Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Liz Smith | 08/22/2008 9:00 am

Cher To Hillary: We Want You, Babe!

Clinton: photo by Barbara Kinney/Flickr.com; Cher: Getty

"I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat," said P. J. O’Rourke.

——————————

What has happened on the pre-convention scene since last Wednesday has set political junkies on their ear! After he won the primary, Barack Obama looked like an unbeatable Democratic candidate. But, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who fought the good fight and emerged as an ever-more important and dynamic persona, would still not be his choice for vice president. Those of us Democrats who were for her — that is, the rational ones among us — accepted this fact and turned our support to Obama. He has many appealing qualities and his election is important to anyone who has their mind on the far right drift of the Supreme Court.

But then matters began to slide and this columnist has said on a number of recent occasions that if Obama wants to ensure his election, he needs to look again at Hillary. (I said this last Tuesday on CNN’s "American Morning" with John Roberts. Click here to watch the clip.) I also remarked on the unpleasant reality — to many — of Sen. Clinton’s famous husband’s omnipresence. But I believe it won’t be a factor. I think she would force him to butt out! Her loss in the primary taught her a great lesson and I know this for a fact.

——————————

Nobody paid a bit of attention to my chiding Obama to take Hillary as a precaution, if not as the best of a lot of dreary choices. Then Wednesday night, following Ralph Nader’s astonishing prediction that just what we’ve said here should happen, would  happen —  all the talking heads on TV began a drumbeat — it should be, it will be Hillary, Hillary, Hillary!  And as Obama’s polls shortened the distance between him and John McCain, people said this more and more.

So you won’t be surprised to learn that one of the most famous superstars the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, ’90s — now on her eternal comeback career — telephoned us entirely on her own initiative to have her say.

If you don’t care about celebs endorsing politicians, then so be it. If you are curious — read on.

——————————

My phone rings midday Wednesday. A slightly hoarse, husky woman’s voice says, "Liz? Do you know who this is?" The voice is familiar, but I can’t be sure. Am I in an old American Express commercial? I hate guessing games. "No, who is this?" I reply with more acerbity than intended. "Oh, I love when people don’t know. Liz, it’s Cher!" Indeed it is Cher, fighting a strained throat, courtesy of her ongoing Las Vegas gig.

Cher says, "I have something I want to tell you." Visions of wedding invitations or a Korean baby adoption dance through my head. "Yes?" Cher gives with the big reveal, with no preamble: "If Barack Obama does not pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate, he is going to lose this election." I start to respond, but Cher is on a roll "I think millions won’t vote. And not just the ‘uneducated, blue-collar women,’ as the media condescendingly refers to Hillary supporters."

Cher, it seems, has decided to take no prisoners on this one. She is certainty itself. "He can’t win without her. No other running mate can help him. He needs her. She is formidable in ways he is not — at least not yet." I venture then the caution that Republicans have a standing "Get Hillary" campaign ready to go. Cher snorts: "There is nothing more to be said about her. She and Bill Clinton have been the victim of every ghastly accusation. They have
survived."

Of Obama, Cher says: "I like him. He is a good person. Intelligent and thoughtful. But he comes off as too thoughtful. We don’t need a verbose and contemplative president. We need  a roll-up-your-sleeves-get-down-there kind of person. Hillary was and is that kind of person. She was the best choice to be president. But that’s not gonna’ happen right now. So the next best thing is she’s gotta’ be there to help him. You can’t win an election on a bumper sticker about ‘change.’ Every politician
promises change! What’s new?"

189 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

DeBúrca obj
Dorothy I agree with you as do many others.
By DeBúrca obj on 08/22/2008 3:36 pm
Marjorie C.
Dorothy, Hillary got 18 million votes — half the votes in the primary — she lost nothing, she wasn’t selected by the DNC. How can you dispute those facts?
By Marjorie C. on 08/22/2008 4:52 pm
Dorothy W
I agree to disagree. The fact so many of Senator Clinton’s supporters fail to realize is Senator Clinton lost. Senator Obama had more delegates than Senator Clinton. That’s a fact. Senator Clinton was changing the rules all throughout the primary, i.e., she agreed not to count the votes in Florida, that’s a fact. When Senator Clinton found out that she didn’t stand a chance to win without the Florida and Michigan votes, Senator Clinton decided to go back on her word. And that’s a fact. How can you trust a person who goes back on their word? And how can you dispute the fact that Senator Clinton didn’t go back on her word? Senator Clinton by going back on her word spoke words to her character.
By Dorothy W on 08/22/2008 7:34 pm
Marjorie C.
Dorothy, do I dare state that Obama has gone back on his word on many, many occasions. It’s called flip-flopping in the business. At this point, slamming Hillary around no longer makes sense. She will endorse Obama and campaign for him if he wants that. She might change a few minds, but I rather doubt it. If Obama loses in November, he will blame her — it’s a given. Clinton’s hopes for ever being president are pretty well in the trash can. So all you Clinton haters can rise to the cheer.
By Marjorie C. on 08/23/2008 8:19 am
Dorothy W
I agree to disagree. Senator Obama didn’t go back on his word regarding Florida and Michigan. Senator Clinton went back on her word. I do not hate Senator Clinton. As stated previously Senator Clinton had my vote until she blew it. The Clinton’s our in control of their legacy. Voters will be watching how the Clinton’s and their supporters handle themselves during the convention and throughout the remainder of this campaign. The Democratic Party must unite during this election year. If we don’t it’s not only this presidential election we loose but many more to come. The Clinton’s are causing division within the Democratic Party. Remember a house divided against itself cannot stand.
By Dorothy W on 08/24/2008 5:03 am
Katherine S
Thanks, Cher. I wish Obama had picked her right after he won. They could have kept a unprecedented momentum going and would have steamrolled McCain. I cried today when I read the about the convention. I see womens’ rights slipping away as Christianity gets incorporated into gov’t. As a Jew and a pagan, I know my history when it comes to gov’t, religion, and womens’ rights. I feel completely disenfranchised….by my own party this time. Dissolving separation of church and state is a reservation I have always had about Obama.
By Katherine S on 08/26/2008 12:25 am
Lorraine Bates
I’ve never taken my political advice from actors and musicians.
By Lorraine Bates on 08/22/2008 9:19 am
K O
Nor have I, Lorraine. Even if I agree with every word she says.
By K O on 08/22/2008 10:24 am
Kryssi K
Amen! I do my OWN damn research before I start slapping on the bumper stickers, lol. (Although I do think Cher’s got a point, and not just because I HAPPEN to love her.)
By Kryssi K on 08/22/2008 4:54 pm
theCHEROKEErose
right on, cher!!! i agree with you 1000 percent that obama wont/cant win without hillary!!! has the potential of losing thousands of votes without her..he is such an unexperienced infant when it comes to the WORLD stage of politics…
By theCHEROKEErose on 08/22/2008 9:31 am
Dorothy W
I agree to disagree. Having Senator Clinton and President Clinton in the White House would not be a good idea. Neither Clinton can be trusted and would probably be working to undermine Senator Obama’s presidency. It’s apparent the Clinton’s are doing everything in their power to keep Senator Obama from becoming president. So why do you think it’s a good idea for Senator Obama to make Senator Clinton his VP? Just to massage Senator Clinton’s supporters? WOW, that’s something! And besides I don’t believe this hype about Senator Clinton 18,000,000 million voters not supporting Senator Obama. And that Senator Clinton controls which way these 18,000,000 voters will vote. Let’s say you believe the hype. If Senator Clinton has all this control over her 18,000,000 million voters, why is she not able to get these 18,000,000 million voters to pay off her campaign debt? Where there’s a will, there’s a way!
By Dorothy W on 08/22/2008 2:16 pm
Marjorie C.
Dorothy, about 20% of the 18,000,000 voters say they will not vote for Obama. That’s about 3,600,000 votes. If the voters cast their ballots to McCain, it’s a double whammy. Obama loses 3,600,000 and McCain gains 3,600,000. It could make a difference in the outcome of the election. Those are pretty much the facts as they stand.
By Marjorie C. on 08/22/2008 4:58 pm
Linda Mason
Marjorie, I seem to recall that you said earlier that you will vote for McCain if Obama does not select HRC as his VP choice. If that is correct, and McCain wins, do you agree never to complain about any decisions issued by Supreme Court justices named by GWB and Pres. McCain? Please don’t dodge this by claiming that you did not vote for GWB: pending retirements on the Court will certainly give justices named by GWB and the next Pres a majority for decades to come! That’s a long time to nurse a wound over a primary loss.
By Linda Mason on 08/22/2008 7:10 pm
Marjorie C.
Linda, I don’t think I ever said I needed Hillary on the ballot. I never thought she should be second rate — the one to carry the can, so to speak. My vote for McCain is based on the fact that I don’t feel Obama is up to the job. Now, unless the Obama/Biden presidency is going to mimic the Bush/Cheney type of presidency where Cheney runs the show, I don’t see where Biden makes any difference. Hillary wouldn’t have made a difference, either. I promise never to complain if McCain wins. I never voted for any of the Bushes because I’m not Republican.
By Marjorie C. on 08/23/2008 8:32 am
Dorothy W
Marjorie — I agree to disagree. I don’t trust polls. But I do trust the American People do not want to continue the war in Iraq, bomb Iraq, start war with Russia, more wars, more wars. Bottom line. If McCain wins. You and the so called 18,000,000 Hillary supporters get what you asked for: Continuation of the war in Iraq, bomb Iraq, start war with Russia, more wars, more wars, more economic woes, more job lost, high gas prices etc, more Right Wing Justices on the Supreme Court, etc. etc. etc. Have a good life :)!
By Dorothy W on 08/22/2008 7:26 pm