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?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Caroline Kennedy is positioning herself to be appointed to fill the Senate seat that will be vacated if and when Hillary Clinton is confirmed as the Secretary of State.

The daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy called New York Governor David Paterson, who will be appointing someone to the seat, to express her interest. Yesterday she traveled around upstate New York for closed door meetings with Mayors, Union leaders and other officials. Along the way she touted her devotion to public service, her books on the Constitution and raising her family. And today she had lunch in Harlem with the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Although it seems like a campaign, it’s not. There’s no election, at least not until 2010 when whoever is appointed can run for the seat.

According to the New York Times, Kennedy is winning hearts but some Democrats worry about her sense of entitlement and the message that politics is reserved for the upper class. That’s leading to some grumbling among some Democrats.

According to a poll by Siena College, Kennedy is not a clear favorite — 26% favor New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo compared to 23% favoring Kennedy. However, 31% believe Governor Paterson will give the seat to Kennedy.

Here’s my question to you: Could appointing Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat cause a backlash within the Democratic Party?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Caroline Kennedy says she wants Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. Her resume is long on politics and short on public office. She hasn’t had a full time job in years and has never held an elected office.

Last week New York Representative Gary Ackerman, a Democrat, said Kennedy’s only qualification was name recognition. In a radio interview he said she is no more qualified than Jennifer Lopez to be a Senator.

According to the New York Times, Kennedy worked 3 days a week as director of strategic partnerships for the New York City schools for just under two years.

Other than that, most of her time has been spent on boards for various non-profits, which has included raising millions of dollars for some causes.

But the usually private 51-year-old daughter of the late President Kennedy feels this has prepared her for the job and she has asked New York’s Governor David Paterson to appoint her.

Critics have been quick to note her lack of experience but friends and family are coming out too saying her behind the scenes work over the years is exactly what has prepared her for this job.

Here’s my question to you: What qualifies Caroline Kennedy to suddenly become a member of the U.S. Senate?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

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

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

The Republican Party has long been the party of small government and free markets backed by big business. But that may be changing.

Incoming Democratic President Barack Obama is bringing in some big guns to oversee economic policy and has talked about a second stimulus package and a bailout of the auto companies as top priorities next month. And big corporations like what they’re hearing. So much so that Peter Canellos, The Boston Globe’s Washington Bureau Chief, suggests “big business” is shifting its loyalty to the Democratic Party.

Watch: Cafferty: Dems & big business?

The writing’s been on the wall for quite some time. The Democrats out-raised Republicans in the 2008 elections. The financial sector alone donated more money to the Democrats, $65 million compared to the $59 million it gave Republicans. Big banks have long been supporters of the GOP.

So why the shift? Canellos points to the Southern evangelicals who he says have dominated the Republican Party and in the process driven away some very big contributors. Corporate executives who have big bucks but different beliefs have begun to migrate to the Democratic Party despite the threat of higher taxes.

And because many Republicans opposed the $700 billion bailout package passed in October as well as a rescue plan for the automakers, it looks like the GOP isn’t going to win “big business” back anytime soon.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean that the Democratic Party is becoming the party of Big Business?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

While the Republican delegates and party officials scream and stomp their feet in support of John McCain in St. Paul, it turns out the rest of the Republican Party is less fired up about the election than the Democrats are.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows a slight increase in voter enthusiasm among both parties since the Democrats held their convention and McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate.

But, Democrats hold a significant lead: 61% of them say they’re more enthusiastic than usual about voting this time around, compared to just 42% of Republicans who feel that way.

It’s worth noting that there’s been a decline in voter enthusiasm since January and February when the numbers were off the chart during the heated primary season. In fact, levels of voter enthusiasm are now lower than they were in 2004 at this same time.

Part of the reason might be that some people have gotten tired of what seems like a never-ending race to the White House. Also, Gallup suggests the decline in Democratic enthusiasm could be due to the disappointment of Hillary Clinton supporters.

Nevertheless, the Democrats hold the edge – and it’s something that couldn’t be missed in the excitement and size of that crowd at Invesco field last week, much like the crowds Barack Obama has been drawing since he entered this race.

There’s no question that for either Obama or McCain to win in November, they’re going to have to rally their bases and get their supporters out to the polls.

Here’s my question to you: Why are Democrats more enthusiastic about the election than Republicans are?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

The race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama now looks like it could stretch on for months and is becoming increasingly bitter.

The Wall Street Journal reports groups that for months have energized the Democratic campaign – like blacks, women and young voters – are “increasingly sniping” at each other. They point out that more Republicans now say they’re satisfied with John McCain than Democrats are with either Clinton or Obama. This is a big change from January, when many more Democrats were satisfied with their choices.

Some Democratic activists insist that this is normal, and after the convention, “we will all come together.” But not everyone is convinced. Strategist Donna Brazile says, “I am fearful; we are heading into uncharted territory”, adding that the mood and tone of the campaign have shifted in the past few weeks.

For example: Black radio talk shows are getting callers who say they’ll stay home in November if Clinton wins the nomination. When it comes to women, some Clinton supporters say if Obama gets the nomination, they’ll vote for McCain instead. As for the youth vote that Obama has mobilized in record numbers, some Clinton backers worry that they wouldn’t turn out in the same numbers for her in a general election.

Here’s my question to you: If the Democratic candidate you support does not win the nomination, for whom would you vote in the general election?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Mike Huckabee is the Howard Dean of the 2008 presidential race.

That’s according to a piece by Rich Lowry in the National Review. He suggests Republicans would be making a major mistake by nominating Huckabee.

Lowry writes, “Like Dean, Huckabee is an under-vetted former governor who is manifestly unprepared to be president of the United States. Like Dean, he is rising toward the top of the polls in a crowded field based on his appeal to a particular niche of his party. As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so screamingly obvious that it’s hard to believe that primary voters, once they focus seriously on their choice, will nominate him.”

It’s worth noting that Lowry’s employer, The National Review, has endorsed Mitt Romney, one of Huckabee’s main opponents.

Lowry goes on to say that Huckabee would take religion, a strength of the GOP, and make it into a weakness by overplaying it. He suggests other vulnerabilities would be Huckabee’s tax history as governor of Arkansas along with his lack of national security experience. In fact, Lowry says Democrats have to be looking at Huckabee “as a shiny Christmas present that is too good to be true.”

Here’s my question to you: Would Republicans be making a mistake by nominating Mike Huckabee for president?

To see the Cafferty File video, click here 

Interested to know which ones made it on air:

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Democratic presidential contenders are calling for higher taxes on the richest Americans and on big corporations.

At yesterday’s debate, Hillary Clinton said she wants to keep the “middle class tax cuts” that Congress passed under President Bush, but favors raising taxes for the wealthiest.

John Edwards agreed, saying that our tax policy “Has been established by the big corporations and the wealthiest Americans.” He says the U.S. should get rid of those tax breaks.

And Barack Obama weighed in saying, “We need to put those tax breaks and tax loopholes back into the pockets of hardworking Americans.”

The Democrats also agreed that the idea of balancing the federal budget would have to wait, with Obama saying we won’t be able “to dig ourselves out” of the Bush era deficits in the next year or two. Only Bill Richardson said balancing the budget would be a high priority, noting that as New Mexico governor, that’s what he’s required to do.

All this, of course a far cry from what we heard from the Republican candidates the day before. They called repeatedly for the elimination of the estate tax and reduction in the income tax on corporations.

Here’s my question to you: Is calling for higher taxes on the rich a good strategy for the Democratic presidential candidates?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM Jack Cafferty:

“I’m sorry.” That’s the message coming from a couple of the top contenders for the White House.

Instead of the public learning more about who might be best-qualified to run this country, we’re being confronted with the aftermath of scurrilous personal attacks.

First it was a comment about Mitt Romney’s religion. Mike Huckabee says he personally apologized to Romney, after asking a reporter whether Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. Huckabee, who had come under fire for the comment, says he told Romney after yesterday’s debate he would never try “to pick out some point of your faith and make it an issue.”

Less than 24 hours later, over on the Democratic side, we had a top Hillary Clinton advisor launching an attack against Barack Obama. Bill Shaheen said Democrats should give more thought to Obama’s illegal drug use when he was a kid before deciding if he deserves the nomination. Shaheen later apologized and said his comments weren’t authorized by the Clinton campaign. Late this afternoon, Shaheen quit the Clinton campaign.

But his comments were nasty enough to warrant a personal apology today from Hillary Clinton herself. Apparently Clinton told Obama she was very upset by the remarks, that she told Shaheen it was unacceptable and that this isn’t “the kind of campaign” she’s running.

It certainly is getting ugly out there.

Here’s my question to you: What does it say about the nature of this presidential campaign when major candidates are being forced to say “I’m sorry”?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM Jack Cafferty:

What a year it’s been. Here we are, a little more than a week to go before the Democratic-led Congress adjourns and they don’t have a heck of a lot to show for themselves.

First, House Democratic leaders caved into President Bush’s spending limit on a massive domestic spending bill. Although they’re vowing to shift funds away from the president’s priorities to theirs, it still signals a big political victory for the White House.

Next, what started out as an ambitious agenda a year ago has now been reduced to finger pointing between House and Senate Democrats.

The Washington Post reports Congressman Charlie Rangel is accusing Senate Democratic leaders of developing “Stockholm syndrome” — that they’re showing sympathy to their Republican captors and giving in on all sorts of legislation. He suggests if Republicans want to filibuster a bill, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should keep the bill on the floor and make Republicans talk it to death.

For his part, Reid says he “can’t control Speaker Pelosi”, that she’s a strong, independent woman who “runs the House with an iron hand.”

And, in case that’s not enough, there’s a possibility the government could actually shut down if some of this stuff isn’t resolved. It’s no wonder so few Americans approve of the job they’re doing.

Here’s my question to you: One year later, how would you rate the performance of the Democratic-led Congress?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »