FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
He probably wouldn't appreciate the comparison - but Mitt Romney just might turn out to be the Hillary Clinton of 2012.
Politico talked to veterans of the Clinton campaign who pointed out "eerie" similarities between the two campaigns.
"Romney has followed the Clinton playbook so closely ... you'd think she won her party's nomination," the former aides told Politico. Another former Clinton adviser talks of suffering "PTSD" when an Iowa poll showed Romney in third place.
Both Clinton in 2008 and now Romney in 2012 were "supposed to" be their party's nominees - both well-funded and establishment-blessed candidates. Clinton lost to Barack Obama in that bruising, drawn-out battle, while Romney faces a more-than-serious threat from Newt Gingrich.
Here are some other similarities:
Where Clinton took a stand on her vote to authorize the Iraq war, Romney has refused to apologize for the health care mandate in Massachusetts, which some Republicans see as a fatal flaw.
Both Clinton and Romney initially ran cautious campaigns, trying to stay above the fray. When it didn't work - they went negative.
And both suffered a major debate gaffe: For Clinton, it was a muddled answer she gave on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. For Romney, it's the now-infamous $10,000 bet.
But there are also differences.
While Romney has faced a series of opponents, from Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry, Herman Cain and now Gingrich, the Clinton team battled what they saw as a Kennedyesque, once-in-a-generation politician - Barack Obama.
Another difference that could work in Romney's favor: Clinton's rival, Obama, had an extensive organization in the later-voting states. Romney doesn't have to worry about that.
Lastly, there is that chance for Romney to win this thing if Gingrich self-destructs, something Clinton's people never expected Obama to do - and he didn't.
Here’s my question to you: Is Mitt Romney the Hillary Clinton of 2012?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Jim in Cranford, New Jersey:
I think you are insulting Hillary Clinton. In 2008, Democrats weren't looking for an alternative to Hillary Clinton; they were looking for an alternative to George Bush. Today, Republicans are more worried about finding an alternative to Mitt Romney than a replacement for President Obama.
Good question. I was among those who thought Hillary Clinton was a lock for the nomination in 2008. But this situation is different. In 2008, the Democratic Party was trying to win, and they let the chips fall where they may. In 2012, The Republican Party establishment is desperate to lose, so they are backing the best candidate available, ( Romney), to accomplish the goal.
Terry in Virginia:
No. That's an insult to Mrs. Clinton. When she was a candidate, her positions didn't change like the wind. However, there is an apt comparison with how the media treated Mrs. Clinton and how it treats Mr. Romney.
Mel in Houston:
I see no comparison at all except for the fact that Hillary was the early front-runner until Obama gained his voice. She had no record to run against like Romney. She didn't fiip flop around like a tiny catfish on a pier. You knew you could trust her because she was basically espousing the same ideas as Bill Clinton. No one trusts a person that speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
Romney = Clinton = Gingrich = Obama = Bush.
Ron Paul = Thomas Jefferson = Prophet. Remember Dr. Paul called the financial collapse back in 2001!
Michael on Facebook:
Only if Ron Paul is the Barack Obama. Newt, by the way, is the Howard Dean of 2012. Mitt is more the Bob Dole of 2012.
No, Romney does not have the depth of experience, this makes him a professional canidate not politian.
Do you mean "Is Mitt a 'shoo-in' who was 'shooed-out' " ? Or is this some sort of obtuse reference to pants suits?
The only similarity I can see between Romney's overall political situation of the 2011 campaign year and Clinton's overall political situation in 2007-08 is that both felt themselves highly qualified and neither was. There, of course, is no reason that they should feel this way.
Mitt Romney cant stand in the shadow of Hilary Clinton. First he would have to decide which side to stand next to, (he tends to flip). Its like comparing Barry Goldwater to John Kennedy.
There are two reasons why Mitt isn't the Hillary of 2012.
1. Mitt doesn't have and never has had the Republican nomination in his pocket.
2. Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy, and Newt Gingrich is no Barack Obama.
Absolutely not, he couldn't hold a candle to Hillary Clinton, what a question.
Bite your tongue!
No. Mitt Romney isn't even the Mitt Romney of 2012. But seriously, when Hilary ran Democrats weren't looking for reality TV hosts and semi-literates as alternatives.
I see no comparison at all except for the fact that Hillary was the early front runner until Obama gained his voice. She had no record to run against like Romney. She didn't fiip flop around like a tiny catfish on a pier. You knew you could trust her because she was basically espousing the same ideas as Bill Clinton. No one trusts a person that speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
It may still be a bit early to predict who will be the Republician Nominee but I suspect Romney will be on the Ticket. Reagan and Bush disagreed quite a bit before Reagan picked him. If Newt is the Nominee, he may just well pick Romney to be VP. And I don't think Romney looks anything like What's her Name !
Jack, I think Romney has more problems than Hillary ever had, because his constantly reversing positions on key issues is being exposed by GOP opponents and the DNC. Plus, he just doesn't come through on speaking ability. He seems stiff, cold and unfriendly. I think he is better than Gingrich, but that's not saying much.
No Jack, Mitt Romney is not as intelligent as Hillary Clinton. A better comparison would be Mitt Romney to George Bush Jr. They both made millions of dollars in the private sector by bankrupting companies and devastating worker's pensions. And they would both do or say anything to maintain our government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
You rightly say, "... there is that chance for Romney to win this thing if Gingrich self-destructs." And that can only happen, if the Earth continues to revolve, if we're not hit by an asteroid, and the sun avoids a super nova.
Jack,Interesting question.I suppose that could be but I am not sure.
I think it's different – Mitt's trying to gain acceptance from a bunch of people who just do not like him and yet he keeps coming back to them for the rejection again and again.
Romney = Clinton = Gingrich = Obama = Bush....
Ron Paul = Thomas Jefferson = Prophet
Remember Dr. Paul called the financial collapse back in 2001!
I'm just not seeing it, Jack.
I would say yes. He also reminds me John Edwards. They haven't really got into his closet yet what is in there could finish him in a heart beat.
Jack: The only thing that Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton have in common is that they were both candidates for the Office of President of the United States. Mrs. Clinton is smarter, holds to her convictions, speaks better in public, and is better looking than Mitt. Mitt Romney might be richer than Mrs. Clinton, but I think Mitt has more trouble looking into a mirror than Mrs. Clinton. How did Mitt Romney make those 100's of million? Who did he hurt?
Only if Ron Paul is the Barack Obama. Newt, by the way, is the Howard Dean of 2012. Mitt is more the Bob Dole of 2012.
You've come up with a pretty good analogy Jack. Romney's emulating Clinton in many ways - the initial favorite, a subsequent slip, then overtaken by a surprising underdog. And nobody can deny both Obama and Gingrich were initial underdogs. And, since both of these guys have hairs hanging all over them, it would make the winner the best of the worst.
Gary in Scottsdale, Arizona
Good question. I was among those who thought, Hillary Clinton was a lock, for the nomination in 2008. But this situation is different. In 2008 the Democratic Party was tring to win, and they let the chips fall where they may. In 2012, The Republican Party Establishment is desparate to lose, so they are backing the best candidate available, ( Romney), to accomplish the goal. So I will double down on Romney winning the Republican Nomination, and losing to Obama in the final. Doug. Pepperell, MA.
I gues we'll find out when it comes time for the Republican primary.
No. That's an insult to Mrs. Clinton. When she was a candidate, her positions didn't change like the wind. However, there is an apt comparison with how the media treated Mrs. Clinton and how it treats Mr. Romney. It's a shame media pundits would rather tell voters how to vote than provide just the facts to let the voters decide for themselves who best represents them.
Romney is probably the most electable of the Republican candidates, so the more he does to alienate Republican primary voters, the better :-). The Republicans will put up a crazy person like Newt instead, and lose the general election.
Obama gets a second term.
The nation is saved.
I "know" Senator Clinton.......Willard is no Senator/Sect. of State Clinton!!
Romney is the "Romney" of 2012. The fact that he is a Mormon is what the Republican Party detests. They believe that if they gave him the backing he needs, then that would legitimize his choice of faith, thereby making themselves guilty by association. "Anybody but Newt", should be the new battle cry of the right wingers.
If it means Romney doesn't end up with the nomination, then he could be a "goat rodeo clown" for all I care. Romney is a poor mix of the worst traits of Bush pere and Jimmy Carter, and he would be worse as President than Obama has been for the exact same reason – he thinks he knows more than he actually does.
I wouldn't even wish that association on anyone, in the first place.
Hillary would have been as bad, or worse, than Obama.
If Gingrich gets the nomination I will officially start to believe in the End Times. I'm not kidding. Anyone who thinks this guy will doing anything good for anything is delusional. The only way that guy gets the nomination is if there actually is a God in heaven who wants the devil to start WWIII...
I think you are insulting Hillary Clinton. In 2008 Democrats weren't looking for an alternative to Hillary Cinton; they were looking for an alternative to George Bush. Today, Republicans are more worried about finding an alternative to Mitt Romney than a replacement for President Obama.
No way! He's the wrong sex, religion, party and a host of other things.
PLEASE Jack!! Mitt Romney can't hold a candle to Hillary. She has been a successful lawyer and she has both lived and operated in and from the White House for a period of 8 years. Mitt Romney has to get a visitors pass from the Secret Service to get in the White House. Hillary was elected to serve as the U. S Senator for the state of New York which is a tad larger than New Hampshire. And finally, she has been appointed as Secretary of State for the United States (She could become Vice President if some of us have our way) which is a pretty powerful position. Romney has not been able to get him self elected or appointed to any national offices. Jack your comparison question is like comparing apples to clementines.
Yes, in the sense that he's pulling the political debate further to the right and Obama plays his part by squelching any real liberal policies while they both work for the bilderbergers and wall street neocons. It's a good show though.
mitt romney is nothing like hillary clinton she had a vocal base of support and people who still think she should be president!! romney has nothing like this hillary2012!!
Jack,more like the Bob Dole of 2012,and just as boring!
Yes, because both are hated by the Republican party.
he is not in the same class as Hillary Clinton. no republican is in the same class as her. he has not loss yet.
No because the GOP has to understand Newt will not be elected president. While I may vote for Mitt, I certainly will not vote for Newt.
If you mean will he lose, then yes, he's the Hillary of 2012.
No Mitt Romney is not the Hillary Clinton of 2012. Mitt Romney and his camp do not consider the 10,000 dollar bet in Saturday's debate to be a gaffe. If Romney seems out of touch, because of the bet, Gingrich supporters should think back to statements Gingrich has actually made about poor people.. When Gingrich and Romney are through, if Gingrich is the nominee, he would not offer, nor would Romney accept, a cabinet position, like Hillary did,. after Barack Obama was elected.
Mitt Romney has been preparing for the presidential run since 2008. he will not be Hillary Clinton of 2012. He will out maneuver Gingrich in the end and gets the republican nomination to face off President Obama. I think he will lose there.
No way, Jack. There may be similarities to this point, but Newt is not going to be the candidate. He may be kissing conservative behinds now in Iowa, but there are too many people elsewhere in this country that remember his outrageous exit from Congress and take his 3 marriage scenario, particularly his infidelity, more seriously then the Iowa crowd apparently does. Didn't someone say they were conservative Christians? You wouldn't know it now. Newt will do himself in long before the GOP convention.
But during the Democratic nomination...the democrats didn't have the sentiment of "anybody but Hillary" as with the Republicans who seem to suggest that they want anybody but Romney.
Mitt is more like the Walter Mondale of 2011. No one's excited at all. Or he's like Howard Dean; initial enthusiasm waned quickly. Maybe he's the Gumby of 2011, stretching into whatever shape the voters expect?
After almost having the required electoral votes early in the 2008 primary, Obama coasted across the finish line just barely getting the needed electoral votes. The last half of the primary Obama did not do well at all. I remember how I sweated that one out.
Romney appears to be starting the 2012 primary like Clinton.
Is Romney going to do great in the back stretch, but just not quite get enough votes.
I say that Romney will be different, and will win instead without a sweat.
That would be true except Hilary is so much smarter
If he wins the nomination then yes. He will go up against Obama............Game over.
Alan T. Wilmington.NC
They are not similar. Romney hasn't even messed up. That "gaffe" is a media fixation, not a public concern. Clinton lost because she was perceived as cold and calculating. Romney is losing because he isn't perceived as conservative enough. This comparison is a stretch.
Romney is nothing like Clinton. The race between Clinton and Obama was clear. Democrats would be happy with either of the candidates. The problem is Republicans are not happy with Newt or Romney!
Jack, your Hillary obsessed. But that's ok, so am I because she totally rocks!!!!
I think both Romney and Clinton went into their campaigns thinking they had things sewed up. Both thought they could breeze through the campaign without having to mix it up. Both were well organized and had the money. But in Romney's case he has the tea party to contend with and their extreme right-wing views. He has as much liberal past from being governor of Massachusetts as Gingrich has a dirty past from being speaker the house. But the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party doesn't care as much about someone's dirty past as a do about what they consider liberal views when they were in office.
How dare you speak the name of Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton in the same breath. I have no love of either Clinton, but they have turned out and proven themselves to be far better people than most Republicans these days and especially Romney.
While there are certainly some similarities there are more differences. The one thing Clinton and Romney have in common is called the Pied piper effect. They are not popular among voters and it does not mater how good they talk and how well they rehearse the lines the delivery falls flat each and every time and only few will follow them.. In politics it is all about popularity, charisma and charm and blowing your own horn to the magical tune that makes people listen. Once you sell the masses on those notes they will follow you like mice to the waters edge and jump in.
No. The analogy breaks down quickly. Another key difference: Romney is widely viewed as the Republican candidate with the best chance of defeating Obama in 2012. In all major polls, Romney ranks ahead of Gingrich on that issue. Many Republicans fear that Gingrich's past foibles, his past indiscretions, and his frequent bombastic statements will be his inevitable downfall against smooth-talking Obama. In the last presidential election, the voting public did not have that same fear about Obama vis-a-vis McCain, and Hillary was not widely viewed as the candidate with the best shot at beating McCain.
Hillary had the Bill & Hill Clinton fatigue to contend with against a fresh new face. Romney has MItt fatigue against a cranky saggy one. That's a big difference. I hope.
Carol in Northampton MA
Jack, I think Romney is the John Edwards of 2012, in that he is going to come in third. Behind Ron Paul and Newty.
Jack If Romney 12 is Hillary 08 then Will Newt will be Kerry 04 or Obama 08?
Romey may need o change the Campain to Romney 2016 after Iowa.
Nope. Mitt Romney is not a Clinton by any stretch and will end up getting the nod. Whether or not he beats Obama, thats a new chapter in his run
If Governor Rick Perry was a better debater, then the answer would be yes, but right now, no Mitt Romney isn't the Hillary Clinton of 2012 because there is no Barack Obama on the Republican Pack. As I said, Rick Perry COULD have been the GOP Obama, but he has foot in mouth disease.
Ha, this is funny. I dont think hes really that similar to Hillary because I think hes done well and will win the nom
Clinton was a train wreck of a candidate. It wasn't just one gaffe, it was a gaffe per day ratio leading up to her self destructing coup de grace, the sniper fire lie. She was horrendous, whereas Romney is just flat. He won't make any mistakes near her magnitude. But he doesn't really have any chance of winning the GOP nod. He never did, whereas she had a chance, if only she didn't have to talk on the campaign trail.
I certainly hope not! If Gingrich gets the nomination ultimately the Republican Party will be having buyers remorse because he will not be able to beat Obama. Romney has the better chance. That's why Obama is attacking Romney because he wants to run against Gingrich. Remember how the public is now having buyers remorse after not giving the nomination to Hillary. Republican buyers–Beware.
If he sits in a restaurant and cries why did I say that, you betcha Jack.
What a comparison Jack, You have got to be kidding ! Hillary's misstep in the debates wasn't her down fall. The downfall occured when she lost composure, on TV that night in Ohio, complaining about some Obama Political flier. Then was when she lost a large percentage voters that value stability in a President. That said, I don't think anyone had a real chance of beating Obama, he was just too believable and convincing. Romney has made no mistakes the 10,000 bet, isn't nothing. He showed Perry, put up or shut up, and it worked. Why Romney is disliked by so many of his fellow Republicans, is because he is a Mormon and there is a certain belief that Mormons have, that evangelicals will never allow themselves to vote for such a candidate. If Romney ends up being the GOP Candidate, Obama will thrash the GOP,for that reason and independents will never forget how Bush,destroyed our country for than a decade now and things aren't getting better anytime soon with the current Republican obstructionists. Progressive Mitt seemed like decent man and Hillary has my best regards !
Having a lot of Americans friends and family I can tell you Hillary lost a ton of trust with the "landing under sniper fire" story. I haven't seen Mit called an outright liar like Hillary was proven to be so it's a stretch to compare them.
He would be if he were a Democrat. But unlike Clinton, he has to face a strong Gingrich, a resurgent Ron Paul, and a still-twitching Perry and Bachmann.
Romney is a Mormon. That the real story. Hilliary needs to be vice president during the next cycle and in 2012, she'll be a shoe in for First women President of the United states. If Obama does not play this card, Dems will never see the White House for 16 years and will loose both houses for eight years. Then the country will crumble under a relentless inhuman republican dynasty that will bring America to its knees.
Jack, until the media roasts Romney in the Republican primary like they did Hillary in '08 Democratice primary, there's not a lot to compare.
Mitt gets his playbook from Hillary and Newt gets his playbook from "Primary Colors" and Cain was quoting "pokemon"-The entire GOP seem to quote Dems all the time I guess when you stop educating people then you stop having new ideas. They've lost their ability to connect with real people and reality-That's why a Trump debate seemed like a good idea–until people laughed
Yes, Romney is the Clinton of this election cycle, and Ron Paul is the Obama. Only this time, real change in Washington will take place. Not the same ol' "promises" that others have talked about. What has Obama done for you lately?
Romney will not get the nod, nor will Newt, they'll both implode. Huntsman is in the catbird seat.
Romney needs to run as an independent and he'll have a chance. Hilliary for 2016 is the way to go.
The Evangelicals will be the deciding factor, The Tea Party splits another faction. The GOP is disorganized as the democrats used to be. There ia a ditinct possibility enough disgusted republicans that sit out the election or vote third party. Romney is no Hillary but he'll be there right to the end, Mitt Romney has a few very smart people around and close to him from Bain. Mitt won't win a general againt Obama
Well, Jack, lets see.... Hillarly is a highly educated, experienced female pant-suit wearing democrat who had, and still has an extremely large support base however did not win the nomination. Mitt is a highly educated, experienced pant-suit wearing "democrat" who wants to have a support base.......oh yeah I see it now....
Hillary had Bill for better or worse, who does Romney have? Bill Clinton loomed over that primary like an alcoholic brother-in-law, everyone knew if Hillary was the candidate Bill was back in the White House, a scary thought for many.
Romney on the other hand has no relationship baggage, no one latching on that can alter his chances, his Mormon religion can hardly match Bill's shadow over Hillary.
I think the parallel here is really to Sen. John Kerry's bid for the presidency in 2004. Like Kerry, Romney has all the right optics - tall, lean, square-jawed, nattily attired - to be president, but his party's lingering ambivalence about him stems, I think, from his unwillingless to own his more controversal stances. Remember "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Doesn't that maddeningly equivocal statement sound eerily familiar to "I passed universal healthcare in Mass. before I condemned it"?
Sorry Jack-Show me a Republican w/a fresh idea and I'll find a movie, song, cartoon show or a Democrat he took it from.
(Geoffrey in Pittsburgh, Pa.)
I think the parallel here is really to Sen. John Kerry's bid for the presidency in 2004. Like Kerry, Romney has all the right optics – tall, lean, square-jawed, nattily attired – to be president, but his party's lingering ambivalence about him stems, I think, from his unwillingless to own his more controversal stances. Remember "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Doesn't that maddeningly equivocal statement sound eerily familiar to "I passed universal healthcare in Mass. before I condemned it"?
Oh, Jack. Why on earth do you come up with these questions. Mitt Romney wish's he could be Hillary Clinton. At Least she is now Secretary of State with a 60% approval rating. Also consider some of the big differences, like Hillary is a former First Lady, married to a well liked former U.S President. She has overcome so much in her life to get where she is now. Mitt on the other hand is some rich former Governor who doesn't have a care in the world and is clearly the Republican party's plan B. So to answer your question Jack, Mitt Romney is clearly not the Hillary Clinton of any time period.
Jack, it doesn't matter which Republican will be chosen to run against Obama next year. Whoever it is will be replacing Obama in the White House on January 20, 2013.
I can't wait to sing that "goodbye song"...you know...the one they sang when Bush left the White House...it goes...na na NA NA..na na NA NA...HEY hey hey...good bye
Mitt could make a decent vicepresident behind Obama. Hillary has come into her own as one of the strongest secretaries of state in a long time. Thank you, Hillary. I doubt she'd want to get back into the presidential rat race, the money, the attack, the smear campaigns.
Not much is working in Mitt's favor at the moment. Republicans hate his political record as Governor. He distances himself from his own record. Sad. Now That Is flipflopping. He's a decent guy hanging out with the wrong crowd, and he knows it. That's why he can't be forceful about his ideas, policies and agenda. He constantly has to cater to that wrong crowd. He's hurting inside, feels betrayed after having fought for so long for the GOP. Are we surprised? He should talk to John McCain sometimes, about the 2000 campaign, or John Kerry about being swiftboated. Ohhhh yah, we love the GOP smear machine.
Run as an Independent, Mitt. It might do wonders.
I live in Boston, MA. I was here when Mitt said, "I will be better than Ted Kennedy on gay rights." Now look at him. I am no fan of Hillary but ask any Massachusetts resident about the depth of Romney's convictions. They will point to the 6" deep frog pond on Boston Common and say that might be an overstatement. The guy will say anything thing, and change any position, for the sole purpose of advancing his own ego. Hilary has her issues, but Romney is the most two-faced politician in recent times.
In 2008, Hilary lost the nomination to a candidate who was quite willing to pander to their parties base, and say whatever they wanted. Is ROmney the next Hillary? Possibly, if the voters don't wake up and start listening.
Mitt Romney is the Walter Mondale of 2012: A flip flopping , hum drum, no excitment political robot. He comes off in such a disengenuos fashion on everything including his $10,000 wagers. Hillary has energy, spunk, incredible smarts and looks great in a Brooks Brothers Pants Suit. Herman Cain had energy, appeal and fresh ideas....a true salesman, Newt is a GOP PitBull ready to pounce on Dems like a Raw Steak with an incredible gift of gab and ability to debate. Willard the Hum Drum Robot doesn't have a chance, and he's no Hillary Clinton.
At least the GOP is not choosing the less experienced person as we have done in the past 2 presidents .
Newt has as much as , if not more experience than Mitt.
You could not say the same for
Bush -2000 vs McCain
Obama -2008 vs Hilary and many others.
It is nice to vote for outsiders, but not the inexperienced once.
I dont see it as fair comparison. Given the current field of choices the GOP has seen itself to putting forward, there is not a candidate among them that can carry the general election with the exception of Romney. As a democrat I would be concerned about Romney and Huntsman. The GOP seems determined to field a candidate that has zero appeal in a general election.
There might be some similarities in their campaigns, but as Lloyd Bentsen might say, Romney's no Hillary Clinton. She'd be a far better president than he would.
I've been thinking Romney might end up being the McCain of 2012 - the candidate no one was particularly excited about going into the primaries but who won the nomination anyway. I doubt he'd be as bad a campaigner or make as stupid a VP choice, though.
How can anyone compare Romney to Hillary? She's so much more competent and smarter than Romney. There is no comparison.
We believe Romney is like that of O'bama, where the Grinch is like Hillary with the experience in Federal Politics.
With Four years experience in the White House I believe O'bama retain his title.
Well Jack Speaking As A Democrat I Have To Say First And Foremost That When It Comes To Hillary Clinton And Mitt Romney Or Any Other Republican For That Matter There's Just No Comparison Because Hillary Clinton To Me Is A God Send, She's My Idol And She Should've Won The Election Back In 2008 But What Happened Happened, It Is What It Is! What Blows My Mind However And I Said This About The Democrats In 2008 But How Can Republican And Democratic Voters Be So Stupid As To Who The True Leader Of Their Parties Are? In 2008 Democrats Were To Stupid To Realize That Hillary Was The Leader Of The Democratic Party And Now In 2011 Republican Voters Are To Stupid To Realize That Mitt Romney Is The True Leader That Can Very Possibly Beat President Obama In 2012. Im Just Glad That Newt Is Leading In The Polls And Im Hoping And Praying That Everyday That Newt Is The Nominee Cuz Then I Know For Sure That President Obama Will Be Guaranteed Another 4 Years In Office Which Is What Should Be Cuz He Has Saved And Resuced This Country From Disaster And Deserves To Be Re-Elected In 2012! Re-Elect President Obama/ Vice President Biden In 2012
Scott Stodden (Freeport, Illinois)
Jack Cafferty sounds off hourly on the Situation Room on the stories crossing his radar. Now, you can check in with Jack online to see what he's thinking and weigh in with your own comments online and on TV.
About Jack Cafferty
Subscribe | Send Feedback