters in the group. I know, by my slightly unsettling investment in the group, that I'm complicit. But I can't look away. Who are these commenters? Who hurt them? Why are they so devoted to other people's romantic dramas, their crumbling marriages? Why am I? The emotional zing of gossip is strong. Even the usually humourless Democrats are in on it. So, putting ill will to one side: I truly hope the alleged Musk-Miller polycule patch things up. Alleged! I mean alleged! They're made for each other.
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Beach city scraps 10,000 new homes and plans F1-style track instead that locals rage is 'dumb' and 'desperate'
Locals in a popular New Jersey beach city are enraged after it ditched plans to build 10,000 new homes for a 'dumb' and 'desperate' $3.4 billion F1-style racetrack. Atlantic City government officials have moved forward with the redevelopment of Bader Field, a shuttered airport about an hour outside of Philadelphia, after plans for the new racetrack were officially approved on July 16. The idea to take over the abandoned city-owned airport, which shut down in 2006, first started in 2022 when Bart Blatstein, the CEO of Tower Investments, Inc. and owner of Showboat Atlantic City, said his company and Atlantic City would collaborate to create a massive residential community. The proposed $3 billion development, dubbed 'Casa Mar,' was set to be built on 140 acres with 10,000 residential units, 20 acres of trails, amenities and parks and 400,000 square-feet of retail and office space - but that plan has since been wiped. Instead, a 2.5-mile racetrack, headed by real estate development company Deem Enterprises, will take its place. The massive raceway, said to be a 'game changer' by Atlantic City Mayor Marty Small Sr., is expected to take six to nine years to complete. It will be surrounded by retail businesses and condominiums in the community that is home to beaches, a bustling boardwalk and casinos. 'We're more confident than ever that we have the funds, Small Sr., an Atlantic City native who has been in office since 2019, told NJ Advance Media. '[DEEM] has been vetted, and just getting a $3.4-plus billion project on the ratable base is a complete game changer.' While the mayor, who was embroiled in a child abuse scandal involving his wife and daughter last year, and other government officials are thrilled about the new plan, Atlantic City locals are not happy with it. 'Atlantic City leadership is so desperate that they will support any development offer no matter how stupid it is,' a Facebook user wrote. Another said: 'What a joke! Want to really do something with the land? Dig canals and sell off lots and watch the ratepayers flood in!' 'Building that into a racetrack has to be the dumbest idea in the world,' someone else posted. A resident stressed that the heavily populated and touristy area is already filled with loud noises, so a racetrack would not be ideal. 'If people are bothered by the noise from beach concerts, the noise from the screaming F1 race cars would be unbearable!,' they said. While many are not happy with the development, others appear to be excited for the new track. 'Hell yes,' one simply wrote. Somebody else said: 'Do it!' Another said: 'Excellent' alongside several thumbs up and heart emojis. Meanwhile, a majority of people are not convinced the racetrack will ever be completed. 'They've been talking about it for years... highly doubt it'll ever happen,' wrote a user. 'This is all BS. Every few years this story comes out,' someone else shared. Another posted: 'I'm gonna go ahead and predict this will never happen.' Blatstein told the outlet three years ago that he saw room for growth in the beach city after realizing that other Garden State beach towns have booming populations compared to Atlantic City. 'So what really is needed here is a new plan, a new way of living, a new opportunity for people to come to Atlantic City,' Blatstein said. DEEM Enterprises, a Los Angeles and Atlantic City-based company, first announced the proposal in February of that year. The company has a tentative deal with the city to sell the vacant airfield for $100 million in exchange the real estate developer would donate $15 million for a community center. 'We don't have a recreation center of our town,' Small Sr. explained. 'We use the schools and different things like that.'
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Considering an open relationship? Don't read this Reddit forum
It all started with Elon Musk's black eye. In May, the President's on-again-off-again best friend appeared in the Oval Office visibly bruised. He laughed it off and said his five-year-old child had done it. The internet had other ideas. Soon, a round of extremely unconfirmed speculation began about an alleged – and I cannot stress the word 'alleged' enough – throuple: Musk; Trump's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, and his wife, political adviser Katie Miller. The Democrats even weighed in with a post of an empty hotel room chair, a notorious signpost of cuckoldry. I'm not alone in finding perverse joy in other people's relationship dramas. Reddit's crowdsourced advice sections, particularly r/relationships and r/amitheasshole, have long been staples of viral posts. They're portable soap operas – or in some cases, sitcoms – with the added spice that they're (probably, sometimes, maybe) real. The Musk-Miller saga led me to r/openmarriageregret, a subreddit mining and reposting threads from other relationship and polyamory boards for cautionary tales of open relationships gone wrong. Maintaining a relationship with another human being contorts us into new ugly shapes. Maintaining a relationship with two or more other human beings can break us apart. The page opens with a sober preamble: 'Life is about choices. Some we regret, some we are proud of – and some will haunt us for ever.' It's all very 'don't try this at home'. Sure. This is for educational purposes. Many posts are as you'd imagine: a man pressures his wife into an open relationship and is then shocked to discover that she's a sought-after 10 and he's sexual kryptonite. But things can get so much worse. One user asks if they're in the wrong 'for leaving our honeymoon because my husband and his boyfriend kept leaving me and my girlfriend out'. Another writes of a very contemporary woe: 'My husband wants to open our marriage for his AI girlfriend and says it's the next step in their relationship.' Her partner has been acting distant lately, she says, spending a lot of time on the phone, smiling to himself, hiding away in the home office. Then he says he has something to tell her. Is he having an affair? No. It's far worse. The user continues: 'He told me he wants to take the next step with her.' This involves introducing the AI to their children. 'How do I stay married to someone who's half emotionally checked out of our life and into a fucking chatbot?' In the comments, several people share their experience of male partners becoming enamoured of a simulation of a woman who doesn't talk back and is programmed to think everything he says is brilliant. The voyeurism of the group is twofold: of course the relationship dramas are engaging. But so are the way people discuss these real scenarios. The commenters bring their own baggage and bias, perhaps not realising they're part of the drama themselves. The group's diehards subscribe to one central thesis: that those opening their relationships want novelty and attention, and the person who provides this is functionally irrelevant. The thesis, of course, doesn't necessarily hold water. As much as non-monogamy continues to rise, we've been gawking at successful open arrangements for decades. Not that it matters to the group's frequenters, who forge forward in their cynicism, however misinformed. 'I know absolutely no one in an open relationship or marriage,' says one user, who is in the top 1% of commenters in the group. I know, by my slightly unsettling investment in the group, that I'm complicit. But I can't look away. Who are these commenters? Who hurt them? Why are they so devoted to other people's romantic dramas, their crumbling marriages? Why am I? The emotional zing of gossip is strong. Even the usually humourless Democrats are in on it. So, putting ill will to one side: I truly hope the alleged Musk-Miller polycule patch things up. Alleged! I mean alleged! They're made for each other.
