.
March 10th, 2008
05:55 PM ET

Will Spitzer have to resign?

ALT TEXT
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is apologizing to his family and the public for a personal matter he's not giving details on.

But the New York Times reported that Spitzer told advisers he was involved in a prostitution ring. Apparently the governor was caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a prostitute at a Washington hotel.

Keep in mind, this is a guy who pledged to bring ethics reform to the state's capital. Back when he was attorney general, Time magazine named him "Crusader of the Year" and the tabloids dubbed him "Eliot Ness." What is it about politicians and illicit sex?

Former President Bill Clinton tried to cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal, repeatedly declaring his innocence and insisting he "did not have sexual relations with that woman” before he was eventually impeached by the House.

A few years ago, New Jersey's Governor Jim McGreevey, also a married father, resigned after revealing he was gay and had an affair with a man, a former employee whom he had named as head the state's Office of Homeland Security.

Then there was Congressman Mark Foley. He also resigned after reports that he had sent racy e-mails to at least one underage male page.

And we have Larry Craig, who is still a member in good standing of the United States Senate, despite the fact that he was arrested in the Minneapolis Airport after cruising the men's room there trying to solicit sex from an undercover cop.

Why do politicians think they can hide this kind of stuff from the public and get away with it?

Here’s my question to you: Will New York Governor Eliot Spitzer have to resign after a report that he’s involved in a prostitution ring?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Eliot Spitzer
March 10th, 2008
05:01 PM ET

McCain’s melanoma an issue?

 U.S. Sen. John McCain greets supporters during his campaign stop in West Palm Beach, Florida.

U.S. Sen. John McCain greets supporters during his campaign stop in West Palm Beach, Florida.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

John McCain sometimes jokes that he has "more scars than Frankenstein." But these scars are actually a serious reminder of the surgery the Republican nominee for president had in 2000 for melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer.

When McCain ran for president 8 years ago, he opened up his medical history for the public to see, including 1,500 pages of medical and psychiatric records that the Navy used to track the health of former POWs. But so far in this campaign, McCain hasn't made his full medical records public. The campaign says it expects to do so next month.

One of the doctors who got a look at McCain's medical records back in 1999 wrote a piece in The New York Times about the Arizona senator's history of melanoma. McCain has in fact had 4 melanomas... the most serious one was spotted on his temple in 2000. He had the surgery then to determine whether the melanoma had spread to a lymph node in his neck.

The results suggested no evidence that it spread, and McCain's campaign has said recently that there's been no spread detected in the 3 or 4 check-ups he's had every year since then. They add that his doctors consider him in "very good health."

Nonetheless, McCain could become the oldest person ever elected to a first term as president. And the health of a 72-year-old president is something that has probably crossed the minds of many voters.

Here’s my question to you: How much of an issue is John McCain's history of melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: John McCain
March 10th, 2008
02:17 PM ET

Why are Clintons pushing Hillary-Obama ticket?

ALT TEXT
Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton participate in the televised CNN/LA Times/Politico Democratic Debate in January 2008. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's called chutzpah, and Hillary Clinton has it to spare. The woman who is behind Barack Obama in states won, pledged delegates and popular vote is suggesting she might consider putting Barack Obama on the Democratic ticket with her as her vice presidential candidate.

Since her wins in Texas and Ohio, Hillary Clinton has twice referenced the idea. And over the weekend, Bill Clinton chimed in saying that the pair would make "an almost unstoppable force." It's all very interesting since the odds are quite good Clinton will not be the nominee and Obama will.

In today's New York Daily News, columnist Michael Goodwin writes: "It's a dream team all right, as in dream on. It's a fantasy because, in the Clintons' pitch, naturally, she is on top of the ticket and Obama is her No. 2. That's rich of her, considering that Obama leads in both the delegate race and the popular vote. Forget those pesky voters – Hillary has declared herself the winner!"

Goodwin calls it a sign of desperation on Clinton's part and compares her to a con artist trying to sell a house she doesn't own. He says the joint ticket offer looks like an olive branch, when it's really a knife aimed at cutting Obama down to size.

For his part, the front-runner Obama calls the whole thing "premature”, saying he's won twice as many states as Clinton, more of the popular vote and thinks he can hold onto the delegate lead.

And there is a rather large irony in all this. Hillary Clinton has spent most of the campaign saying Barack Obama isn't experienced enough to be president. But now all of a sudden, she's promoting him as a potential vice president… just a heart beat away from the top office.

Here’s my question to you: Why would Hillary Clinton, who is behind, keep talking about being on the same ticket with Barack Obama, who is ahead?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton