According to the Drudge Report, Oprah Winfrey ‘is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket.’ This while she was more than willing to have Barack Obama, the first African-American nominee for one of the two major political parties, appear on her show.

Oprah’s staff, howevever, ‘is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin,’ sources told Drudge.

“Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on,” an insider explained. “Oprah’s website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama.”

One top executive close to Winfrey said some of the staffers fear not inviting Palin could ‘ignite a major backlash.’ However, Drudge says, as of this moment Winfrey herself refuses to host the Republican nominee for vice president.

Not long after the Drudge Report published its article Oprah Winfrey reacted. “The item in today’s Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show,” she said in a statement. “At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.”

In other words, what is “categorically untrue” about the report is not clear. After all, she admits she invited Obama over because she wanted to publicly support him while she does not want to let any other candidate express his or her views on her show. That is, basically, exactly what the Drudge Report reported, no?

Perhaps it is untrue that her staff is divided. That could very well be. However, Winfrey does not say anything about that particular point in her statement (except for the “categorically” part, which is not that “categorically” after all).

Whatever the case, Winfrey decided to let one specific candidate use her show “as a platform.” Once she did that, it became impossible for her not to invite others as well, morally that is. In the end, Oprah is her show, and she can do whatever she wants to. However, when people point out that she uses double standards and treat politicians she does not agree with unfairly she should not complain.

The news report at Drudge could very well hurt Oprah’s popularity. Her support for Obama already made her less popular among a specific part of her audience, treating other politicians unfairly is likely to damage her image even more. This is especially the case because Palin’s situation is historic, just as Obama’s was and is. She would, as Peter Wehner correctly writes, “be a perfect fit for the show.”

Furthermore, as Abe Greenwald points out at Commentary Magazine, Oprah’s hypocrisy is shocking. Not too long ago she has a woman on who was pregnant when she heard her child was suffering from Down’s Syndrome. Unlike 90% of other women in her situation, the woman decided to keep the child and raise it with love. The talk show host celebrated her as a true hero, deserving of a lot of respect (true, of course).

Palin could tell the same story; she too decided to give birth to a child suffering from Down’s Syndrome. She too decided to raise it with love and attention, and do everyting she possibly could to make him (it’s a son, Trig) happy. If Winfrey truly cares so deeply about children with Down’s Syndrome and mothers who decide to give birth to them and raise them in a loving environment, shouldn’t she also let Palin tell her story?

My guess is that many will answer that question with a firm ‘yes.’