Look, everyone likes Oprah. She's smart, she's fun, she's relatable and – aside from that awkward James Frey kerfuffle – she even has good taste in books. So the only way for Hillary Clinton to combat Oprah on the pulpit is with the only other pseudo-political figure everyone can agree on: Chelsea Clinton.

In addition to possessing a relatively benign personality coupled with moderately hot Jewess appeal, Chelsea appeals to everyone who's ever endured a prolonged "awkward" phase.

Remember when she was only 13 and had those heinous braces, and was so excited about her dad running for president that she didn't even stop to think about how her privacy would be ruined and her pubescence uncomfortably exploited? Fast forward to the present: She never drinks and drives, she's well-spoken and impeccably dressed, and she's even learned to tame her trademark frizzy hair with the aid of an ionic hairdryer.

So what does all this have to do with Oprah? Despite both women's brand name appeal, perceived political clout and affinity for unflattering camera angles, neither one was particularly at home on the campaign trail.

Chelsea seemed ill at ease striving to find common ground with working class Iowans, whereas Oprah pompously described Barack Obama as "a politician who has an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth." Sure, the tongue part sounds all well and good, but when you think about it, what does unvarnished truth really taste like?

And unpalatable tastes aside, time's running out for both the Democratic frontrunners, and their respective lobbyists. And with the constituents divided on the issues and Iowa caucus only a few weeks a way, only time (and a few unpretentious Midwesterners) will determine whose political endorsement – Chelsea's or Oprah's – carries more weight.