Streisand versus Winfrey

AOG, Madrid

What is the Democratic party trying to sell us? A return to a good past or a leap towards a better future?

The jury is still out.

On the "Obamaic" camp, the future is bright and we gotta wear shades. Color Purple shades. Somehow, our Senator from Illinois has managed to get Oprah Winfrey onboard. Ms. Winfrey, probably the best symbol forward-thinking middle America has, has decided, first time ever, to back a (audacious) politician.

Barely a day after Barack Obama's campaign announced Oprah will stump with their candidate next month comes word that Hillary Clinton has snared her own celebrity endorser.

On the "Gin & (Clin)tonic” camp, Hilary has Barbra Streisand by her side. Ms. Streisand, ever the eternal liberal, represents to many a return to a not-too-distant, happier past: the interregnum between the Bushes, shall we say.

The economy was booming, the Cold War was over. The US was not at war with anyone, and it was not about to let something as meaningless as the Ugandan Genocide, or Bosnia, shatter its prosperity.

Nonetheless, life was good, gas was cheap, and the whole Lewinski thing was a hoot.

So which way will the Democratic party turn? Will it audaciously leap forward towards a brighter tomorrow or will it hark back to ancient Clintonian times?

The political calculations will argue that some voters are dumb enough to vote for a celebrity-endorsed politician; after all, Washington is Hollywood for ugly people, as they say.

But, in what appears to be a close race, by listening to Winfrey or Streisand, people will stick around long enough to listen and/or learn about the candidate they endorse.