FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In 12 days Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. He has huge challenges in front of him starting with the crumbling economy and two wars.

Is the honeymoon already over?

Hopes are high for him to turn things around and indications are that he will. According to a new Gallup Poll 65% of Americans are confident in President-elect Obama's ability to be a good President. This is down slightly from the 70% approval rating he had a week ago.

Last month a CNN Opinion poll found that 82% of Americans approved of how Obama is handling his transition.

Since returning from his Hawaiian vacation, Mr. Obama has encountered a couple of bumps in the road. The situation in Gaza (which he's stayed away from by deferring to President Bush), criticism of Leon Panetta as his choice for CIA Director, Bill Richardson withdrawing his nomination for Commerce Secretary, and official stats that the deficit is projected at more than $1.2 Trillion this year. All this before he's even moved into the Oval Office.

Here’s my question to you: Has your confidence in President-elect Barack Obama declined any since the election?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Connor from Chicago, Illinois writes:
I don't think confidence has declined. I think that reality has set in and people who didn't like Obama are starting to see reasons to like him a little, people who worshipped Obama are finding that he is not really a messianic figure who is going to sort everything out, and those of us who were in the middle are simply seeing the reality of an Obama administration: A lot of good ideas, untested results, and uncertainty all around.

Joan from Canada writes:
I am seeing a lot of support for Obama on the blogs. Those that oppose his plan don't seem to have any better suggestions and are being shot down pretty quickly by the others. It looks like you've got a winner.

JD from New Hampshire writes:
Absolutely not! This must be the media scandal du jour. Poor Obama hasn't even been sworn in and apparently, according to the talking heads, he's made a mess of his chance to lead the country. Give it a rest. Let's be optimistic for a change and maybe we can turn this country around. Obama is probably the most intelligent being to inhabit the White House and could be one of our very best leaders.

Jack from Princeton, New Jersey writes:
This guy will have the toughest job on the planet cleaning up after the carnage of Bush and the Republicans. He's exceeding expectations.

Dave from Saint Louis, Missouri writes:
Absolutely not! I had no confidence in him at all to begin with. He has no where to go but up.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Barack Obama really didn't need this. Roland Burris declared he's the Senator from Illinois despite the controversy surrounding his appointment. He was picked by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

But when Burris made his way to Capitol Hill this morning, the Senate refused to seat him. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said it's because of incomplete paper work. His certificate of appointment is signed by the Illinois Governor but not by the secretary of state. But it's really much more than that.

Burris said his lawyers will handle it and he has a private meeting scheduled with Senate leaders tomorrow.

He said he didn't want to make a scene on Capitol Hill-but he did. It was a circus.

People are speaking out on Burris' behalf, saying his appointment is legal and he should be seated.

But this whole thing smells. There are criminal charges pending against the Illinois governor who appointed Burris. Those charges include trying to profit from naming Obama's replacement in the U.S. Senate. It's sort of like letting Bernie Madoff run a hedge fund while he's awaiting trial on charges of stealing $50 billion from investors.

Our Question is: When it comes to Roland Burris, the controversial Senate appointee from Illinois, what should the U.S. Senate do?

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to Roland Burris, the controversial Senate appointee from Illinois, what should the U.S. Senate do?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Maureen in Georgia writes:
It seems that legally Burris should be seated because Blagojevich is still the Governor, as corrupt as he may be. But Burris wants that seat so desperately that he would accept it from a corrupt Governor under investigation and that, to me, is a red flag not to trust him. Burris might have not done anything wrong, but where is his integrity?

Greg from Cabot, Arizona writes:
Send him back to Illinois for the proper paperwork. Just like at the dry cleaners, no ticket, no laundry. The Illinois Secretary of State needs to certify his appointment first. Until that happens, everything else is just a dog and pony show.

Mike from Hot Springs, Arkansas writes:
The man was appointed according to Illinois law. There is absolutely no reason not to seat him. The Dems are making a big mistake here. As an old trial lawyer myself, I think that it is time for dear Harry Reid to get off the dime and start negotiating.

Mark from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma writes:
The Governor appointed him and he should be sworn in. We had a President a few years ago who was going through an impeachment process and I don't recall him being unable to carry out his official duties during the impeachment trial. Roland Burris should camp out on the Senate's doorstep until they agree to swear him in.

David in California writes:
Unless there is evidence to show Mr. Burris is somehow involved in the wrongdoing of the Governor, and I have not seen or heard any such evidence, he should be seated as a Senator from Illinois. He was legally appointed to the position and he has not personally committed an act that would disqualify him. Sure, the Governor of Illinois is a scum bag, but that does not mean Mr. Burris is incapable of dutiful and honorable service to the people of Illinois.

George in New York, New York writes:
The idea of Harry Reid being jury, judge and prosecutor is more distasteful than the idea of Burris being appointed by a felon. Let Burris stay. Lock the doors on Reid.

(PHOTO CREDIT: GALLUP ORGANIZATION)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

One of the longest, nastiest, most divisive presidential races this country's ever seen is now in the books. A little more than half of us are pretty pleased with the results. The rest of us? Not exactly.

But that doesn't mean we're without hope.

According to a new Gallup Poll, fewer Americans see the country as divided now as it has been after other recent presidential elections. We're still a long way from all being on the same page, but it's better. After the 2008 election, 57% say the country is more divided on major issues than in recent years. But that's down considerably from polls taken after the previous two presidential elections. In 2000, 64% said we were more divided, and in 2004, 72% said so.

A lot of Americans think Barack Obama is just what the doctor ordered. 54% of those surveyed said the Obama administration will be able to heal the divisions in the country. 44% say it will not.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean that fewer Americans see the country as divided?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Louis from Los Angeles, California writes:
Jack, it means that we have a new opportunity to move beyond the divisive politics of this last election. We still have a long way to go but the potential is here. We should not have to wait for another 9/11 to unite the country. The time is now.

Sandi from Chicago, Illinois writes:
I believe it is because for the most part, Americans now have hope. Despite all the bad news on the economy, I believe in the new President-elect. Not that I expect a turnaround within the first 100 days, but I do believe within his first term, we will be on the road to saying, “Yes, we are better off than we were in 2008!”

Paul from Columbia, South Carolina writes:
Give it time. Election euphoria is always replaced by disappointment.

Hugh from Vero Beach, Florida writes:
I don't know what fewer Americans you're talking about, Jack. Down here in the South, we're more divided than ever especially in respect to Obama's economic and defense visions for our country.

Joanne from Westwood, New Jersey writes:
I think the country is less divided after the election because conservatives are much more gracious than liberals. If Obama had lost, the split would be wide and deep.

Chuck from Arkansas writes:
In the past, the Republicans have been able to falsely convince Americans that our country is divided racially and ideologically. Now we are realizing that we are divided economically, and that there are far more poor or those who are just getting by, no matter what their color is, than those who are rich.

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Barack Obama made history Tuesday night, after voters came out in record numbers to support him and many voting for the first time.

It was a stunning rise to the presidency for a 47 year-old freshman senator, let alone one who is African-American.

Along the way, he beat out a handful of familiar Washington names for the top spot on the Democratic ticket...Former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards, Senator Chris Dodd, Senator Joe Biden who eventually became his running mate and, of course, most notably, Senator Hillary Clinton.

Her star power and powerful ties weren't enough to beat out Obama, but was there something more at play?

Women, who make up more than half the U.S. population, earned the right to vote in 1920. And while African-Americans were granted that right about fifty years earlier, for about a hundred years, voting was easier said than done for blacks. So what does Obama's victory say about us as voters?

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean that the U.S. elected an African-American president before it elected a woman?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Patrick from Maryland writes:
Jack, the only thing it means is that Barack Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary Clinton and John McCain. I don’t think race or gender had as much to do with it as the message of "Change.” Americans are hungry for a new direction after 8 years of insanity under possibly the worst Administration in our history.

Cody from Phoenix, Arizona writes:
Someone had to get there first. If a woman did it, the U.S. is racist. When Obama did it, the country is sexist. Glad this appears to be a win- win situation.

Val from South Carolina writes:
Jack, as an African-American and a woman I can honestly say that it was the candidate that determined who got my vote. When I first learned that Hillary was running, she automatically got my support. Then I decided to explore my options and went to the Obama rally in Columbia, South Carolina in December of last year. After listening to him and witnessing how he carried himself, I had to change my mind.

Hylan from Chicago, Illinois writes:
It doesn't mean a thing.

Jason from Orlando, Florida writes:
Wasn't an African-American man able to vote in 1870, which is before women could vote in 1920? Maybe that is just how the country changes. Most importantly though Obama has the ability to heal and unify people, and no other candidate exemplified that quality.

Ginger from West Melbourne, Florida writes:
It shows how very afraid men really are, doesn't it? Be afraid then. Be very afraid. One day, a woman will show how it should have been done all along.

Steve from Allen, Texas writes:
It means that we want to elect someone that does not spend so much money on their clothes.

What was the likable 'maverick's' biggest mistake?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

What happened to John McCain? The likable "maverick" who beat some pretty strong competition to capture his party's nomination had morphed into something else by yesterday.

After promising to run an "honorable" campaign, McCain quickly became another symbol of the divisive politics of past Republican presidential campaigns. Name calling, insults, pettiness, and empty gestures replaced the once likable McCain we all look to to challenge the status quo. His campaign got nasty, and his lack of judgment was on display for all to see a couple of times late in the race.

Sarah Palin was an act of desperation. With little vetting McCain named an unknown from Alaska to energize the Republican base. But she came with too much baggage and quickly went from an asset to a liability. Openly ignorant of the issues in press interviews, Palin began to offend women and anger McCain's campaign managers who sniped that she was a "rogue" who frequently went off the reservation in pursuit of her own interests instead of McCain's.

When the financial crisis exploded, McCain made a huge empty gesture. He suspended his campaign, threatened to cancel the first presidential debate-he was the one who wanted all those town meetings, remember? - and rushed back to Washington where he accomplished absolutely nothing. In the end, he looked silly.

He might not have been able to overcome the damage to the Republican brand anyway, but he quickly became his own worst enemy who gave away any chance to win.

Here’s my question to you: What was John McCain's biggest mistake?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Joan writes:
Hi Jack, John McCain's biggest mistake was running his campaign with an entitlement mentality. He truly felt that he was owed this election and when he saw that it was not going to be handed to him he ran a very negative campaign and in the process turned off many Americans.

Becky from Austin, Texas writes:
Let's see, there was his choice in running mate, his lack of understanding of our economic crisis, his lack of coherence throughout his campaign and of course, who can forget Joe the plumber. I wonder what he's going to do now. Maybe get his license to plumb finally?

Sarah writes:
He made a lot of mistakes but I think his biggest was picking Sarah Palin. Not just because it was a drag on the ticket, which was part of the reason he lost, but because of the divisions that she has caused within the Republican Party.

Melissa from Canada writes:
His biggest mistake was to change who he was as candidate from 2000 and become more in-line with a status quo that no one really supports anymore. He needed a clear message of how he was not George W. Bush and he never really delivered on that.

Kirsten from San Diego, California writes:
Simple: He selected a superficial political tactic for a Vice President instead of a qualified successor.

Mark from Mississippi writes:
The popular opinion will be Sarah Palin. I do believe that John McCain's worst mistake was running as a Republican in the election year following George W Bush. I do believe that in this election cycle that no Republican could have won the Presidency.

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

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

A lot can change in politics in a year. Just think about it. Last year at this time, the race for the White House looked entirely different. John McCain was far from being the front-runner on the Republican side. And Barack who? Senator Hillary Clinton and former V.P. candidate John Edwards had to be considered the odds on favorites for the Democrats.

And, of course, most of us had never even heard of Sarah Palin.

Different issues held different weight with voters and candidates too. In late August of last year, a CNN poll found that 31 percent of voters saw the war in Iraq as the top issue facing America, while 23 percent said it was the economy. Health care came in at 17 percent and terrorism at 10 percent.

Watch: Cafferty: Most important issue?

Flash-forward to this fall and everything has changed. In a CNN poll released Sunday, more than half of voters listed the economy as the top issue - 57 percent– followed by health care and the war in Iraq, tied for second at 13 percent each. Just 11 percent felt terrorism was the top issue.

Here’s my question to you: What single issue was most important to you?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Rich from Minot, North Dakota writes:
The economy, with justice for the middle class! John McCain couldn't even say the word “middle class.” A middle class tax cut is redistribution of wealth but the tax cuts for the rich, wasn't? Grandpa didn't fool me!

Jim from Kansas writes:
The war in Iraq was the only issue that got me out to vote. I feel that Obama will bring the troops home a little sooner than McCain.

Elle from Pullman, Washington writes:
Health care, hands-down. I run a small business and support my family of four. We had to search for our own health care and I can tell you for certain, our health care system stinks. My whole family is healthy with no "pre-existing conditions", non-smokers, etc. and our premiums are ridiculous, even with higher deductibles.

Ralph writes:
The economy is a very important issue. However, getting the current, inept Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice administration into the history books was foremost on my mind. John McCain is a good man, and I have respect for him. However, his affiliation with the mess we now have moved my vote to Obama-Biden.

Scott from Wichita, Kansas writes:
The war on terror. We've seen very little economic impact out here– house prices went up, and Iraq is looking better than ever. Now we need to concentrate on how well the sanctions and diplomacy have worked so far in North Korea, and use those lessons on the other state sponsors of terror. We also need to re-focus on Afghanistan. The market will recover, it always does.

Ryan fom Indiana writes:
I think all of our financial woes begin and will hopefully end with an ultimate end to the war in Iraq. The war has dragged down our financial system, elevated the gas prices and created nothing but headaches and heartaches to every tax paying American. I hope to see some progress and to see a great percentage of our troops home by the end of next year.

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

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The prescription for tomorrow is comfortable shoes and patience. It's going to be awesome.

Never in recent memory has there been so much interest in a presidential election. More than one-third of Americans are expected to have already voted by the time the polls open tomorrow, a 50 percent increase from 2004. But that doesn't mean there won't be a lot of people in front of you in front of you in line when you get to the polls.

Young people have signed up in unprecedented numbers. New voter registrations have broken records in almost every state. Turnout in many of the primaries was staggering. So be prepared.

Watch: Cafferty: Wait on voting line?

Be aware also that tomorrow is a chance for all of us to strike a blow for democracy, and God knows she could use a shot in the arm. We're at our best as a nation when we're all involved. But that involvement tomorrow will come with a price. You're probably going to have to wait. Maybe for a long time.

While you're standing there grumbling that the line isn't moving, or the machine is broken, remember what it was that got you into that line in the first place. This may well be the most important election we've ever had.

Here’s my question to you: How long are you willing to wait in line to vote?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Michelle from New Hampshire writes:
I am prepared and willing to wait all day. I have cleared my calendar to make sure I can spend the whole day. And the time I don't spend waiting or voting, I will spend poll watching and holding signs. This is far too important not to make a personal sacrifice to make sure my vote counts. And, as an Army wife, one day of work loss is meaningless compared to the days my husband has and will spend on deployment. To all within the sound of your voice: Get out and vote!

LaShunda from Mobile, Alabama writes:
I am seven months pregnant and standing for long periods of time hurts my back tremendously, but in spite of my pain I plan on standing in line as long as it takes to exercise my right to vote, especially when those before me endured even greater hardships to have this right.

Bill from San Diego, California writes:
I appreciate the question, but if anyone honestly thinks that the wait is not worth it even if it's all day, think about all of the people in places who can't vote. Think about the people who have fought for voting rights. Remember that blacks and women were not allowed to vote not that long ago.

Patrick writes:
Not longer than about thirty hours.

Dawn from Florida writes:
My husband and I waited 2 1/2 hours here in Miami to vote early. About 1 hour into the wait, my husband started getting antsy and wanted me to remind him why we were wasting our time. I just looked at him and said "George W. Bush". That did the trick!

Kim writes:
All day if I have to, but I'll have my 3- and 4-year-olds with me. They may think differently. What a great opportunity to live by example. Never give up.

With only one more day until the election, how will you handle election-withdrawal Wednesday? (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

So what are your plans for Wednesday? A twelve-step program? Maybe a little one-on-one counseling? You know you're probably going to need some help. We all will. There won't be anymore election to fixate on.

What a ride it's been– Historic and interesting. Historic because of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and just when it started to get a little boring, Sarah Palin rode out of Alaska and energized the whole thing all over again. Interesting because we have ourselves quite a mess here: The economy, wars, etc. You know it all by now. Those problems awakened the American electorate like never before.

But Wednesday, the party's over. Except it's really not. For whoever leads us, it's just beginning, and my guess is we will all be called upon at some point to be part of the solution.

But what are we going to do in the meantime? I know for a fact Wolf is going to need help with this.

Here’s my question to you: How are you going to deal with election-withdrawal?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Nancy writes:
I'm going to start exercising and go back on my diet! No more nervous
eating while glued to the television. Unless McCain wins. Then nothing
matters.

Carolyn writes:
I will be so glad it is over. I will continue to pray and meditate. I
haven't felt this much anxiety since Katrina came through Laurel,
Mississippi and woke up to such destruction.

Kevin from Dallas, Texas writes:
The only thing sad about this election ending is that on Wednesday, you
guys will be back to reporting on the trials and tribulations of Lindsay
Lohan and Paris Hilton.

John from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania writes:
I think I'll take up the lost art of reading to try to mitigate all the
sound byte damage that's been done to my brain.

Jack writes:
We won't, but the press will. They've got the obsession not the
electorate. All 24/7 news shows and programs should shut down for a
couple of weeks to go through detox. You would do us all a favor.

Donny writes:
I'll be basking in the glow of: "Bush isn't the president for very much
longer."

Bob from Morristown, N.J. writes:
If Obama wins, I'll tune in to see if I can do anything to help him
rescue our nation. If McCain wins, I'm opening a travel agency
specializing in one-way tickets.

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Voters have a distinct choice between John McCain and Barack Obama in this presidential race– two very different approaches to arguably the most serious set of challenges we have faced in a hundred years. Whoever wins will have his hands full.

But what about the rest of us? Our part is finished after we cast our ballots on November 4th, and after all the votes have been tallied, the excitement will be over.

Most of us will be happy with the outcome, but if you look at the latest polls, a good number of us won't be rushing to embrace the new leadership.

Either way a new administration means new faces at the top and new policies that will trickle down to all of us little people. The form of that trickle will determine the way a lot of our lives will go in the future.

Here’s my question to you: How will your life change if your candidate loses?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Craig from Mission Viejo, California writes:
If Barack Obama wins or loses I'll still have to work hard and smart, live unselfishly, spend and save wisely, and hope momentum has been gained which can help right his country and the entire world. On second thought, if John McCain wins, maybe I'll just take up prayer.

Kevin from Dallas, Texas writes:
I'm for McCain, and I work for a big business. But unlike the big businesses that have hurt our economy so, the company I work for is ethical. If McCain loses, my company will probably be hit hard by new policies, as Obama bites the hand that feeds me. I'll make sure to keep my resume up to date.

Brandon writes:
If Barack Obama loses this election then nothing will change for me at all, and that's precisely the problem.

Patti writes:
Perversely, if the candidates' tax plans are followed, my husband and I will be over $8,000 a year richer if our candidate Barack Obama loses. How's that for a silver lining?

Ed from Egan, Minnesota writes:
Jack, If McCain and Palin would somehow win, I'm moving out of the country to someplace that has a real democracy.

M. writes:
Look for me on the next season of "Survivor" from wherever. I will not return.

Kevin from Chester Springs, Penn. writes:
If Obama loses, I will move to Washington D.C. and dedicate my life to making sure McCain lives out his full term.

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

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger - a Republican and supporter of John McCain - told national public radio yesterday that Alaska governor Sarah Palin is not prepared to take over the job of President if she had to. He said, "I devoutly hope that [she] would never be tested."

But the fact is that if some people in the Republican Party get their way, she could be tested one day. Should John McCain lose the race for the White House, you can bet your last dollar this moose huntin', gun totin', pro-life hockey mom will not fade from the political spotlight. She's a huge hit with a group of social conservatives who embrace her values and see her as a fresh face for a divided party… to them, a 2012 Palin run for President may be on the horizon.

Watch: Cafferty: What's next for Palin?

But a lot of other people feel quite differently. Sarah Palin quickly became a national joke for her lack of experience, failure to grasp the issues and inability to handle herself with the media - especially those awful interviews she did with Katie Couric. Recently she's gone off script and off message on the campaign, angering several of McCain 's campaign advisers. She's been called everything from a "diva" to a "whack job," and yet through it all she remains remarkably unphased.

In an interview this week on ABC's 20-20, Palin said, "I'm not doin' this for naught." Yet another pithy utterance.

Here’s my question to you: If John McCain loses, what’s next for Sarah Palin?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Anne from Seattle, Washington writes:
With that pushy personality, we will unfortunately see more of her. I won't be watching though. And if the Republicans see her as part of their future, I see the U.S. as a one party system. My wish is that she'd spend her life gazing at Russia quietly, very quietly.

Sherry from Pennsylvania writes:
She will go back to Alaska, a state that we in the lower 48 should stop casting such a dim view on, and she will continue to govern the energy rich state, be herself, and a mom. There is no job in the world more important than being a good parent. I wish everyone would give her a break and stop demonizing her.

Dennis from Cleveland, Ohio writes:
Hopefully, obscurity!

James from Chuckey, Tennessee writes:
Her name will become synonymous with the anti-intellectual, intolerant, theocratic, base of the former GOP. She will be the candidate of choice for those who do not read, those who still look under their beds for communists at night, those who wish to limit the freedoms that most of America wants. She will hopefully be required to repay the state of Alaska for flying her family around as if they were royalty.

Roy from Chicago writes:
With her comedic delivery, she is well suited to situation comedies. How about "Third Rock from Russia"? Political mother of pregnant teenager with snowmobiling husband deals with the trials and tribulations of Alaskan life in the midst of a hilarious impeachment!

Jeff writes:
What's next for Princess Palin? Nothing.

Toni writes:
She and Joe the Plumber can hook up and get a reality TV show on MTV.