.
April 22nd, 2008
04:13 PM ET

Should Clinton quit if she doesn’t win Pa. by at least 10 points?

ALT TEXT
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The winner of today's contest may not necessarily be the candidate who gets the most votes. In other words, all eyes will be on the margin of Hillary Clinton's victory, provided that she wins as expected.

The Los Angeles Times suggests Clinton could win but still lose. If Obama keeps the results closer than expected, he could be considered the winner. Some uncommitted superdelegates say Clinton needs to win by at least 10 points to show she hasn't lost her touch among working-class voters in a state like Pennsylvania.

If Clinton can pull that off in a state where she was outspent by more than 2-to-1, she can then try to persuade uncommitted superdelegates to support her. But if Obama keeps it close or delivers an unexpected win, the pressure will mount on Hillary Clinton to give it up.

Hillary Clinton is in trouble. A recent poll shows Democrats, by 2-to-1, think Obama is the best candidate. Some Democratic elders are starting to call for the nomination process to end sooner rather than later. She is behind in number of pledged delegates, the popular vote and the number of states won – and her once commanding lead among superdelegates is down to fewer than 30 ahead.

Insiders tell the New York Daily News the only way Clinton will drop out soon is if she loses today in Pennsylvania and runs out of money. Speaking of which, it's reported that Clinton's campaign is in debt to the tune of several million dollars.

Here’s my question to you: If Hillary Clinton doesn't win Pennsylvania by at least 10 points, should she quit the race?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Hillary Clinton • PA Primary
April 22nd, 2008
03:16 PM ET

McCain: more important to cut taxes than balance budget

 Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Cutting taxes and stimulating the economy are more important than balancing the budget according to John McCain.

The presumptive Republican nominee is taking issue with the Democrats' suggestion that he's out of touch on the economy. McCain says he'll cut taxes even if it means running up more deficits. McCain thinks it's Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are out of touch since they want to raise taxes during a recession.

McCain says his economic plan is solid, based on extending President Bush's tax cuts – the tax cuts McCain opposed until he got the nomination. Now all of a sudden he thinks they're terrific. He thinks federal spending is the problem and pledges to "scrub" every government agency of wasteful spending. Where have we heard that before?

John McCain is also backing off from his promise to balance the budget by the end of his first term. Flip flop – just like with the Bush tax cuts. Now he says it may take two terms. And by then it will be somebody else's problem.

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that McCain's proposed $650 billion in tax cuts per year – mostly for corporations and upper-income families – would either make the federal deficit "explode" or require unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of all federal spending on domestic programs.

One expert says the chances of McCain cutting spending by that much are "nonexistent." In fact, a study of federal spending going back to 1976 shows there's never been a cut in domestic spending as large as what McCain is proposing.

Here’s my question to you: Do you agree with John McCain that cutting taxes is more important than balancing the budget?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Economy • John McCain
April 22nd, 2008
02:19 PM ET

Do Clinton, Obama owe each other spot on ticket?

ALT TEXT
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has gotten so nasty that it's hard to imagine the two ever teaming up on a so-called "dream ticket." But some Democrats are holding out hope for just that.

The New York Times reports how several high-profile Democrats, like Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, along with some of the uncommitted superdelegates think it's a good idea. Their thinking is it would combine the voter bases of both and be a way to end the nomination race before the party's convention in August.

Aides from the two campaigns don't rule it out, but there are some serious roadblocks. To start with, Clinton and Obama probably can't wait to be done with each other. Obama's camp believes Clinton's baggage and her campaign's negative tone would hurt his message of hope. And the Times, citing unnamed sources, reports former President Bill Clinton thinks the Obama campaign has portrayed him as a race-baiter and bare knuckles campaigner.

Some Clinton aides say she would almost have to offer Obama the V.P. position because of his popularity. And at this point, either candidate could argue they have the right of first refusal on the number two spot.

History gives examples where politicians managed to put their dislike for each other aside for the greater political good. JFK picked LBJ as his running mate, Ronald Reagan selected George Bush and John Kerry chose John Edwards. After all – in the end, it's all about winning, isn't it?

Here’s my question to you: Do Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each owe the other one a spot on the ticket?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: 2008 Election • Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton