FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said "no" three times when asked if she will ever run for president again. Clinton now works for the man who defeated her in that bruising series of primaries for the Democratic nomination last year. She told NBC News her job as President Obama's secretary of state is great, but "It is a 24/7 job. And I am looking forward to retirement at some point."

If Clinton changes her mind - she would either have to run against President Obama in the Democratic primaries in 2012... or she would have to wait until 2016. She turns 62 this month.

Hillary Clinton is also denying that her voice isn't being heard in the Obama administration... calling that "absurd." She says that it's not her style to try to be the center of attention... and that she believes in delegating power.

Clinton says she wants to be a positive force in enacting the changes that the Obama administration believes in: "But that doesn't mean it all has to be me, me, me all the time."

Of course - we've seen many examples of politicians who swear up and down that they're not going to run for office - like president, but things change somewhere down the line. And when it comes to the Clintons and their political instincts... many believe it's a bad idea to ever count them out.

Here’s my question to you: Hillary Clinton says she won't run for president again. Do you believe her?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Timothy writes:
History has shown never count out the Clintons. As she once said, "You will always find me on the front lines of democracy". So – no, I don't believe her. She will run again.

Kevin in Colorado Springs writes:
Does it really matter? After what Obama's doing, there won't be another Democratic president for a long time.

Reid writes:
I am a far, far, far, right-wing conservative and wish she had won the presidency last time!

Linda from Arizona writes:
"Long in the tooth"? Why would you use this hackneyed phrase on Hillary Clinton? She's only 62. Was crypt-keeper McCain "long in the tooth" at 72? Your sexism is showing again, Jack.

E.J. from Tacoma, Washington writes:
She's getting more coverage being Secretary of State than Joe Biden is being V.P. I think she's pretty content the way the cards fell for her. Why would she want to go through that campaigning again only to possibly be let down once more? She'll be getting close to 70 years old in the next race.

Ema writes:
I don't believe her at all. She is a snake. Obama should not have trusted her.

A.J. writes:
I don't know whether Secretary Clinton was telling the truth or not, but I sincerely hope that she runs again. Her millions of supporters — especially younger voters like me — are ready to make history in 2016. By then, Hillary will be ready for a new primary and general election fight, and she'll be stronger than ever.

Joseph from Smyrna, Georgia writes:
Is Hillary going to run for president again, Jack? I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Barbara writes:
Yes, I believe her. She looks bored and fed up with politics, as we all are.

From CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Senator Hillary Clinton intervened 6 times in government issues that directly affected companies or individuals who became donors to her husband's foundation, according to the Associated Press.

Should the Clinton Foundation's ties to foreigners affect Hillary Clinton's nomination?

This raises obvious questions about the potential for ethical conflicts that could arise in her official business as Secretary of State. Christopher Hitchens at Slate.com calls into question whether Hillary Clinton should have been nominated for the post at all.

The article points out that everyone around the world knows that you can get the former president's attention through his foundation. Not a problem in itself but when you factor in that he's the confidant to the would-be Secretary of State, someone she's sure to rely on since she has no foreign affairs track record of her own, it can become one.

The foundation has agreed to disclose its list of confidential clients and every year new donors from foreign states could be subject to the scrutiny of Obama administration lawyers.

Here’s my question to you: Should the foreign financial affairs of Bill Clinton's foundation be enough to prevent Sen. Hillary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Mike from Syracuse, New York writes:
No Jack, but Mr. Bill should decline any foreign contributions while she is Secretary of State.

John from Fort Collins, Colorado writes:
The Clintons are absolute masters at pushing all their dealings just past the edge, then moving on without blinking and without consequences. This is just the skill set a Secretary of State needs to play international poker with today's world leaders. It would be a poor fit if Hillary were just a nice stay-at-home mother who liked to bake cookies.

Frank from San Jose, California writes:
We don't deny people positions because of potential for wrongdoing; if we did that, no one would get hired anywhere for anything. If Hillary is the best person for the job, she should get it. We should all assume that she will perform her duties ethically unless proven otherwise. It is our duty as the voting public to watch her, as it would be for any other public official. We can't condemn her for something that hasn't happened.

Stan from Barrie, Ontario writes:
It depends on whether you want someone that's up to the job or simply someone who has no external complications. If Hillary can keep Bill's affairs (excuse the terminology) apart from her decisions related to foreign policy there is no reason why she shouldn't be confirmed.

Lane from Nashville, Tennessee writes:
Let me understand this, if she had been elected President, this wouldn't be an issue, but she's not able to be Secretary of State, because her husband does charity work?

DF writes:
The issue is not impropriety, or the appearance thereof, it is the conflict of interest itself. For anyone to have a conflict of interest and deny that it will influence his or her behavior is purely narcissistic. The Greeks called it hubris. It is the core evil of our system of government. Senator Clinton will be confirmed specifically because congresspersons do not want attention to be drawn to their own conflicts of interest.

Gail from Centre, Alabama writes:
I can't think of a better person to be secretary of state. Jack you are just looking for something to grunt about. You don't like the Clintons, and you would like to see her fail.

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President-elect Barack Obama met with Senator Hillary Clinton last week, and since then, a lot has been made about the possibility of Obama's former rival becoming his secretary of state.

The big question this week is what sort of problems Bill Clinton could cause in the vetting process of his wife. Since he left office, President Clinton has started a new career which involves some "complicated international business dealings." He also has a global foundation with a long list of donors who may not all agree with incoming President Obama's policies.

But the Clintons have been here before. If Hillary gets the "all clear" and is offered the job, the next question is: Should she take it?

After losing the democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, Clinton returned to her old job as the junior senator from New York. She's very popular with her constituents and could likely remain in the senate as long as she wants to, perhaps even becoming a senate leader. But if she takes the Secretary of State job, she will tie her career to the successes and failures of the Obama administration. If Obama stumbles, she likely would have an easier time making another run for the White House from the Senate.

Here’s my question to you: What is the proper role for Hillary Clinton in President Obama's administration?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Vera from Baltimore, Maryland writes:
From my vantage point, she shouldn't have a role. She should stay in the Senate and help get Obama's legislation passed. If she becomes secretary of state, she will need someone to actually manage the state department better than she managed her campaign.

Paula writes:
Hillary is the right choice for Secretary of State. I love the fact that Obama feels secure enough to choose people who won't just be "yes" people. I think he is smart to look to people who may not necessarily agree with him all of the time.

Mason from Tuscaloosa, Alabama writes:
Hillary Clinton would be great in Obama's cabinet. That way she can continue with her interpretation of Obama's message: "Change you can Xerox." Come on now, if he appoints her, he might as well give Dick Cheney a job. That's not change; it's more of the same.

Maria writes:
Advisor only. Bill has too many hands in foreign cookie jars for the Clintons to be objective and not a liability to Obama. She is an excellent politician, but an Achilles’ heel to the Obama camp because of her husband.

Tom from Tucson, Arizona writes:
I would think Secretary of Health and Human Services would be the ideal place for her. Senator Clinton has always made healthcare one of her top issues. It may not be as sexy as the Secretary of State position, but with an annual budget of over $700 billion a year, it is certainly influential and affects millions of Americans in a very personal way.

Curt writes:
Any role she wants and he should pay off her debt. He wouldn't be where he is without her.

William from Vero Beach, Florida writes:
Getting Hill off the Hill also puts the chill on Bill. He wouldn't dare engage in international mischief if she were Secretary of State...or would he?

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

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Vice Presidential hopeful and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had a pretty full schedule today in New York, including meetings with Afghan president Hamid Karzai, Iraqi president Jalal Talabani and Colombian president Alvaro Uribe. Also on her dance card: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and rock star-turned-humanitarian Bono. These folks are all in town for the fall session of the United Nation's General Assembly.

Watch: Cafferty: Palin and Clinton

In Washington, meanwhile, former Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton is having some high-powered meetings of her own. She is hosting the seventh annual New York Farm Day. The guest list, according to her office, includes: "producers of New York's award-winning wines, farm-fresh products, and fresh seafood."

Who would have thought a couple of months ago that Clinton would be showcasing her state's agriculture industry while a first time governor and hockey mom who just got her passport last year would be meeting with heads of state at the UN?

Here’s my question to you: What does it say that Sarah Palin is meeting with heads of state at the UN while Hillary Clinton is hosting Farm Day?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

L.J. from San Diego, California writes:
It means Senator Clinton is doing what Senators do in their states, communicating with and supporting her constituents while Sarah is out of class for a day having a closely chaperoned field trip to the U.N. like so many other students have done. No questions, no press, only yearbook picture day for Sarah.

John from Marlton, New Jersey writes:
Hillary is doing what Hillary does to earn the credibility she has and the votes she gets. What the Palin-Clinton comparison speaks to is the incredibly poor judgment Obama used in picking a running mate.

Jerome writes:
Hillary is connecting with people. Palin is avoiding any real debate meeting with hand-picked heads of very “Bush” states. The press should all stop covering her until the press is granted complete, unrestricted access to her and she answers their questions in a truthful manner.

Raquel writes:
It means Palin's facade is still working, just barely, but it's still working, and Clinton is getting back to business. I'm totally embarrassed by Palin, but as a woman, I remain proud of Clinton. She continues to work hard for the people. I admire her tenaciousness.

S.C. from New York writes:
I don't see Senator Clinton hosting Farm Day as demeaning. The farmers are what sustain us. They are vital to everything in America. From my personal view, I think they have more wisdom than some world leaders have shown us.

Butch writes:
It means the U.N. has turned into another meaningless campaign stop.

Dave from Toronto writes:
Whenever Palin is near mammals, she shoots them and makes stew. Fortunately, guns are not permitted in the U.N. Building, and a photo shoot is harmless. The world is better off with the ladies' schedules just as they are.

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It was pretty easy to see last night why Bill Clinton was elected president. When he's on, there's nobody better.

The former president came out swinging, declaring that Obama is "ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world." He rather cleverly pointed out that when he was running in 1992, critics said the same things about him as they say about Obama. "Too young, too inexperienced." Clinton said those criticisms didn't work against him then, and they won't work against Obama now because "he is on the right side of history".

Like his wife, Clinton called on Hillary's 18 million supporters to vote for Obama. But he went even further than Hillary had, praising Obama's ability to inspire people, his intelligence and curiosity, his "clear grasp" of foreign policy, the strength he gained from the long primary season and his good judgment in choosing Joe Biden as his number two. And he did it all with a straight face.

Watch: Cafferty: Clintons deliver?

Bill Clinton ripped into John McCain, saying that after two terms of President Bush, "in this case, the third time is not the charm." Clinton cited a laundry list of Republican failures of the last 8 years, particularly the sinking image of America abroad: "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of power".

With thousands of delegates waving American flags, it seems like party unity may have finally arrived. Hillary Clinton also made the symbolic move yesterday of stepping forward during the roll call to propose that Obama be declared the nominee by acclamation. So after months and months of bitterness and division…

Here’s my question to you: Did the Clintons deliver for Barack Obama?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Brian from Kingston, New York writes:
I’ve been an Obama supporter throughout the campaign, and Bill and Hillary reminded me this week why I liked them so much before the primaries. I don't know how persuasive they were to the hardcore Hillary holdouts, but they certainly redeemed themselves in my eyes.

Mary from Canton, Michigan writes:
Being from the battleground state of Michigan, I know no one generates more enthusiastic crowds than Bill Clinton when he visits Detroit and the metro area. With Bill and Hillary on board, it should be a slam-dunk for Obama. If Obama loses this election, it will definitely not be the fault of the Clintons. The division in the Democratic Party has been created by the media and the hierarchy of the party.

Ted from Beaverton, Oregon writes:
They delivered like the post office compared to overnight FEDEX, but they eventually did their jobs. Why did they need so much arm-twisting to get things done for their own party? I was ready for unity on day one of the convention, not when the Clintons stopped whining.

Gail from Centre, Alabama writes:
The Clintons have done what was expected of them, and a darn good job. It's now up to Obama to close the deal. There is not a thing he can say to get my vote; it's just not going to happen. I can't vote for a community organizer. Someone with the judgment he has plus no experience. I'm not willing to take that risk.

Bill from Quarryville, Pennsylvania writes:
I think there's nothing more the Clintons could have done for party unity than the speeches they have given the last two nights. By the way, Jack, I am now going to the shed and getting my snow shovels out. You had nice things to say about the Clintons two days in a row.

Kevin from Massachusetts writes:
Jack, I really don't know. I couldn't bring myself to watch. Hanna Montana was on the Disney Channel.

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.(PHOTO CREDIT: AP PHOTO)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

If someone in the Obama camp doesn't turn this into a campaign slogan, they're not as smart as I thought they were. "No way. No how. No McCain.” With those words, Hillary Clinton finally hit one out of the park last night for Barack Obama. Our John King got it right last night when he said Clinton is "a big game player" and this was a "big game speech."

It might have been the best speech she ever made, calling for party unity and for her 18 million supporters - the "sisterhood of the travelling pantsuits" - to back Obama in November. One of her better lines was, "We don't need 4 more years of the last 8 years.”

Clinton also lashed out at John McCain on the economy, health care, Social Security. Another good line: It makes sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.

Watch: Cafferty: Can Hillary help?

Joe Biden turned out to be "bounceless"in the polls but Barack Obama might just get one from Hillary.

It was interesting that in her speech Clinton said she was honored to be there as a proud mother, Democrat, senator, American and Obama supporter. With her husband looking on in the audience - she made no mention of being a proud "wife."

Hillary Clinton plans to attend Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field tomorrow night. But her husband is reportedly not going to be there. Bill Clinton speaks tonight… and while he's good, he'll have to bring his "A" game to top his wife's performance last evening.

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to Barack Obama winning the White House, can Hillary Clinton make the difference?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Mitchell from Arkansas writes:
After last night's speech? Absolutely. Up until this point, I would have said absolutely not. She's redeemed herself, in my eyes and I would be very happy to see her do whatever she is willing to do to help. I just wish the Democrats , themselves, would get their acts together, so that us independents and crossover Republicans, who seem more passionate than many Democrats, about our man Barack, don't get left behind, and stuck with another one of the 'twins', [Bush/McCain].

Annie from Atlanta writes:
Her speech was certainly impressive, but the difference will be made by us, the American voters. Unfortunately, we don't have a real good track record.

Manuel writes:
She won't make any difference. It's up to him to show to the voters what he plans to do, how he is going to do it and above all how he is going to pay for it. Talking is cheap but accomplishing all he had promised so far is quite a different matter.

Alex from Kamloops, British Columbia writes:
Hillary Clinton supporters who say that they will vote for John McCain demonstrate that they never really supported Hillary Clinton's principles in the first place.

Vinnie from New York writes:
Jack,
It's too late for HRC to help Obama win the White House. That ship sailed when he picked Joe Biden to be his VP...

Laura from Kentucky writes:
A despondent Hillary supporter said on camera last night. "He's got two months left." He still needs to reach out to all the Hillary supporters that he magically expects to "Get Over It." I think Obama supporters need to try on a pantsuit and walk in our shoes for a day.

The Washington Post reports that some of Clinton's top advisers will be absent for Obama's speech on Thursday.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Hillary Clinton is expected to be a cheerleader for party unity when she takes the stage tonight in Denver, but there may be less there than meets the eye. Reports are that tensions continue to run high between the Clinton and Obama camps.

The Washington Post reports that some of Clinton's top advisers will leave town before Barack Obama accepts the party's nomination on Thursday night – that includes Terry McAuliffe who was Clinton's campaign manager.

One Clinton supporter who is staying on for Obama's speech says it would be unrealistic to expect that there wouldn't be tension between the two groups... and that the convention is a good chance for the two groups to bond – which is hard if you're leaving Denver.

Two longtime Clinton backers who are leaving early have excuses: one says it's for his daughter's weekend wedding and the other for an overseas business trip.

Nonetheless, the Democratic Party is probably not as unified as Barack Obama and many others were hoping it would be at this point. Obama was forced to address reports that Hillary Clinton was never even vetted to be his running mate, saying he did in fact consider her. Meanwhile, John McCain is now out with his 4th ad using Hillary Clinton's words from the primaries against Barack Obama. The infamous 3 A.M. ad is back with the announcer intoning, "Hillary was right."

This is not the way the Democrats drew this up.

Here’s my question to you: What message does it send when some of Hillary Clinton's top advisers plan to skip Barack Obama's acceptance speech?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

James writes:
No one will ever accuse the Clintons and their inner circle of having any class. The supporters leaving town are consistent with their track record over the years.

Yvonne writes:
Jack, I'm not sure what it means, but I know what it means to me. If Hillary's supporters can't support Barack Obama now, I will never support Hillary later.

Susie from Washington writes:
It sends a very appropriate message. This should have been Hillary's year – Obama is an inexperienced interloper supported by a bunch of people with stars in their eyes.

Peter from Brevard, North Carolina writes:
They realize that they won't get any high profile jobs in a Clinton White House.

Rob from Denver writes:
Are they really going to walk out? It's an interesting rumor, but so much of this rift between Obama and Clinton seems to be blown out of proportion by the news media and talk radio simply trying to fill up air time with something controversial. Until Obama's speech on Thursday, your question is moot, Jack. But we love ya anyway!

Alex from Sacramento, California writes:
It's sad. It's like children not staying for the cake at a birthday party. Sad.

Dylan writes:
Jack, The question is not so much "What message does it send" but more, if Hillary was the one making the acceptance speech, would a family wedding or a business trip pre-empt it?

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

I have started writing a weekly column for CNN.com. This week the headline is "The Beverly Hillary-billies come to Denver." (You will be able to read it tomorrow on cnn.com.)

Despite all the rosy assurances from both sides, there are signs of lingering deep bitterness between the Obama and Clinton camps. And it's a division and bitterness you could see coming in South Carolina. And John McCain is using Hillary Clinton like a baseball bat to hit Barack Obama over the head, using her own words from the primaries against him.

The Clintons will have ample opportunity to try to heal the wounds this week at the convention, but I'm beginning to wonder if they're capable. Hillary speaks tomorrow night, former president Bill Clinton on Wednesday night.

Watch: Cafferty: Clinton overlooked?

According to CNN's own poll, 66% of Clinton supporters – these are registered Democrats who wanted Hillary to be the nominee – 66% say they're backing Obama. That's down from 75% in June. At the same time, the number of Clinton Democrats who say they will vote for John McCain has gone up 11% since June.

And this may be the telling number. Only 59% of Hillary's supporters say the selection of Senator Joe Biden as Obama's running mate was an "excellent" or "good" decision. Among all registered Democrats that number jumps to 73%.

Here’s my question to you: Is it possible that not picking Hillary Clinton as a running mate could cost Barack Obama the election?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Tom from Jacksonville, Florida writes:
Absolutely not. The Clinton name enrages and energizes the Republicans and she does not help in attracting the independent voter. I hope that all of her supporters come to their senses and realize that a vote for McCain is against their own interests. In these complex and difficult times, we cannot afford to have the same unintelligent and shallow republican leadership that we have had for the past 8 years.

Carol writes:
It was the easy way to mend the Democratic Party, but some people enjoy doing things the hard way. I think his chance of winning could be lost on his choice. Many of the attributes of Biden are the ones that they use against McCain. Temper and age being just two. And he looks like McCain.

Mark writes:
Jack, it is possible that not picking her could cost him the election. If he had picked her, it definitely would have cost him the election.

Colleen writes:
Obama lost my vote when he did not pick Hillary as his running mate. To quote an old phrase he “cut off his nose to spite his face” – really a stupid move. Had he picked her, he would have won, hands down. Now his chance has diminished. I will vote McCain.

Shirley from Jacksonville, Florida writes:
Wrong song! We are not voting against Bush. We are voting against Republican policies that see teachers forced to buying supplies, health clinics under-funded, jobs gone overseas, insurance costs and the song goes on. Do not count us out - us quiet voters who listen to the talking heads and hope you realize we are out here.

Phil from Queens, New York writes:
Biden is the right choice in one regard: the energy crisis. He is the largest source of natural gas in America. If you can figure a way to hook him up, he would light up the entire eastern seaboard.

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

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Yet another sign that Hillary Clinton is doing her dead-level best to take title to the Democratic National Convention.

In addition to the laundry list of concessions she has already wrung out of Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton plan to use the convention to raise money to pay off more of her campaign debt from the primaries.

Hillary Clinton has announced she will award one lucky donor a trip to the convention – with her. And in case that's not incentive enough, Bill Clinton sent an e-mail to potential contributors promising a memorable week with his wife.

Watch: Cafferty: Clinton in debt?

"You'll get to see Hillary speak on Tuesday, and Barack Obama – the next president of the United States – on Thursday. And I hear Hillary and you will have a chat – I'll make sure to stop by." Makes you want to borrow against your house.

I mentioned Hillary Clinton's doing her best to take title to the convention? Clinton will have her name placed into nomination and there will be a roll call vote. She gets her own prime-time speaking slot. She will be introduced by her daughter, Chelsea. The video preceding her will be produced by her own production company – the same bunch that did the "Man From Hope," for Bill Clinton. Oh, and he's going to speak too. All this for the loser in the race.

The clock is ticking when it comes to Clinton's debt. According to campaign finance rules, candidates only have 20 days after the convention ends to fund-raise for their personal loans. So if you see Senator Clinton out in front of the convention hall with a cup of pencils, buy one. She needs the money.

Here’s my question to you: Is the Democratic Convention the appropriate place for Hillary Clinton to raise money to pay off her campaign debt?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Jessica from Springfield, IL writes:
NO! Not appropriate. If she had gracefully "suspended" her run when WE all knew she couldn't win, she wouldn't BE $20M in debt!! This is Obama's time, also historical; she needs to BUTT OUT!!

Larry from Scappoose Oregon writes:
I guess the media is so desperate for a story you are talking about Hillary fund-raising at the convention. To me it just doesn't matter, as long as she doesn't make a fool of herself on the stage during the speech, it just doesn't matter. There are so many important issues that we could be discussing.

Chad from Los Angeles writes:
I voted for her, but now starting to feel a little embarrassed for her and how desperate she appears now. All this just to pay off a debt that she will make up with her next book, or Bill’s next guest speaking tour.

Karen from Houston Texas writes:
What difference does it make what we think? Obviously the only thing that matters is what Hillary, Bill and her PUMA supporters think. At least that's what the media and she and her supporters keep telling everyone. I will be so glad when this election process is over and I don't have to see or hear the Clintons again.

Nicole from Virgin Islands writes:
Hell to the no!
Let her 18,000,000 supporters retire her debt.

J. writes:
It is in poor form and inappropriate, but I've got an idea, Jack. Why doesn't Hillary just charge large amounts of money for people to overnight in her home? That worked when she and Bill lived in the White House, it should work in New York, too.

Ed from Florida writes:
Jack,
Who are you going to pick on after the convention?

Hillary Clinton will give a prime-time address at the convention. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Democratic National Convention is shaping into quite some party for Hillary Clinton.

Her name will be placed into nomination. She'll give a prime-time address, introduced by her daughter Chelsea. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will get his own plum speaking slot on a separate night. She will also have her own production team to create the introductory video that precedes her speech – the same people who produced Bill Clinton's biography video "The Man from Hope" in 1992.

And, there's now language in the party's platform that refers to the "18 million cracks in the highest glass ceiling," and suggests that media sexism contributed to Hillary's defeat. All this makes it easy to forget that Hillary Clinton is the loser.

Barack Obama and Clinton say they agreed to put both of their names into nomination after weeks of negotiating. It's meant to help unite the party and head off potential embarrassing problems at the convention from Hillary supporters. You can bet Obama wants a drama-free convention and sees this laundry list of concessions as a way of keeping the peace.

Others suggest this amounts to little more than extortion. One expert says the Clintons have "got Obama hostage and are exacting their ransom" with all of these convention demands. New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin writes that "Obama blinked and stands guilty of appeasing Clinton”. He points out by giving in to her, Obama doesn't stand to get any votes he wouldn't have gotten anyway, and that those who refuse to accept him as the legitimate winner probably won't change their minds because he's caved in.

If he can't stand up to Hillary, how's he going to fare against Vladimir Putin?
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to the convention, has Barack Obama let Hillary Clinton take over?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Diane from Florida writes:
Jack, Can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot? If Hillary had won the nomination and Obama were asking to have his delegation recognized? Do you really think that Michelle would be speaking one night introduced by the Obama daughters and Barack would have a speaking engagement the next night? Not on your life! Bill and Hillary would have mowed Obama down in a heartbeat, and they still might try.

Martha writes:
It’s people like you, Jack, who forget she is not a loser. She earned 18 million votes. Why don't you stop with your stupid questions and always trying to put the Clintons down? Show some respect. She absolutely has earned the right to be acknowledged at the convention and with any luck the voters will get it right this time.

B. from Odom, Texas writes:
I think Sen. Obama is being exceedingly gracious to Sen. Clinton. The majority of your viewers, including me, believe she and Bill are up to no good. I hope we are wrong. I sincerely hope Mr. Obama has all his bases covered. I for one cannot wait for all this intrigue and drama to be over.

Tony from Stafford, Virginia writes:
You didn't really think that Hillary Clinton was just going to lie down and give up, did you? Silly, silly people. Have you learned nothing about the Clintons in the past 16 years?

Jay writes:
Barack Obama is the nominee, period. There is no takeover. The media are just circulating the RNC's talking points with this controversy garbage.

Brian from Chicago writes:
If all goes well, history will remember Obama for being a pragmatic leader who successfully unified the Democratic Party. However, I will point out that Hillary Clinton's campaign has not ended. It has been suspended. Why is that? And is it possible for a campaign to un-suspend upon the unsuspecting?