As campaigns engage in what seems like a battle to roll out the endorsements, Hillary Clinton was pretty diplomatic in talking about her chief opponent Barack Obama’s star surrogate.
“I am a great admirer of Oprah. I mean, she is a great figure in America and I think of her campaigning is certainly her personal decision,” Clinton told the Chicago Sun-Times’ Lynn Sweet.
“But people are going to decide based on the candidates, about our experience and our qualifications, our plans for the future and whether, you know, we actually can bring about the change that we are advocating. Change is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen and I am very much looking forward to have the rest of this campaign focus who can lead starting on Day One.”
She did identify her husband as her own super-surrogate.
But Clinton’s campaign also announced the endorsement of Barbra Streisand on Tuesday, and although it wasn’t much of a surprise, the entertainer wasted little time in going to work for the New York senator.
“Although I’m proud to help her make history, I’m not supporting Hillary only because she’s a woman. I’m supporting her because she’s the most experienced candidate and will give us the leadership we need to move our country forward again,” Streisand writes in a letter e-mailed to supporters and potential donors today.
What’s it all mean? Pat Sajak puts a damper on the endorsement parade, writing on the conservative website Human Events that if “any group of citizens is uniquely unqualified to tell someone else how to vote, it’s those of us who live in the sheltered, privileged arena of celebrityhood. It’s one thing to buy an ab machine because Chuck Norris recommends it (he’s in good shape, isn’t he?) or a grill because George Foreman’s name is on it (he’s a great guy, so it must be a great grill!), but the idea of choosing the Leader of the Free World based on the advice of someone who lives in the cloistered world of stardom seems a bit loony to me.”