From CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Sometimes things work out the way they're supposed to. Today is Martin Luther King Day, a holiday set aside to honor the slain civil rights leader. Without him, tomorrow would never have happened. Tomorrow Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. The first African-American president we've ever had.

Martin Luther King would be 80 if he were alive today.

It's been almost 46 years since Dr. King, who would be 80 if he were alive today, led the march on Washington and delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech. From segregation, lynchings, water cannons and police dogs to the Oval Office in less than half a century. Dr. King would be very proud.

According to a CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll, 49% of Americans believe the U.S. has fulfilled Martin Luther King's vision laid out on that day: 69% of African-Americans and 46% of Whites.

A lot is riding on Obama. He is making history in a way his predecessors have not. Not since the late John F. Kennedy has so much hope been placed at the feet of one man by so many. It's going to be a helluva ride, and if Barack Obama can pull this off, our country is going to re-emerge from eight years of winter.

Here’s my question to you: If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, what would he say about Barack Obama’s inauguration?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

John from Alabama writes:
Jack: Martin Luther King would say "Thank God Almighty because something, that years ago would have been a miracle, tomorrow it will come to pass." To many African-Americans it is a miracle, but to the young it is a right of passage long over due. I am an old white man who was raised in the south, and I got to vote for Obama.

EL writes:
Hi Jack. I think Martin Luther King Jr. would say nothing but cry tears of joy, instead of pain, in the realization that regardless of the color of one's skin, anything is possible.

The sad part is, it took too long, too many innocent lives were lost. Let's hope for a better society where racism isn't so rampant. Martin Luther King Jr. hoped and prayed for that. We all should.

Joyce from Jacksonville, Florida writes:
I believe Dr. King would be proud of President-elect Obama and cheer the possibilities for the future, but he would also be wise enough to know we have just begun. Miracles won't happen overnight and too many Americans would be thrilled to see him fail.

Patti writes:
We stand on the Mountaintop. It has been a long, hard walk. Let us go forward to our future that lies ahead, Black hand in White, White hand in Asian, Asian hand in Gay, Gay hand in Straight, Straight hand in Disabled, Disabled hand in Able hand. Let us walk as one people, united in our hope for the future.

Bude from Mississippi writes:
I think he would say what most black people are thinking about Obama: He better not screw this up.

Jenny from Nanuet, New York writes:
"I can't believe you beat the Clintons."

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Reality is sinking in for President-elect Obama as he comes to terms with the fact that all of his campaign promises can't be accomplished right away, some of them not at all.

What are you willing to do?

It's a matter of priorities, political maneuvering and money.

The economic crisis is so serious that raising taxes on the wealthy, giving homeowners a 10% tax credit, and not running up debt for future generations are all going to have to wait, at least for now.

Obama is expected to be the President of change but at the moment things need fixing.

On the campaign trail, Obama said fixing the economy would be a priority. Since then the situation has gone from bad to worse.

The President-elect is desperately trying to get support for an emergency stimulus package before he's even sworn in.

President-elect Obama has made it clear that everyone must step up to the plate. He's asked Americans to, "embrace a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice."

Here’s my question to you: President-elect Obama has called on us to make sacrifices for our country. What are you willing to do?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Teri from St. Augustine, Florida writes:
I've been cutting the grass of the homes around me that are in foreclosure and yes, I admit it helps my property values too. I've also picked up garbage in the streets. I've donated more to the local food bank. When Obama was running for President he said he can't do it alone and we all must change. I'm waiting to see what he has in mind.

Rex from Portland, Oregon writes:
I am willing to supervise, criticize, and analyze to the extent of severe sacrifice, just like everyone else.

Kathy from Chicago, Illinois writes:
Well I am already bailing out banks, Wall Street and the auto industry. I pay my bills on time, I have not defaulted on my mortgage, I have not lived off my credit cards or gone on extravagant vacations. I have sacrificed all my life all for nothing. Doing the right thing gets you nowhere. You screw up and the government bails you out. You do things right and the government screws you over. I am not asking the government to do anything for me, so the government shouldn't be asking anything of me. I am tapped out!

Paulette from Dallas, Pennsylvania writes:
I am willing to conserve energy, water, and go more green. I am also willing to donate to charities that directly help the people in need. I am also willing to volunteer at shelters and food kitchens. I am also willing to forgo some luxuries for myself in order to be able to help my recently unemployed son and his family.

Shelly from New York writes:
I think a lot of us have done enough. I think its time that government gets its act together.

Matt writes:
Most every American has lost significantly over the past 8 years, so to complain of 'nothing more to give' is selfish and counterproductive. A responsible American consumer, spending intelligently and managing debt, is the first step toward returning to economic solvency; I am thus prioritizing my spending and lifestyle choices accordingly.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President-elect Barack Obama was asked if he plans to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate certain Bush administration policies, most notably, wiretapping and torture.

In an interview on ABC, Obama seemed to waiver on an answer. You may remember that as a candidate he condemned these practices and called them unjustified. Now he said he hasn't decided what he'll do.

What should he do?

The President-elect said he's not likely to launch a broad investigation into treatment of terrorism suspects and eavesdropping under the Bush administration. But He did say that prosecutions will proceed if the Justice Department finds that laws were broken.

President-elect Obama said it's more important to look forward than back. Is it?

Mr. Obama is walking a fine line. He's trying to establish trust and make friends at the CIA and with conservatives in Congress. Both groups oppose an investigation into the Bush practices. But there is also pressure for the Bush administration to be held accountable, and there's already a measure in the house to create a commission to investigate detention and interrogation techniques under the outgoing administration.

Here’s my question to you: What should President-elect Barack Obama do when it comes to a broad investigation of Bush administration policies such as eavesdropping and torture?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Paul frpm Brooklyn, New York writes:
If Obama believes that the Constitution is worth more than the paper it's written on then all who knowingly and willingly violated it must be dealt with. If our constitution can be savaged as it has been for the last 8 years with no consequences what does that say about us as a society? I contributed to, campaigned for and voted for Barack Obama. If he wants to prove me wrong, all he has to do is look the other way and ignore all the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" of the Bush Cheney administration.

I.J. writes:
I admire the vigilance and perseverance of the Bush administration in preventing another attack. People who object to the wire tapping "might" have something to hide, and objecting to aggressive interrogation in time of war is self-destructive. Which is the lesser of two evils: infringing on the constitution or the loss of life of 9/11?

Jeremy writes:
I 100 percent agree with Obama that we should, as a country, look forward and not back. However, this country and its citizenry were wronged by several policies and practices of the current administration. If we will not hold our own government accountable to the ideals of individual liberties that we encourage other countries to practice, then how can we move forward?

Eric writes:
President Ford had it right you have to get rid of the past before you can move on. He pardoned Nixon and the country moved on. President Obama has to stop any investigation before it begins. He can not waste his administration's time and effort on some sort of revenge on the Republicans or President Bush. To really go forward he might consider a pardon.

S writes:
It took 8 years for this country to get this far off course, the hijackers are still on board and Obama doesn't even have the helm yet. The American people have basically demanded accountability. I think they'll get it in due time. There's no telling what we'll find once the curtains are pulled back and daylight filters back into all the "undisclosed" locations.

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.

"I don't work for Barack Obama. I work with him," Reid said.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told The Hill newspaper that the Democrats on Capitol Hill will not be a rubber stamp for President-elect Obama's policies, the way the Republicans have been for President Bush. Reid said, "I don't work for Barack Obama. I work with him."

Reid's been on a bit of a roll this week. He started Sunday with his ongoing mantra about President Bush's failures and called him the worst President ever.

On Tuesday, he turned away Roland Burris at the Senate door, which was not a surprise since he vowed to refuse to accept anyone appointed by scandal ridden Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. But he may not have a choice. Reid met with Burris yesterday and seems to have warmed up to the possibility of seating him if the lawyers can work things out. If that happens, Harry Reid will look sillier than he already does.

Reid was also shooting from the lip on the still disputed Minnesota Senate race. He said, quote, "Norm Coleman will never ever serve again in the Senate" Really? What if a court decides otherwise?

Yesterday he told his fellow Senators to cancel their travel plans for this weekend and vowed a weekend vote on only the second day of the legislative session. What a busy fellow.

Here’s my question to you: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he doesn't work for Barack Obama. Is he right?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Jack from Washington, DC writes:
Jack, Harry Reid is really getting out of control. For the past couple years Pelosi and Reid have been headlining the Democratic agenda in Congress and it seems as if they are having a hard time coming to terms that there is a new sheriff in town. Reid more so than Pelosi.

Barb from New Port Richey, Florida writes:
No I don't think so. He seems to dance to his own drummer, and from what I see he has about as much rhythm as GW. Not a pretty picture!

Judy writes:
Somebody needs to put duct tape over this guy’s mouth. Me thinks Harry Reid doesn't like change too much. I hope Harry gets used to it soon, because he works for the voters, and the voters said Obama is the commander-in-chief. Enough said.

John writes:
He's a probably right that he doesn't work for Obama. But that's not his problem. He thinks he's self-employed and answerable to no one and that's all of our problem.

Billy from Las Vegas, Nevada writes:
"Hands Up Harry" Reid is an embarrassment to my state and the Democratic party. Talks tough but then flip-flops all the time with the latest being the Roland Burris situation. He's the senate point man for future President Obama's programs so he better change his attitude real quick or we will end up with yet another "do nothing" Congress while the American people suffer. btw, Jack, most Democrats I know here in Nevada can't stand the guy.

June from New York:
The better question is, "Does Harry Reid work?" Every time he opens his mouth he proves himself to be an idiot. The man is a joke and needs to pack it in.

Edith in Coral Gables, Florida:
Do you work for Wolf Blitzer, Jack?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Barack Obama's inauguration is 13 days away. He's not in office yet, and some say the Democrats are off to a rocky start.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, incoming Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was quick to publicly complain that she hadn't been notified that President-elect Obama intended to pick Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

The Democratic Senate refused to seat Roland Burris yesterday for the office vacated by the President-elect.

Nancy Pelosi was talking earlier this week about having to actually be supportive of the President of the United States. She didn't sound overly thrilled with the idea since she likes it best when it's all about her.

And Harry Reid is a loose cannon.

There's the Rod Blagojevich scandal, the Illinois Governor accused of pay for play politics. Then there’s New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson withdrawing his nomination as secretary of commerce because of an investigation into a campaign donor.

Finally, there doesn't seem to be a lot of public statements in support of the new President from members of his own party.

Here’s my question to you: Are the Democrats getting off to the right start ahead of Barack Obama's inauguration?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Denis from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania writes:
So far, Obama yes. The Democrats in Congress, no. In the first 160 days of the new administration, the Democrats in Congress will most likely make fools of themselves. Pelosi will have hissy fits that will show how incompetent she and her colleagues are. The Republicans will fare much better. Overall, the approval rating of Congress will stay the same. Same old, same old. President-elect Obama will give us a chance and the Democrats in Congress will take it away.

Terrell from Escondido, California writes:
Jack, As a lifelong Democrat I have to say nope. With the Blagojevich/Burris thing, the Feinstein snit, and the Richardson investigation, we are well on our way to shooting ourselves in the foot again.

Karen from Dodge City, Kansas writes:
Democrats aren't used to working as a team and for that reason Obama's biggest handicap is his own party. Hopefully he will give them the "my way or the highway" speech and get rid of some of the dead weight like Reid and Pelosi. That would go a long way toward convincing the public that Obama is serious about building an effective administration.

Krishna from California writes:
I don't think that they are, I am sorry to say. They have enjoyed complaining and when they were put in charge they have failed to deliver. Pelosi and Reid are pretty inept. Feinstein has been part of Bush-Cheney camp as far as CIA actions go. She was asleep at the switch when atrocities were going on there and failed to render oversight. She has no credibility now, in my opinion.

Tony from Torrington, Connecticut writes:
Are you serious? It's the Keystone Cops visit Washington DC. I can imagine the newspaper articles if these guys were Republicans. The Burris incident has Governor Rod Blagojevich pulling the strings of Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, and Obama. It's that Chicago training!

Karen from Nashville, Tennessee writes:
Sounds normal. We have a chorus of prima donnas and the conductor isn't on the stage yet.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's been ten days since Israel launched attacks on Gaza. Since then, President-elect Barack Obama has remained silent on the conflict.

As an excuse, Obama is sticking to what he said right after the election, that there's only one President at a time and therefore it's up to President Bush to comment. He was even asked about it today and continues to say that he won't say anything.

Two of Obama's closest lieutenants, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have also managed to remain silent. Meanwhile many U.S. politicians have backed Israel.

Obama's critics are saying he isn't doing himself any favors with his silence. The Guardian newspaper says that as each day passes hopes are diminishing that Obama will make a fresh start in U.S. relations with the Muslim world and that he is losing ground with Muslims and Arabs. Al-Jazeera television showed video of the President-elect vacationing in Hawaii juxtaposed with video from Gaza.

Here’s my question to you: Is President-elect Obama making a mistake by remaining largely silent on the situation in Gaza?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

JR from Norfolk, Virginia writes:
C'mon Jack. Obama is just doing what he has always done as a Senator, voting "present".

Danni writes:
It is indeed a mistake. If President-elect Obama can speak about the economy now, why can't he speak on international affairs like Gaza? You can't keep telling people that there’s only one President and that you can’t comment on one topic, but keep talking about every other topic. Either step up all the way, or stand down till it’s your time.

Rich from San Clemente, California writes:
The least he could do is call for a cease fire so that humanitarian aid can reach the people of Gaza. If the years-long blockades were lifted and Gaza was allowed to participate in the world of nations instead being imprisoned and starved by Israel maybe the homemade rockets would stop coming from Gaza.

Alan from Buxton, Maine writes:
Obama is justified in remaining silent until he actually has some authority to speak for the U.S. He is at present a private citizen who once was a Senator. Any involvement on his part would be inappropriate.

Ricky from Roseville, Michigan writes:
There's a difference between influencing opinions and influencing policy. Senator Obama won't influence Bush's decision-making on the Middle East by simply stating his opinion on the escalating situation. As he is going to be our next President, it would be a good idea to hear something about the situation from him soon.

Rich writes:
No. He should immediately upon his swearing in change the course in the Middle East. Go there, sit down with Israel, Abbas, and the Hamas leaders and hammer out a deal. Hamas was elected by the Palestinians. Elections pushed by the Bush administration. Funny how Democratic principals do not always end up as you would like, but that's Democracy. Everyone gets a voice.

Bodo from Ann Arbor, Michigan writes:
As Mr. Obama has repeatedly stated, there is only ONE President. But as Representative Barney Frank has remarked, Mr. Obama is exaggerating the number of Presidents.

From CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has been avoiding reporters since news broke Tuesday that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich allegedly tried to sell Obama's seat in the Senate.

More specifically, he refuses to answer questions about whether he was the emissary who talked to Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy.

The criminal complaint says Blagojevich was willing to appoint Valerie Jarrett, a friend and advisor to Obama, to fill the seat, in exchange for a reward such as a high level appointment.

Obama maintains that he nor anyone on his staff had anything to do with the Governor's pay for play politics scheme caught on tape by FBI wire taps.

Rahm Emanuel was noticeably absent from a press conference Obama had yesterday.

A reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times reports seeing him at Chicago's City Hall yesterday afternoon to watch his kids perform in a school concert.

When the reporter asked him directly if he was the advisor named in the criminal complaint, he said, "You're wasting your time, I'm not going to say a word to you. I'm going to do this with my children ..."

Our question is: How much damage will the Illinois scandal do to President-elect Barack Obama?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on the air.

And we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment

The President-Elect insists there's only one President at a time.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President-Elect Barack Obama isn't even in office yet and already members of his own party are whining. You'd think after the last eight years they would be so happy to have him on his way to the oval office that they would keep their mouths shut, but no.

Some Democrats, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, are complaining that they want a more assertive Barack Obama.

The President-Elect insists there's only one President at a time, although some say his numerous press conferences and public image suggest he's more presidential than the president.

Doesn't matter, members of his own party say he's not being aggressive enough when it comes to critical economic issues facing the country like the potential collapse of the auto industry and the mortgage meltdown.

President-Elect Obama called for an extension of unemployment benefits, which passed and has talked about a stimulus package before he takes office. He has also said he wants to help the auto industry. But apparently that's not enough for the whiners.

Here’s my question to you: Is President-Elect Obama being assertive enough when it comes to issues like the auto industry and the financial crisis?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Kim from Dodge City, Kansas writes:
The Congress is the one that needs to be assertive at this point. They each do their 5 minutes of grand standing at these hearings instead of actually formulating a plan or accounting for the money they have already handed out. Obama is playing by the rules, and that sets a better example than the Congress does.

Tom from Dubuque, Iowa writes:
No, we have a president in office; if that's what you want to call him. The GOP and the right wing pundits will "scream bloody murder" if he tries to interject his will at this point. If he does anything; he should tell Barney Frank to "shut up".

Donna from Kingston, Jamaica writes:
If he was any more assertive, Pres. Bush would have to be moved to an undisclosed location. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd can't handle change. Instead of the Dems in Congress doing their job and pressing Pres. Bush, they want Obama to baby sit them through passing the rescue of the auto makers and financial crisis.

Annie from Naples, Florida writes:
What do people expect? Eight years of unregulated favoritism for the rich and corporate entities. Frank should take a hike. He is a loudmouth blowhard like the rest of these come lately incompetents who sat silent and did nothing for the past 8 years either. I have to laugh. Obama has accomplished more in the past few weeks than Congress did in the last 2 years.

Jay from Brownwood, Texas writes:
President-elect Obama should just continue to state publicly what he will do when he takes office. He has plenty of work to do in getting things ready for that day without worrying about Barney Frank and others in Congress whining

Liz from Towson, Maryland writes:
How would his being assertive be effective? It's not like he can actually DO anything for 46 more days (but who's counting?). Just let the man select his Cabinet and THEN get to work.

Preparation for Obama's inauguration is already underway in Washington, D.C.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Oprah's going to Washington along with everyone else. The daytime Diva plans to do her television show from the Nation's Capitol during inauguration week.

Estimates are that 3 million people may show up for this historic event...the swearing in of the first Black President. The mayor of Washington says it could be as many as 5 million.

Some will come to watch and some to celebrate. There will be numerous parties and even formal balls.

But according to a CNN opinion poll out today about the economy, 79 percent of Americans say things are going badly in the country right now and 42 percent say the recession is serious.

News of layoffs and pleas for government bailouts continue. The bad news about the economy shows no sign of letting up, so is it really time for a huge celebration?

Obama insiders won't reveal any details of the inauguration plans but they tell CNN the party will go on. We just don't know how big a party it will be.

Here’s my question to you: Should Barack Obama scale back his inauguration celebration in light of the economic crisis facing the country?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Diane from Barneveld, New York writes:
I think he should have his day like every other president. This is the first time in a long time I've been interested in an inauguration and I imagine there are others that feel the same way. Let us have our celebration and see history made.

Jay from Atlanta, Georgia writes:
Absolutely! This is a government, not a frat house. The party ends with Bush. Time to get serious.

JaRee writes:
No way should he scale back. This is once-in-a-lifetime celebration that most of the country has been waiting for. I think we can afford to take a break for one day out of the year to welcome in our new President.

Linda writes:
Absolutely and I believe that he will to set an example. I'm living and working in Macau and Obama is the big hope for the world. He will have to work miracles to live up to the expectations, but this would send an excellent message to Americans and the world.

Christopher from Houston, Texas writes:
Absolutely not, Jack. Given that we are in a huge mess with the economy, daily lay-offs and the Big-Three bailouts we deserve something to smile about. We should honor and recognize this fantastic moment in history; which I, personally, never thought I'd see. This is the symbol of hope for our country. Let's forget about the issues for a day and just enjoy the moment.

Dion from Dallas, Texas writes:
There are two major things that this nation needs now: (1) a celebration that won't cost the average citizen a dime and (2) spending to spur the economy. Let's have a big party with someone else's money and live through the celebration vicariously.

Eric from Tamarac, Florida writes:
Barack Obama's celebration is something that will be remembered for all time. This inauguration would serve as a great coming together of the American people to raise the country's morale and hope during these trying times of economic stress. Make it big. Make it loud. Let the world know that what we have done is historic. We are proud to be Americans and we are ready to begin a new and hopeful chapter in our history.