Spielberg, with his wife Kate, at this year's Oscars.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Sen. Hillary Clinton has won the backing of movie director Steven Spielberg, her presidential campaign announced Wednesday.
Spielberg is a longtime supporter of the New York senator and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, but he and his wife, actress Kate Capshaw, have made campaign contributions this year to all three Democratic frontrunners: Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, and former Sen. John Edwards. The Academy Award-winning director and producer has also hosted or co-hosted high-profile fundraising events for both Clinton and Obama.
"I’ve taken the time to familiarize myself with the impressive field of Democratic candidates and am convinced that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House," Spielberg said in a statement. “Hillary is a strong leader and is respected the world over. As president, she will bring America back together, rebuild our prestige abroad and ensure our protection here at home.”
David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, who co-founded the DreamWorks movie studio with Spielberg, have endorsed Obama.
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Apparently Mr. Spielberg hasn't read the book written by the FBI agent who witnessed what the White House was like during the time the Clinton's were in office.
Ms. Sturgeon: For middle class America the White House during the Clinton administration was the source of a great ecomony along with no deficits – indeed, a surplus, and a status in the world of great prominance. Do yourself a favor and don't let your little mind get bogged down with smut. It is so counter-productive.
Also Ms.Sturgeon, Clinton worked for peace (Northern Ireland conflict is now coming to a peaceful end due to such efforts over time) engaged with the palestinians and Iraq was a better place for America and for Iraqis. Our soldiers and the thousands of Iraqis who lost their lives (our military's own estimate) would possibly have been alive today and we would command respect as a super power... and most importantly you will have gossip about the white house to read to keep you happy not war and destruction all around.
Is this really news!? Who cares who some movie director supports? Are people really going to vote for Clinton because Speilberg says he likes her? And, how conceited is Speilberg that he thinks it makes a difference who he says he supports? BTW, I'm John and I support anyone but Hillary Clinton. Let's see if that makes the news.
Mr. Spielberg: As I wrote to Los Angeles Mayor Villariagosa when he announced his backing for her, "Are you CRAZY?" Her Socialism will be the downfall of this great nation. THEN you can cry when you don't have your freedom of speech. I'd love to vote for a woman, but definitely not this one!
Steven Spielberg is not brilliant for nothing! He knows class and brilliance when he sees it with regard to politics and Hillary Clinton. Spielberg for Vice-President! And Go Hillary!
Yes I agree with you John...Americans should NOT care what a billionaire has to say about a candidate.
It should be about what is best for the average American middle class citizen.
Not what is best for a high-roller billionaire.
The mere fact he publicly endorsed her, makes me feel skeptical as to why.
Usually someone with that much financial and industry influence wants something in return.
Hillary deserves the endorsement, because she has the intelligence and skills to lead this country. Spielber's endorsement is huge, because he is powerful, and can raise money like wind. He is also the most talented director in American history. Hillary is our "iron lady," like U.K.'s Margaret Thatcher, and for Ms. Sturgeon, the politcs of smear and hogwash is over. Stop smearing. Stop misogyny and bigotry.
Democrats love to point out the phantom budget "surplus", but all it really means is that they planned to spend more than they actually did. It also means that the mob of incompetents that we call our Federal Government had their hands on WAY more of my money than I am comfortable with. Aside from that, what use is a budget surplus of a few billion dollars when you are 5+ trillion dollars in debt? During the Clinton administration, congress also raided the Social Security funds, like every administration has since inception of that dubious program, to contribute to their budget. If congress hadn't appropriated the Social Security money, there would have been a serious budget deficit. I it irks me to hear anyone talk about a surplus, under any administration, when the national debt still went up (the national debt went up $1. 6 trillion under Clinton). It is worth noting, however, that the national debt TRIPLED ($900B to $2.9T) under the Regan Administration, increased $1.4 trillion ($2.6T to $4.0T) under the Bush Sr.'s 4-year administration, and nearly DOUBLED ($5.6T to $9.8T) again under the current Bush administration, which does make the Clinton administration look pretty damn thrifty by comparison. In the last 50 years, there have been only two years (1957 and 1969) that we actually reduced our national debt at all. Every administration since just before the great depression has been grotesquely negligent with our nations finances and they should all be ashamed of themselves. The fact of the matter is that all of these guys make the infamous Enron execs look like petty shoplifters.
* All of my figures can be verified by the White House's own budgetary figures.
Get off of the Hollywood hating! They are American citizens as well and have the same rights as all of you complainers to speak their mind. This is America after all.
Hillary is the best candidate with the most experience to lead us from day one when she gets to the White House. It is a fact and no matter how much you Clinton haters try to color that it can not be erased.
The 1990's were the best years that this country has had in a long time. It was a blast! We had millions of GOOD jobs created, we had surpluses, and the world looked at us with respect.
After almost 8 years of Bush...well just look around you and look at how the world views us now. Need I say more?
I look forward to 2009!
While this may seem obvious to many of us, apparently some of you don't understand, so I'm going to state it in plain English: Hillary isn't Bill.
Their views on the economy, the country, and the world in general are not the same. I've read plenty of quotes from Hillary Clinton that made her seem like the least Democratic of all the Democratic candidates. Hillary certainly doesn't have the tremendous speaking ability that her husband has. Not only is she pandering to the middle during this campaign, but her lack of profound speaking ability leaves her pandering obviously revealed for all to see and scrutinize.
First Ladies get absolutely no more political power than any other citizen. Wives have a general ability to influence their husbands' decisions, but does anybody here really think that Hillary had enough power over Bill to persuade him to do anything? We can talk all we want about how great things were during the Bill Clinton administration, but he can never be the president again. First Lady Bill will have no more power than First Lady Hillary had, so while it will be nice to have Bill in the White House again, it simply won't be the same.
All that being said, I'd much rather have the Clintons back in the White House than any of the CONS.
Good for Hillary !!
And as for ol' Barb who led off the comments, maybe if she "got some" she wouldn't be so uptight about things.
Hillary Clinton is our Margaret Thatcher?? You've got to be kidding. This is the problem with too many Democrats....they know nothing.
Hillary and Margaret share the same gender but that's as close as the comparison gets. Margaret stood for principles...like freedom and personal responsibilty. She stared down the Soviet Union with Reagan, fighting communism. Clinton wants to surrender to Islamic facists. Call it 'withdrawl' or 'letting the Iraqis solve it' is a euphamism for running with your tail between your legs. We'd let Iraq become like Algeria in the 60s, running away like France did (which caused massive problems years later).
The Democratic party doesn't stand for anything right now, there is no vision, no global vision and a very transparent domestic vision. Clinton is not a leader, I'm sorry. She may command presence and attention but there's little substance behind her politician persona.
Very few candidates on either side of the aisle have a good vision either. As bungled as Bush's war policy has become, he has given America a stance in this fight against Islamic facisim.
Do we turn a blind eye to:
-1993 WTC attack in NYC
-Twin African embassy attacks
-USS Cole attack
-Saudi Arabia disco bombing
-German disco bombing
-London transit attacks
-Madrid train bombings
-Chechnyan school massacre
Terrorism as tool of Islamic facists didn't begin with 9/11 and won't end if we leave Iraq. But maybe I'm wrong.
For me personally, I want a leader who isn't afraid to draw a line in the sand, whether its the security of the US in a direct threat, or threatening global peace and security. We have to stand for something, not just take the easiest route so people don't criticize us. Wanting to be 'popular' with the globabl community is a fools errand. there are better things to do with our time and effort.
Jason, no one will read your comments because they're too long and (yawn)...
Wait a minute...so Hollywood Democrats cannot participate in the democratic process by exercising their rights as free American citizens to air their political views as they choose, but Hollywood Republicans (see President Reagan and Gov. Terminator) get to run for and win office? The hypocrisy of conservatives never ceases to amaze me. Funny how they don't mind it when right-wing billionaires launch wars for personal gain, but god forbid a liberal billionaire simply release a press statement. More reason why the GOP is on it's way out the door. The jig is up, hypocrites!
David, it has nothing to do with them being "free American citizens". It has more to do with how the media acts like their views and recommendations are the only true views. If they were treated like normal citizens, I wouldn't have a problem.
How much air time do you think I would get if I proclaimed, " I support Mike Huckabee for presidency"? None. Because the news media doesn't care who the average American supports.
I think its great if celebrities want to move attention to places like Sudan, but its gotta stop somewhere, and the poliical arena is the place to stop.
Regardless, I am fine with celebrities speaking out, but when they get major headlines saying, "George Clooney says this!", or "Angelina Jolie supports this cause", there is a problem. If celebrities want to be treated like normal citizens, they need to act like them, and the press needs to stop doing breaking news segments about what they say. The media is supposed to be for everyone not just celebrities.
So in part, I guess I blame the news media more than the celebrities. Celebrities' words should be treated just like any other persons.
Spielberg, Schmielberg! Who cares? Will Paris Hilton be next? Will she make her endorsement from prison? Perhaps Hillary will fly out to Las Vegas for Paris' getting out of jail party. I am a proud democrat and I believe that the majority of democrats just don't get it. '08 is our best shot at winning the White House in a long time. For the last time people: Hillary cannot win a general election!
So Spielberg, the man who turned down the oscar contender "Memoirs of a Geisha" so he could direct Tom Cruise in the box office flop "War of the Worlds", has decided to endorse Ms. Clinton? Another brilliant move Mr. Spielberg.
I don't take Spielberg's advice. I hope he doesn't think he has any influence over voters. He should pray that his heart attack doesn't stop him from voting.
Now do we get a Movie about Hill and Billary ?
Yet another puff piece from CNN. Not even a mention of the issues in which Spielberg is interested, or the reasons he might give people to vote for Clinton. The bromides he throws out (responsible, strong, rebuild prestige, qualified) are meaningless without follow-up questions.
Of course, this would demand that reporters actually have some intellectual curiosity that would lead them to ask questions. Apparently, they do not. They would rather write a 100-word puff piece focusing on Spielberg's celebrity status than actually delve into the issues.
This begs a more obvious question: why should a voter care about Spielberg's endorsement or that of any celebrity?