[Steve_Seattle]

I don’t think she’s being honest at all. She had Bush and Gore on in 2000, and I don’t think anyone thought she was in Bush’s camp, or thought that it was “phony” of her to have Bush on and be civil with him. That’s what a TV host is supposed to do, be a genial host to people of different backgrounds and beliefs. If she has the Dalai Lama on, that doesn’t mean she has to pretend to be a Buddhist.

[Texas2step]

If she has the Dalai Lama on, that doesn’t mean she has to pretend to be a Buddhist.

But she probably would. :-) From what I've seen, she frequently (if not usually) empathizes with the positions of her guests. Now, I haven't watched much, but I've seen her be as "Christian" as could be one day with a Christian guest and completely sympathize/empathize with someone who is a Scientologist or Muslim, the very next day.

She very much tries to be "all things to all people" IMHO.

[soccermom]

I disagree. There’s a difference between having a political preference, as we all do and actively campaigning for someone. In 2000, she wasn’t actively campaigning for anyone and, while she may not have supported Bush, she was very gracious to him. (I wish he had been candid about his DUI in that interview. The election wouldn’t have been as close as it was.) When she is clearly and actively involved in a campaign, it is a different story. I applaud her for being upfront about it. Over all, though, I prefer the Dr. Phil approach. He considers it an abuse of his status to push his own political/religious/social agenda.