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
Very true Marcia, very true. And if a person cares about the issues and cares about this country, says “McCain is going to lead us down the terrible path cleared by George W. Bush.”… yet says they won’t vote for Obama because they wanted Hillary… that actually seems like a very self-centered, self-involved way of looking at a very big picture, narcissistic even. Though one could never accuse a celebrity of narcissim!
By DeBúrca obj on 08/22/2008 12:32 pm
Amelie Poulain
OK Marcia, thank you. I was beginning to wonder about that. That’s the first time I heard anyone say that they were disgusted by McCain’s nomination and were going to vote otherwise. I suspect there will be lots of trading votes that will cancel out the “emotional quotient” involved on both sides. ie: the votes “against” people for varying reasons. Did anyone watch the CNN Presents mini-docs on both Obama and McCain this week?
By Amelie Poulain on 08/22/2008 10:51 pm
DeBúrca obj
OK, I’ve gotten through this whole interview complete with eye rolls and yelling at my computer screen and all I can say is that I am on pins and needles waiting to hear who Wayne Newton wants McCain to choose for his VP.
By DeBúrca obj on 08/22/2008 11:10 am
Wafaa El  Jusmani
One of the most significant elements in the U.S. political system is its checks and balances. Even when matters seem to take hold and will be almost insurmountable, the agility of these checks and balances allows and disallows the shell to become too rigid, that is most certainly in its favour. As for celebrities supporting politicians, well I thinnk that again is part and parcel of that positive factor called the social contract. They, celebrities, have the effect of attracting swift attention to issue that politicians alone may not succeed in doing. The fact that they are American gives them extra value added and have become part of the reform valve needed to readjust the imbalances in D.C. as well as the politcal system as a whole.
By Wafaa El Jusmani on 08/22/2008 11:18 am
My Two Cents
Sorry to say this but I think it was women ( and the media) that prevented Hilllary from being nominated. Women need to back a women in order to ever get one elected! I have always liked Cher,I have never thought of her as an expert on politics but her guess is as good as any. Obama is announcing his choice tomorrow, don’t think it will be HRC.
By My Two Cents on 08/22/2008 11:20 am
K O
Your opinion about women and the media preventing Senator Clinton from being nominated is interesting, MTC. If you’d care to elaborate, I’d be interested in knowing what makes you believe that.
By K O on 08/22/2008 11:39 am
My Two Cents
I learned from reading WOW that a lot of people (both men and women) don’t care for HRC and wouldn’t vote for her. I don’t know her and don’t agree with everything she says or does but given the choices, I would have thought more women would have been willing to give her a chance. She does have experience, she is a smart women and she has worked hard to get to where she is. The more women we have in positions of power the better the chance for other women to be appointed to other positions. This is just my opinion. We have to do better than what we have had in the last eight years ! With the delegate votes and caucuses which I don’t begin to understand, the popular vote may not make any difference at all.
By My Two Cents on 08/22/2008 2:13 pm
K O
Thanks, MTC!
By K O on 08/22/2008 4:17 pm
DeBúrca obj
Women need to back the person they think will do the best job whatever their sex or race. Men need to back the person they think will do the best job whatever their sex or race..
By DeBúrca obj on 08/22/2008 12:09 pm
Marjorie C.
My Two Cents, It was some women (Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile, etc.), the media (even PBS was slanted at times) and a rigged primary (caucuses come to mind) that worked against Clinton, and despite it all, she captured the most votes in the biggest states (Texas, California, N.Y., etc) and the all important swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania and Indiana. She was a trooper — no one could have worked harder. In the end, the DNC hands the nomination over to Obama. Hard to fathom. But, if women ever want to be more than second place, they have to work together. Then men will not hand it to them, nor should they.
By Marjorie C. on 08/22/2008 12:29 pm
EKA -
Exactly HOW were the caucuses Rigged ??? My suspicion is because your candidate did not win it MUST have been rigged ! Mark Penn & Hillary paid no attention to the caucusus, Obama did, he won… simple as that. You could not win the primary by paying attention to just the big states, which Hillary did, so she lost. PERIOD. Your mind will never be changed though, i suspect. Yes, she did work hard, admirable… but too little, too late.
By EKA - on 08/22/2008 1:19 pm
Marjorie C.
EKA, the caucuses were stuffed with Obama activists to the point that ordinary folks were often intimidated, but even with that Obama never got to the number of pledged state delegates that he needed to win the primary. Neither did Hillary. They both received about 18,000,000 votes. Hillary did not lose, she was not selected by the Super Delegates. At the convention, the Super Delegates could easily flip the thing over to her side, although I don’t think they will. They will stick with Obama and McCain will be our next president.
By Marjorie C. on 08/22/2008 5:12 pm
EKA -
I guess it comes down to point of view… anyone could have showed up at the caucuses. The Obama campaign had such a good grass roots organization, which Hillary could have done , by the way, if Mark Penn had been paying attention, that he got more people to come out. That’s Democracy in action. If she had done a better job I would have called them “Hillary Activists” The difference came with the young people, who showed up in droves, who are way over the “first woman” mystique. I know because my son took part in his first caucus, in CO. He’s no activist, he was just for Obama.
By EKA - on 08/22/2008 6:25 pm
DeBúrca obj
Agreed EKA… the caucuses were FILLED with Obama supporters because Obama focussed on those caucus states for one, and because the Obama supporters were full of enthusiasm… saying they were STUFFED with Obama supporters implies something illegal or underhanded. The last time I checked running a better campaign is neither illegal nor underhanded.
By DeBúrca obj on 08/22/2008 6:49 pm
Linda Mason
Right on, DeBurca! Nor is running a better campaign sexist! By the way, if I find out Wayne Newton’s pick for McCain’s running mate, I’ll let you know!
By Linda Mason on 08/22/2008 7:54 pm