.
December 20th, 2007
01:43 PM ET

Obama’s cabinet: Hagel, Arnold?

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has often talked about reaching out across the aisle if he becomes president.

And ABC News reports Obama is now naming names of some Republicans he'd consider putting in his cabinet.

Obama told voters at a town hall event in Manchester, New Hampshire, that it's premature to start announcing his cabinet and that he still has a long way to go. Nonetheless, some GOP names started to flow… including Senators Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel along with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Of Lugar, Obama said he's worked with him before on issues of arms control, that he's somebody who embodies the tradition of a sensible bipartisan foreign policy.

Obama said Hagel is someone who has a "similar approach" and that he respects in a similar fashion.

And, when it comes to Schwarzenegger, Obama described what he's done on climate change in California as "important and significant", adding that the governor has taken leadership on a tough issue and that we haven't seen that kind of leadership in Washington.

Here’s my question to you: Does it make Barack Obama a more appealing candidate when he says he’d consider Republicans like Chuck Hagel and Arnold Schwarzenegger for his cabinet?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Nicholas from New York writes:
Jack, I think Barack Obama's desire to fill his cabinet with Republicans only points to the narrowing differences between the two major parties. I also think it is naive to think he would be able to control his agenda with members of the opposition at the highest levels inside the White House. I think it would be a big mistake.

Eric writes:
Jack, As an active-duty soldier in the Army, I am looking for America to elect someone who has broad appeal. While that may be asking a lot in the current highly-partisan environment, it says a lot about a candidate that he has not only pledged to reach across the aisle to improve cooperation to tackle America's problems, but that he is actually naming names of those he would like to work closely with in the opposing party.

Fah from Greenville, South Carolina writes:
He sounds like a little kid trying to get attention spitting out names prematurely, as he himself admitted. Why? He's casting a wide net to attract a broader scope of voters. Maybe a specific name will 'hit!" Sorry, bud. No experience for the job is still NO EXPERIENCE! Come back in 2020.

Cameron from Bloomingdale, Illinois writes:
It again shows Obama's ability to be inclusive and open-minded, something we haven't seen for the last three decades that I can personally remember.

Thomas from South Carolina writes:
Listing these Republicans by name was pretty substantive and specific. If only he would let that type of thing spill over into his actual platform. I don't think anyone knows what Obama really stands for, other than an overgeneralized promise of "change." Apparently, and unfortunately, that's good enough for some Americans.

Carol from Phoenix writes:
I am so sick of all these bozos, regardless of the party... it all sounds the same. The amount of money wasted on this election would be better served to pay down our national debt.

Maybe Jack will read yours tomorrow.


Filed under: Barack Obama • Elections
soundoff (126 Responses)
  1. Jenny from New York

    Yes. There are very few stand-up Republicans. Hagel and Schwarzenegger are two of them. They stand up to Bush on issues like the war and the environment and can only make Obama more appealing in the eyes of those who want to unite the country, something Hillary Clinton can't do.

    December 20, 2007 at 2:00 pm |
  2. LACY SHREWSBURY

    Jack,it would make someone more favorable, because it shoes that he is interested in more than having only one party involved in decisions, Clinton did something like this with his Defense Department I commend him for the thought, but would he realy do it.

    December 20, 2007 at 2:01 pm |
  3. Jim Jensen

    Check Hagel and Arnold Schwarzenegger are good people and I like them. However, it is election season and candidates do say they'll do a lot of things we all know they aren't going to do. Barack Obama is a very intelligent man and I think he is really dedicated to his campaign. However, with all his dreams of a "new direction" he is a liability at this time. Whoever wins the election is going to have to have to have the experience and know how to hit the deck running and not look back. Barack Obama would hit the deck running and run right into a business as usual, Good O'l Boy Congress who have no intention of being inspired and overcome by Obama's idealism. What then? I just don't think the world is ready for Barack Obama this time around. Maybe in 2016, if we finally get our act together and can experiment with new directions.

    December 20, 2007 at 2:11 pm |
  4. Ed Reed

    Yes. Katrina showed this administration valued party loyalty over competence. The subversion of the Justice Department resulted from appointees acting as if they swore an oath to the President instead of the Constitution. Hopefully, the time of the ideologue is over and the time of the pragmatist has begun.

    December 20, 2007 at 2:29 pm |
  5. bnthdntht

    No it makes him look naive. Hagel is an ultra conservative who could have won the republican nomination,but something held him back. What? Schwarzenegger could win only one governor's race in California here in Arizona he would have been laughed backed to the movies.

    December 20, 2007 at 2:29 pm |
  6. Richard Sternagel

    Yes,it does make him a more appealing candidate! Barack Obama has the ability to unite America by putting the country's needs first in contras to Bush who puts oil,Big Business,and his cronies first! America needs to come together again and Barack O bama is the right person to do it!

    December 20, 2007 at 2:30 pm |
  7. Terry O'Flaherty

    Jack
    This guy is the real deal.This is exactly what we need. No more Democrats against Republicans. Its time to get everyone together and help resolve the many issues that confront this country. As long as we have this infighting in Congress we will never accomplish anything.

    December 20, 2007 at 2:31 pm |
  8. rastaman

    ....Arnie in the whitehouse....americans really do deserve everything they get.

    RIP USA

    December 20, 2007 at 2:41 pm |
  9. Mike B.

    Barack's willingness to put petty partisanship behind him will undoubtedly make him the candidate to beat in '08. We need more leaders who will fill positions based on qualifications and merit, rather than the increasingly ridiculous parties politicians choose to associate themselves.

    December 20, 2007 at 2:42 pm |
  10. Josh

    It makes him a more appealing candidate in the sense that he would be open to the idea of appointing qualified cabinet members regardless of their party affiliation. This is more proof that he will be a president that will move across party lines in order to reunite this country.

    December 20, 2007 at 2:52 pm |
  11. Jason from Scottsdale

    Jack

    Yes, Its because those are 2 people who have proven they can work with the other side of aisle. And with Barack saying that, means he wants to work with the other side as well. Kinda refreshing. Barack Obama – Ron Paul ticket?? hmmm

    December 20, 2007 at 2:54 pm |
  12. Rich, McKinney Texas

    Not to me it doesn't. Obama hasn't been in politics long enough to have his training wheels taken off his bike yet. Nor has he authored or passed any earth shattering legislation. Sorry Jack, we don't need an intern trying to perform open heart surgery on a critically ill America at this juncture no mater who is looking over his shoulder. It will take some fantastic skills to get America back where it needs to be after the last 8 years. Obama is just not qualified to lead this country anywhere right now. Give him another 8 or 12 years and some kind of accomplishments to gauge his performance by. Just voting for a change or a nice guy is not what this country needs. We need leadership and experience and honesty and integrity which very few of those running have.

    December 20, 2007 at 2:56 pm |
  13. Lois

    Only if he actually means it - I bet if anyone were to ask any of the candidates, nearly all of them would say it, but how many will actually follow through?

    December 20, 2007 at 3:02 pm |
  14. Bill Hedenberg

    Yes it does. I'ts great to here that we potentially have a candidiate with an open mind, rather than the hard core party people with tunnel vision.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:03 pm |
  15. Tom Bulger

    Chuck Hagel is one of the people in government that keeps hope alive. That would be a great ticket. Olympia Snowe is another Republican Senator who ls not an idiot.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:09 pm |
  16. T.DeMari

    No it does not. It only tells us that he is not experienced enought to make wise decisions. Now, I am certain to vote for Hillary Clinton.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:13 pm |
  17. Gypsy

    Jack,
    It makes sense to get the best people you can regardless of party. That would be Hagel. However, Schwarzenneger's lack of experience about equals Obama's, and if Obama is just looking for more star attraction, he should stick with Oprah.
    Gypsy (my real nickname)

    December 20, 2007 at 3:19 pm |
  18. Lee

    It does to me. It goes to show how aware he is that this country needs bipartisan leadership. A person who can do what King George promised during his first term. (bring democrats and republicans together and restore integrity and honesty to the White House). 8 to 12 more years in washington won't neccessarilly make anyone a better leader. America needs a PRESIDENT who understands the issues of All americans and Barack is the man for the job.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:23 pm |
  19. steve duke

    I like Obama butt It does not matter who he chooses for his cabinet ,Hillary will make some sort of issue out of it.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:25 pm |
  20. john

    NO, he is just playing the associate me with …(dot) (dot) (dot) … game and seeing what sticks. ..He is Oprah's man.... He'll never see my vote.!

    December 20, 2007 at 3:28 pm |
  21. Elaine

    I think that Obama would be a great choice. When people talk about him not having enough experience I think they are wrong. We need someone in the White House that has new idea and not someone who has not been around so long that they have the same old ideas. Fresh ideas is what this country need now.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:29 pm |
  22. Bill Rich

    Hi Jack,
    I for one don't care who he would appoint where, I don't think he is the right man for the job of president, America needs a leader and he doesn't appear to be one.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:34 pm |
  23. Ron Noe, VA

    You know Jack, Doesn't matter! Hillary will probably win and Barack would have been the best running mate. But he has slapped her around to much and that won't happen now. Hillary will probably pick Bill Richardson.

    You guys have a great Christmas,I'm going to try to forget about Bush and politics and all that for a few days. It's hard though, every trip to the gas station is hurting and being military we bought a house here on an ARM knowing full well we would have to sell next year. Who knew the Banking "Professionals", would over extend themselves??? Who knew there was no enforcement agency to keep Banks from gambling with the housing industry. Now that the Dems fell on their sword, we're looking at another tour in Iraq! Kinda hard to forget all that but we're going to try. Merry Christmas Jack!

    December 20, 2007 at 3:40 pm |
  24. Patricia

    Since things haven't really gotten any better since Arnold became Governor in California, I don't think Sen. Obama needs him in his cabinet. The only thing that Sen. Hagel is famous for is finally standing against the Iraq War. That's not that great of reason to be Se. Obama's cabinet either.
    I remember when Bill Clinton asked William Cohen to be his Sec. of Defense, that was a good choice, because William Cohen wasn't in lock-step with the NEO-CONS. But, the NEO-CONS don't want to release their choke-hold on this government & the only way to make sure we do break the hold on them is not give them 1 seat anywhere in the next Democratic President's cabinet.
    Patricia,
    Palmdale, Ca.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:47 pm |
  25. Jesse Reynolds

    YES!!
    We finally may have an opportunity to overcome the politics of destruction and enter an new era of the politics of cooperation.
    I am so tired of politicians demonizing the opposition; just imagine, politicians of both stripes working together to lead our nation...what a concept
    Jesse in Tacoma

    December 20, 2007 at 3:57 pm |
  26. brian Knight

    Jack,
    It would make us look like the most "oversold" country in the world. I wasn't aware that you could be VP and be born on foreign soil, not that I don't think Arnie is likable, but, no thanks to both of them for that.
    My question is: Would Obama's election be a peace offering to "the east"?
    No, it would look like one at first, then the inevitable disaster would shortly ensue. The only way we have out of this is to elect an American born, who knows the true score and will do "whatever" we may have to do. Then we can elect Obama, if still so desired.
    That might not be what everybody wants to hear in this age of politically correct, sloganeering, suck-ups.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:09 pm |
  27. Devon Waldron

    It would absolutely make Obama a more appealing president; there has to be cooperation between the parties in order to achieve progress, and such a cabinet would engender cooperation.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:09 pm |
  28. Paul Roth

    Absolutely! It is time to harness the power of two opposites working together – the same principle upon which this country was founded.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:10 pm |
  29. John Onyango

    Yes Yes Yes it does, what we need now is a cabinet that will work together for the good of America, whether they are republicans or democrats, its time we had a government that will work for the people, and not the people working for the government.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:11 pm |
  30. Eric

    Jack-

    As an active-duty soldier in the Army, I am looking for America to elect someone who has broad appeal. While that may be asking a lot in the current highly-partisan environment, it says a lot about a candidate that he has not only pledged to reach across the aisle to improve cooperation to tackle America's problems, but that he is actually naming names of those he would like to work closely with in the opposing party. I applaud Mr. Obama for ignoring the primary's nature of concentrating only on party and looking for qualified individuals on the other side of the aisle. Good luck, Mr. Obama. You have the vote of this soldier.

    -Eric
    Chicago, Illinois

    December 20, 2007 at 4:12 pm |
  31. George

    If he wins, I hope for our sake he does hire some experienced people because it's obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about. He speaks in very nice generalities without being able to explain how he'd execute anything. I guess that's what happens when you start running for President ten minutes after you're elected to the Senate.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:12 pm |
  32. Erica

    It is imperative our parties do work across party lines in order to promote moderate parties and to rule out extreme sectors. Obama has a great plan. When you individuals working together from both parties you're better able to understand the situation or policy. After hearing the views you can refine policies to make them more accepting to the public.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:12 pm |
  33. Joe Klein

    Yes.
    Just because someone is from the other party does not mean they are instantly unqualified or the enemy. We have been deeply divided for too long. There are good people on both sides of the political fence, and they should be used as a President sees fit. Partisian politics are killing this country, we are almost back to the days of the north vs the south, and this has to end. We are one people in one country, and should have our leadership reflect this.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  34. Cameron, Bloomingdale, Illinois

    It again shows Obama's ability to be inclusive and open-minded...somthing we haven't seen for the last three decades that I can personally remember.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  35. Chuck

    Yes, Jack, hasn't it been a long time before we saw someone this serious running for president. We seriously need to throw Hillary on the ropes and let Obama win this thing.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  36. Mary Steele

    Nothing can help him or anybody else that is already showing that they are going to pick and choose which laws they are going to enforce.

    Illegal immigrants are sinking us in healthcare costs and our economy-You are NOT enforcing immigration laws against employers and others and it is bad for US in many ways. It is costing taxpayers, not employers, millions of dollars to support them and they are part of the reason healthcare and other costs are going up. Hospitals pass along their losses to citizens and their insurance companies because they have to treat illegals. Law enforcement across the country has to spend millions of dollars to prosecute and jail them for crimes that include rape and murder, let’s not forget that they are also committing identity theft, which is a felony in many states. It should be felony in all states and federal, considering what it costs the victims and our economy through higher loans and fees from credit and credit card companies.

    Our economy is suffering from over 8 million Americans unemployed, meaning they are looking for work. Illegals and too many guest workers do not spend the necessary dollars in this country to keep the economy going in the earn and spend process, so it down spirals. That, in addition to loopholes that pay companies to move overseas, and trade deficits with China and other countries, are 2 more reasons for our sinking economy. And now our senators have upheld tax breaks for oil companies, leaving us holding the bag, again!

    Illegals that are here and elsewhere, should be required to apply just like the ones here legally and those legally waiting their turn outside this country. Enforce the laws with $100,000 fines per illegal and mandatory jail time for the second offense for employers and others that harbor them. Those fines will cover the costs of enforcement, if done correctly. Stop wasting limited resources and get down to tracking those here that want to do us harm. As of now, they have a lot of places to hide, right along with the other illegals.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  37. Erica from New Jersey

    As a 19 year old who has never voted in a presidential election before, the fact that Obama would consider crossing party lines to include Republicans in his cabinet is relieving. Although I find myself supporting the Democratic party, I never truly wanted to make that commitment before- this makes it easier to pick a candidate, knowing that he is willing to work with whoever he has to to make the best decisions for our country.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  38. Praveen Jayasinghe, New York CIty, NY

    When did America turn into blue America and red America? The one nation in the world that is known to unite and respect all ethnicities, beliefs, religions...is now divided by political lines.
    Of course this makes Obama look better and a more appealing candidate because he is. He is planning to make America as strong and good as it can be. Anyone who says otherwise...is making a statement from a selfish point of view.
    I think this is a beautiful thing...and it would be great to see all politicians take a similar stand. Might make our jobs as voters a bit more difficult...but it is worth it

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  39. Jonta Williams

    Absolutely. That's exactly what we need – to forge past the idealogues of the right and left, pair up with those on all sides that are willing to work to make things happen. I'm tired of all the fighting and partisanship because in the end, we (the tax paying citizens) are the only ones that lose.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  40. Watson E Mills

    Jack:

    Sure the Republicans Obama mentions would be great additions to any cabinet. Goodness knows we need fesh thinking and open discussion–and these folks would challenge conventional thinking on a range of issues. But, alas, Obama will never get to appoint them because our Republican friends will "swift-boat" him into oblivion even if he gets the nomination. Look, if they could make John Kerry's distinguished war record look inferior to that of a stay-at-home, hard-drinking Texas Air National Guard "no-show," somebody who is young, black and with a family connection to Islam will be a walk in the park for these gutless, mud slingers from the "Christian" right..

    Watson in Georgia

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  41. Thomas, SC

    Listing these Republicans by name was pretty substantive and specific. If only he would let that type of thing spill over into his actual platform. I don't think anyone knows what Obama really stands for, other than an overgeneralized promise of "change." Apparently, and unfortunately, that's good enough for some Americans.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  42. John

    Absolutely. Washington needs a president who will reach across the aisle and accomplish important goals through compromise, and Obama's willingness to put Republicans in his cabinet shows his willingness to work with their party. A good president surrounds himself with intelligent, trustworthy people who will offer him multiple angles from which to view a problem.

    John
    Chicago, IL

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  43. Patsy

    If he chose Arnold that would make a foreigner one heartbeat away from the presidency. I think we need to have born in America doing the job as a president. But that is my opinion. Go Hillary. Keep "Made In America" as our slogan.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:14 pm |
  44. Frankie D'Erasmo

    Of course it's very appealing! Any 'no' answer you see here is likely coming from a person who is too much on the left or just has no deep sense of togetherness.

    Bipartisanism is the way to go to cover all the bases. If you appeal to both sides, you'll have a lot less political theater that's been going on in Congress lately. Both names brought up by Obama are great Republicans, and I have a lot of respect for them. They can bring fresh ideas to a country in need of them and can easily work together with the rest of Obama's cabinet whenever he decides to pick them (assuming he's elected of course).

    A country united is better than a country divided. As such, you should reflect this in an ideal administration.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:14 pm |
  45. Gabe Shippy

    Of course it would make him more appealing. Its about time we had a leader in Washington who is actually willing to reach out to the other side and get things done for the American people. Thats much better than this gridlock, partisan nonsense that is not accomplishing anything for this country.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:14 pm |
  46. Kevin Smith

    Absolutely! This country thrives best when opinions and advice are shared by all, even those who you may disagree with. We do not need another White House run by an oligarchy of "yes" men and women. I for one am glad that Obama does not want to run the White House as it has been run but wants to run it as it should be – inclusive, honest, and forthcoming! Down with King George! My support is going behind President Obama!!

    December 20, 2007 at 4:15 pm |
  47. Samuel

    I think that any candidate that is willing to reach across the aisle is a candidate worth supporting. However, the purpose of bipartisanship is to keep an open mind and a level head, with the help of people who disagree with you. After you describe Obama's reasons for considering those people, I wasn't sure whether they were for dissent or for reassurance. That is, though they are republican, they don't seem to disagree with him on the issues he selected them for, so doesn't that defeat the purpose? Either way, any attempt to hear both points of view is a plus for me.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
  48. alex delaney

    it looks(from someone living in another country) that Obama's willingness to bypass bi-partisan squabble in order to get to the key issues creates the image of a more united America that hasn't been seen since the early 2000's. good on him.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
  49. sabrina

    Sounds like another good old boys club...Isn't Opera backing him and aren't Opera and Maria very good friends?

    December 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
  50. Ron Feinman from Boca Raton, Florida

    I think if Barack Obama was to have Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel and Arnold Schwarzenegger considered to be part of his administration, the country would greatly benefit. We need bi partisan government and Senators Lugar and Hagel and Governor Schwarzenegger are in the tradition of the best of the Republican Party. Hagel would be an excellent Secretary of Defense and Lugar would fill the position of Secretary of State in an admirable fashion. Were Governor Schwarzenegger willing to consider joining the Obama administration, he would be an excellent choice for Secretary of the Interior, as he is a leader in environmentalism and would also add a "Kennedy" image to the new government. Another choice worth considering would be Mayor Michael Bloomberg of NYC who would be excellent in the position of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development with his long experience heading the largest city in the nation. This is a GREAT suggestion by Obama and would make his candidacy a lot more attractive, and I think it would represent a new start for our country.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
  51. Jim

    Not a bit more appealing. Now we would have to watch a cabinet that can't get along, to go with the congress which can't get along. If he has Republican ideals, then get off the fence that Lieberman keeps sitting on (it must hurt by now!) and fall into the Republican muck. If you're a Democrat thats what you want, we've had enough of this riding the rails between the parties. It doesn't work. Stop pandering to all parties, all colors, all religions, and all ideals. Just be yourself, what a refreshing change that would be in American politics

    December 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
  52. PAUL

    I can see Nagel, but Pleaseeee Arnold!!! I think Obama has just lost a vote when you even talk about Arnold in Washington. Maybe he can be sent to Irag as commando and he can singlely wipe everyone out. WAR OVER TROOPS COME HOME. Did Obama check with Oprah first on who he can put in his cabinet.
    Paul, Minnesota

    December 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
  53. Osundwa from Bloomington, IN

    Hey Jack,
    You need to be asking if we need another dynasty taking over from the Bushes. America ain't a monarchy, we are a democracy. I am sick to my stomach when we are told that experience is what we need at the white house. What experience? No we do not, we need Vision and Obama provides it. He is capable and his proposed plans show he has the "vision of a giraffe" (An old African saying).

    December 20, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
  54. Bill

    I think it does if he is serious about it. There were some well known presidents who had the opposite party as members on their cabinet. President Lincoln name comes to mind for one. Having read some books on President Lincoln, it was said that there was quite a few heated arguments among the cabinet members and President Lincoln would set and listen to them and then make his decision. I think this is a wise thing to do for any president because it helps to presents a clearer picture of the problem, then having a bunch of yes men patting you all on your back and saying go head, invade them, the war will be over in a month and they will welcome us with open arms. – Bill, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    December 20, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
  55. Mike

    Does it really matter? Republicans, Democrats, Demlicans, Republicrats, they're all the same as far as I can tell.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:18 pm |
  56. Douglas Jamieson

    Dear Mr. Cafferty:
    Mr. Obama's approach is a breath of fresh air that is sorely needed in Washington. It is politicians such as he and Huckabee who come with a willingness to work for the good of the nation rather than what is good for the political party that will win the day in my book. I believe that this feeling will come through loud and clear as voters start voting this coming year. I hope congress also gets this message and starts solving real national problems.

    Douglas Jamieson
    Oak Ridge, TN

    December 20, 2007 at 4:18 pm |
  57. WallyT

    Yes. We need someone in office who looks for good men without consideration of political affiliation. The "Good Old Boy's Club" has led us into lots of trouble!!

    December 20, 2007 at 4:18 pm |
  58. irene foreman

    Barak Obama reveals his naitivity, and immaturity when he says he would appoint republicans to his cabinent. The republicans have proven they will follow George and the party line all the way to hell. If he wins, he better appoint people who will help him get things done. Another reason I will vote for Clinton.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:19 pm |
  59. Joe

    I think Obama's willingness to reach across the aisle and have Republicans in his Cabinet does make him more appealing. Americans have become tired of how polarized the country has become over the past seven years, and we're ready for a president who will unite, not divide us.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:19 pm |
  60. Jason Parker

    I think the naysayers might be right after all, I mean clearly Senator Obama lacks Washington experience if he's actually considering appointing people who might do a good job even if he's not in complete agreement with them on every issue, or, god forbid, they're from a different party.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:20 pm |
  61. Ted Minnard

    I think Virginia Senator Jim Webb would make a far better choice for Obama if he wins; but then, it's far too early to be naming names of people in cabinets or running mates, etc. The kind of experience the "experienced" candidates have is exactly what we don't need. Hillary keeps pushing her experience, Hello HC, you still don't get it do you? We don't want more of the same old, same old. American politicians need to cut off all ties to lobbyists and special interests. When I hear the word "experienced" as used by others, I think of them as having slept more with the enemy...or whatever it is they let lobbyists and special interests do with them for campaign money.

    A younger less experienced cadre of choices would allow them to plunge headlong into the fray, without the ties of Old Style Washingtonian business as usual garbage, and in my opiniion still have the complete support of the people who put them in office, and screw the special interests. If lobbyist jobs are ever gone, those old politicians just may have to work for a living and try to find economical health insurance and buy their own gasoline....Horrors.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:20 pm |
  62. Diane Mazurczak

    It is a show of hypocrisy. What makes us believe Barack Obama would reach "across the aisle" for his cabinet members when he will not even give interviews on a competing cable news channel? What is he afraid of? If he cannot stand up to tough questioning from reporters, how could he stand up to world leaders?

    December 20, 2007 at 4:21 pm |
  63. annie

    Jack,

    You bet it does. What a refreshing idea, a group of Americans working for all Americans, period. I love it. It's time to rid ourselves of the divisiveness and hatefulness perpetuated by the current administration.

    Annie
    Atlanta, GA

    December 20, 2007 at 4:21 pm |
  64. Sean Taylor

    Yes. It was fascinating to hear him say this as I seem to remember another president who gathered a cabinet together of those who didn't necessarily agree with him on everything. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:21 pm |
  65. james tabarez

    Americans are desperately calling for change. Barack says he is the candidate of change. If his idea of change is to give power to members of the party that has controlled all three branches of government for this decade to the detriment of the American people, then I say " Barack, keep the change".

    December 20, 2007 at 4:22 pm |
  66. Elias Yimer

    You know Jack, at least somebody from either party has the guts to go across the aisle and work towards a common goal of serving the people, instead of bickering and fighting with the opposition. Ideological bickering in Washington does not help us in anyway Jack. We need a leader who will not be afraid of approaching and talking to the opposition or enemy for a common goal.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:22 pm |
  67. James Hayden

    Absolutely, we must change the "blue" versus"red" state situation that we have lived under for the Clinton and George W. Bush's presidencies.

    We have some very capable people on both sides of politics, however we have not had enough Republicans stand up against the fiasco of preemptive wars to establish democracies in the middle east. I find it hard to believe that there haven't been substantially more Republicans standing up to oppose this nation building strategy.

    I believe strongly that many of them will come forward in support of Barack Obama in the national election when he is one of the choices.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:22 pm |
  68. Karl

    Jack, most past administrations have had a political blend in their cabinets. Sometimes the most qualified person for the job and in the best interest of the country was on the other side of the aisle. We all realize the Bush "Texas Hack with no experience required" administration is a total failure for its "homeboy" approach. Any cadidate that wants to be considered the best choice needs to have a real bi-partisan approach to their future administration. With our current image in the world, we need to regain that unified front that has been sadly lacking for the past seven years and show the world we are still a democracy and haven't become the monarchy we appear to be currently.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:24 pm |
  69. Lorraine

    Jack,

    This is just one more reason for me to vote for this man. I didn't need Oprah to tell me he is "The One," I already knew it. I love my Country, this is the greatest Country in all the World. Senator Obama embodies the spirits of President Kennedy, Senator Bobby, Dr. King and President Reagan. He has a vision for our future and his bi-partisan cabinet will be just the start. I must give props to President Bush because his appointment of General Colin Powell and Secretary Condi Rice makes Senator Obama's Presidency possible. Senator Obama is white and black, he is the best of both Worlds and his running and winning with go a long way in form our more Perfect Union.

    Thank you for letting me respond to your question.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm |
  70. Adekunle Oladide

    While Obama's attempt to appoint moderate re-fumbling-cans (excuse me, republicans into his cabinets is commendable; it stinks of more of the same from the past 8 years. The same he could have achieved by appointing southern or the so called blue dog democrats! The issue really is: "Is Obama have what it takes at the core of his inner being to bring about his much touted change in washington". Sooner or later the house always win. Will the democrats rather send a sheep aka Obama into lion's pit or send their own wolf aka Clinton into the arena? Sometimes you need fire to quench fire!

    December 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm |
  71. Robert

    Why should any Republican have a seat in the next Democratic cabinet? For all of their "independence," Hagel, Lugar, et al., were still enablers of the Bush administration to some extent. If they had any real integrity, they would have bolted from the corrupt and decadent GOP, early in the Bush administration, as Jim Jeffords did. After the well-earned thumping that the American people are going to give the GOP next November, Republicans should just get out of the way and go home. We've had enough of every single one of them.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:27 pm |
  72. Ben, Chicago IL

    Jack, bipartisanship is what we need in these times of selfishness, division, bitterness and rancour in Washington. This country belongs to ALL – republicans, democrats, independents, etc -and we need men and women of honor and courage who have independent of thought to make the bold and tough choices required to move America forward, regardless of what conventional (Washington) thinking says. I was for Hillary but she's proven time and again to be too divisive and polarising. I am now voting for Barack Obama. Chuck Hagel agrees with his party whenever their position is in the interest of ALL Americans, and vehemently opposes them whenever their position isn't. Now that's the definition of an honorable and courageous man, with a decent pair of cahounas between his thighs.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:29 pm |
  73. Jim

    Hey Jack!

    I don't think anything can make any of the candidates appealing! Democrats or Republican! I mean geez is this really the cream of the crop! Pathetic!!

    December 20, 2007 at 4:30 pm |
  74. Mia

    Yes it does make Barack more appealing. Not only has Barack said he would work with Republicans he has done it, working with Luger on the weapons legislation in the US Senate. I think Barack has the best chance of bringing Republicans, Independents and Democrats together.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:32 pm |
  75. Katy

    Absolutely! Barack Obama's leadership guarantees America will move through the next eight years with progress in solving every issue facing us. His vision promises the best leadership from either party will be chosen to work together for the greater good. His presidency will mark the end of cronyism, a change in Washington, and bring unprecedented accomplishment for the benefit all of the American people and not just the rich.

    Happy Holidays to all! Obama 08!

    December 20, 2007 at 4:33 pm |
  76. sarah b

    I think a persons political party should not be the most important thing that should be considered when making cabinet selections. Compentancy and expertise should be the main factors, there are a lot of major problems that this country needs to address, and these deep divisions if not addressed just means we will be hearing the same things being discussed 4 years from now.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
  77. Michael Shanklin

    First and foremost I refuse to vote for Hillary or Obama because they both threaten to invade Iran or Pakistan. The addition of Chuck Hagel or Arnold appears to be a political move and less a movement of trying to solve problems. Obama is strengthened because he is not a republican looking to continue this war. If the election were today, I would have to vote for Ron Paul! I believe that Ron Paul has more integrity than Obama or any of the other candidates on either aisle. Obama, regretably, would be my 2nd choice.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:37 pm |
  78. Gary

    It's the only way to bring our country together. I served my country for more than 20 years in the USAF with some of the greatest people ever born; it didn't matter what our politics were. We were there to serve OUR country. We did it side-by-side. The people who want to be president must realize that they are servants of the people. We need the best and brightest in the cabinet, Democrats and Republicans. I wished Kerry and McCain had been bold enough to run on the same ticket in '04

    Gary

    December 20, 2007 at 4:38 pm |
  79. Ed Reed

    If Senator Hagel were to accept such a position, I wonder if Republicans would claim Hagel did not deserve his medals.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:40 pm |
  80. Christian E. Savage

    Hi Jack,

    First and foremost, I would like to say that I enthuisastically applaud your earnest desire to expose the TRUTH in our dishonest politicians.

    Anyway, I STRONGLY agree with Barak Obama's decision and, in fact, I will even go a step FURTHER by saying that this country should go back to the original intent of the Founders (e.g. George Washington) and just simply ***Abolish*** ALL political parties for NON-Partisan Elections nationwide to UNITE the country.

    Moreover, if we had not ever ratified that REDICULOUS 12th Amendment, we would have had a BI-Partisan Administration today with Bush as President and Gore as Vice-President.

    Nevertheless, in the spirit of NON-Partisanship, I would like to give you a link to one such organization that is seeking to find a COMMON-GROUND solution to fix the millions of FAILING public schools in New York City and beyond. Thanks and enjoy your Holiday season.

    best,
    Christian Savage (Bronx, NY)

    December 20, 2007 at 4:41 pm |
  81. DAVID CLARK II

    No Jack. We don't need another almost republican posing as a democrat.
    Lieberman tried that already and it didn't work very well.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:41 pm |
  82. Paul Scofield

    About the time he announced that he was running for President, he would reach out to Republician like Senator Tom Coburn, MD. Doctor Coburn would be a fantastic Budget Director, but then that would remove 50% of the Senators that do not earmark. (Senator Coburn, MD and Senator McCain).
    Let's also put Education first President of the University of Oklahoma, David Boren for VP.

    Monroe, NC

    December 20, 2007 at 4:42 pm |
  83. jo from Arizona

    RE: Obama's appeal by referring to possible cabinent positions:

    Yes, an interesting move at an interesting time! Just two nights ago, I attended a presentation by a national pollster who suggested that "the best thing Obama could do right now is to toss out a few names as to who he would consider appointing to his Cabinent/Adminstrative positions". How very wise for Obama to make such an innovative move!

    December 20, 2007 at 4:45 pm |
  84. Ron K.

    Hello Jack:

    Not if you're from California it dosen't. Mr. Obama would sink his campaign if he indorsed "The Govenator" for anything.

    Ron

    December 20, 2007 at 4:46 pm |
  85. Jan

    Hi Jack:
    I just decided who I am NOT voting for...I live in California with an inept "actor" politician who should have been recalled after he won the recall election!!! We do not need another "macho character" near the White House who makes his own rules and attempts to circumvent his own state legislature in order to railroad his own agendas into laws (sound like anyone we know currently in the White House?). Schwarzenegger is Obama's pick for Cabinet member? We need people who have substance and experience to help us rebuild our Great America; advocates who advise the new President to work with Congress, no more covert missions...not another overblown, empty headed actor.

    Jan
    Long Beach, CA

    December 20, 2007 at 4:51 pm |
  86. Chuck from Lancater, PA

    I think He is taking a calculated risk here! The Republicans cannot vote for him until He is the Nominee and that may very well not happen. Meanwhile there are many Democrats that have no love for the Governator or Chuck Hagle. Obama may be shooting himself in the foot and in Two weeks we will know how many toes he has left.

    Chuck In PA

    December 20, 2007 at 4:54 pm |
  87. Patricia

    There are some very good Republicans that Sen. Obama could call on to help in his cabinet. Ron Paul as Sec. of Defense would be a good choice, because you know damn good & well Ron will not send a solider to a war without good training, nor would Ron Paul send a solider to fight in any war that was none of our damn business. Furthermore, Ron Paul would make sure Congress had declared war before he would send any soldier anywhere.

    December 20, 2007 at 4:55 pm |
  88. liam

    It certainly does. It shows that Obama has the courage of his conviction to name Republicans at this date. He will bring about change through cooperation.
    Compare that to the Clinton option of change back to the soap opera of the 90's

    December 20, 2007 at 4:58 pm |
  89. Pam Sanders

    Republican or Democrat are only name tags, if a person has similar views in broader sense, he/she should be fit for a position. We need to get over this party labels, red and blue, liberal, conservative, these labels only create more divisions. Media is partly responsible for labeling people. I have views that would be conservative in some cases and liberal in others, but I don't think of myself as conservative, centrists or liberal. They are just my view and I don't feel I belong to any category for society's acceptance. So, media has to play it's role and get away from this labels

    December 20, 2007 at 5:02 pm |
  90. Paul Roth

    Because no one on the Republican side has the strength of character to exppose the truth about the extraordinary mess they have gotten this country into in the past seven years – except Ron Paul – who they all shun. Because they cannot handle the truth they have no power and will go down in flames. The current crisis we face runs deeper than the news can cover and it will take a leader of great stature and national alignment to pull us out of the tailspin we are in. The Republicans have shown that they lack that strength, we shall see if strength will emerge on the other side or from a third party.

    December 20, 2007 at 5:12 pm |
  91. Dan, TX

    The names are just a response to a voter's question. The policy position is to get the best people to do the job and also provide a diversity of political views. Naming names was a mistake and I don't think it was Obama's view to actually name names, but to give examples that there are people out there he might approach.

    December 20, 2007 at 5:21 pm |
  92. Franko

    Let's face it. The only way that Yo'Mama would get elected, is if He recruits the other Clinton, and Vice' Versa'. In reality, the only bi-partisan ticket that would have a chance, would be one where the two parties were Pro Bringin' our Troops Home!

    December 20, 2007 at 5:30 pm |
  93. steve messersmith

    I think it's a great idea,IF Ron Paul doesn't make it, I would vote for Obama.
    Maybe Ron Paul V.P.?

    December 20, 2007 at 5:52 pm |
  94. Dan

    Heck yea.....

    A cabinet filled right up with folks that can say "Nuclear" will go a long way towards cleansing the America's reputation at home and abroad.

    December 20, 2007 at 5:56 pm |
  95. Brad

    Obama / Paul 2008!!!!!!!!!!

    December 20, 2007 at 6:09 pm |
  96. Paul Roth

    Jack, there are more signifcant issues that we all must face. So what about British Taxi Cab drivers. What is the punishment for th epeople who have stolen taxpayers billions in Iraq. Let's ask about what we must face up to rather than indulge in distractions.

    December 20, 2007 at 6:13 pm |
  97. Kyle

    I think it makes America a better country when a human politician decides to work with other good humans to make this place a better country.. Mr Obama is a member of the human race more so than a member of the black race. The democrat Party is digging itself into a deeper grave by not co-operating with the other politicians.

    December 20, 2007 at 6:28 pm |
  98. KC Johnson

    I'd make Hagel Vice President.

    December 20, 2007 at 6:29 pm |
  99. Mary Steele

    To Ted Minnard,

    Webbs's not a good choice, he ran on no amnesty for illegals and now wants to reward them for breaking the law longer, that's absurd. They should have to apply like the ones that legally came to our country and those that are waiting their turn outside this country. If you don't know, illegals are driving up healthcare costs and tanking our economy. I wrote about this on a previous blog entry. Please read and contact your representative, if you agree and want something done! We must start demanding our rights and stop wasting our tax dollars on people who should not be here in the first place. Enforce employment and harboring laws with hefty fines and jail time and we won't have an illegal immigration problem for very long!.

    For those who haven't heard Hillary Clinton's latest brag, she is saying she and Bill's administration should be given credit for doing the most for our economy. She better step back and note that the economy was build on credit cards and many are still trying to pay them off. She needs to be put in her place.

    December 20, 2007 at 6:40 pm |
  100. Ken KS

    Obama could make Chuck Hagel Head of DHS, since he is all for letting illegal aliens into the country. Arnie? Make him Secretary of Defense and let him hire Jesse Ventura and Hulk Hogan as undersecretaries. What country would be stupid enough to argue with the likes of those guys. Obama's experience is no different than that of George W Bush and we don't need another president who has to undergo OJT (ON THE JOB TRAINING) to learn the job.

    December 20, 2007 at 6:59 pm |
  101. Jan Villarreal

    Obama even considering a Republican running mate shows his clear inexperience! Doesn't he understand that if anything happened to him, it would put a Republican running this country again??? Dumb!

    December 20, 2007 at 7:20 pm |
  102. Stephen Wood

    Barack has a clearly defined Democratic agenda which will make it difficult for anyone who is conservative or true to their Republican roots to serve with him.

    I believe his motivation for naming these people as possible cabinet members is no different than anyone in Hollywood hoping to fill seats with a new release, less to do with diversity and more to do with market share.

    Thanks,

    Stephen Wood
    New Orleans, LA

    December 20, 2007 at 7:54 pm |
  103. Tony Merante

    Jack,

    First, doesn't Obama know that the Constitution says that the President must have
    been born in this country? What if Ahhhhnold is his Veep, and Barack leaves the top job, for whatever reason, the no. 2 guy must be hop scotched for the Speaker of the House.
    And, if, as so many like to say, there isn't a whispers difference between the two parties, why not stick with his party. It is those people who got him into the Senate and this far in this campaign. He might think of Arnold and Hagel, et al, for cabinet posts, in which they would have more effect.
    But then after Bush's outrageously one-directional appointments to the Supreme
    Court and all his other positions, I would have to give it a real second thought.

    December 20, 2007 at 8:23 pm |
  104. Frank Southwell - Antigua, W.I.

    Being inclusive and putting "...what's best for America.." before "..what's best for the Political Party" would be an extremely bold step. It may not appeal to many becaues Politics, by its very nature, is extremely divisive. The typical politician is expected to constantly look for issues to score points on, even if it means someone may be ill-affected. The persons named are very popular and would certainly make Obama more popular as well.

    December 20, 2007 at 8:59 pm |
  105. Frank From N.C.

    Sure it does, that is why Joe Biden said in one of the first debates that he'd be open to offering some republicans positions in his administration. Evidently Obama thinks that once again Biden was right, so now he'll try it.
    I'm just tired of seeing the "famous 3" ....the best democrat for the job is rarely mentioned. I guess it's just not newsworthy being an old white guy running for president these days.

    December 21, 2007 at 12:23 am |
  106. Norm

    many people think obama should stay in Washington for 12 to 16 yearsbefore he could be a viable candidate, my felling is that we have had the same politics and politisians in power since Reagon. From thayt time on it seems that its been party against party, nothing getting done, and politics first, the country next and the people last. Obaba is a fresh face with fresh ideas, What could be worst than having the clintons back in the white house. I have been an undecided, now i vote for change and pray it works. I will not vote for experiance becouse that has not worked. Obama pick good people to work with you and listen to the people, You'll
    do better than the last 16 years have done.

    December 21, 2007 at 12:30 am |
  107. jay

    Obama is very intelligent. He has said all along, that he will bring America together. This is example and I applaude him .

    December 21, 2007 at 1:39 am |
  108. Scott

    Obama is simply trying to do something/ANYTHING to get ahead of the Hillary Express. It's clearly a desperate act and degrades his public view making him look weak.
    Mind you, I like Obama for a VP on the Hillary ticket though.
    Hillary is tough enough to make up for Obama and as VP he will rake in a respectable quantity of votes. That will pave the way for Obama to step right into his own Presidency, after Hillary's 2 terms that is.
    16 years of Dem control, Ah, The thought almost brings a tear of happiness to my eyes.

    December 21, 2007 at 2:30 am |
  109. gail m kline

    It shows Obama is willing to say anything to get elected. Let's hear what HE has done for the people of Illinois – that would be genuine.

    December 21, 2007 at 10:15 am |
  110. Carl Carson

    Absolutely. It is high time that "Party Politics" ceased. Like George Wallace
    said many years ago, "Theres not a dimes worth of difference between the
    two parties". Chuck Hagel should be on the ticket instead of Clinton.

    December 21, 2007 at 11:59 am |
  111. Jeannette

    When are the people and politicans going to see the light. The country/world is a melee of different views.
    Divide and Conquer has always been the worst enemy, and blinding the people the order of the day.
    Maybe just maybe someone who looks, talks, and walks the walk is the one who is needed to bring the country/world together.
    Just look at the horror that plagues the country/world in history/today.
    Wake-UP and take Thought of the Positive without discrimination and hatred.
    Faith is a wonderful and positive thing but All Fundamental Religion is a very negative, devisive, and ugly thing.
    What does it matter the Colour, Race, Sex, Faith, Dem., or Rep., if they are for ALL
    the people in UNION – review all sides of that political person, then do something different, THINK POSITIVE no Negative when casting ones vote.

    Peace and Harmony to all throughout the year and ones life.

    December 21, 2007 at 12:27 pm |
  112. David Plouffe

    Actually, Obama said something quite more subtle. Something bloggers choose to ignore. Watch the Obama-Schwarzenegger video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di8uTjdgSE8

    December 21, 2007 at 1:43 pm |
  113. ousman diallo

    Jack, unlike the guy who wrote saying that Obama should come back in 2020, I think Obama is probably the best person to be president. People talk about experience, But, I think Being a governor from Texas has proven to be a disaster as far as I am concern. Some of the idiots that rule the world today are highly educated and at the same time moronic. Need I say more? Look at the damage that has been done to this country by Cheney, Rumsfeld ,Rice and Company? You don't realize how damaged this country is until you travel abroad. People look at you funny and with disgust when you show your passport. It never use to be like that. It used to be a great think having an American passport. And for those who think it is not a big deal for us to be a part of the world, they need to look at what is happening. The world is flat (Tom Freidman) and getting flatter. Globalization is the way and AMERICA is no exception. The world is beyond America's borders. Wake up people.

    Diallo

    December 21, 2007 at 2:58 pm |
  114. Dwayne Ashmore

    The Republican Party are the ones that got us into the mess we're in now. The war, the job market, the home mortgage problem, the healthcare situation. I don't think we need a Democratic President who wants Republicans in his Cabinet, who doesn't think his admitted drug and alcohol usage in the past should cast any aspersions upon him, and who refuses to wear an American flag pin on his lapel or to put his hand over his heart and repeat the pledge of allegiance.

    December 21, 2007 at 7:31 pm |
  115. Joe Tyrrell

    It reflects the need to get something done, but the key is to get rid of Bush. Hagel is a good man.

    December 24, 2007 at 8:44 am |
  116. John Hargis Sr

    No, rock stars cater to rock stars, it is a closed club with no sign of intelligence or answers for the middle and poverty class of Americans. where Clinton has no idea of what healthcare is or what it needs, Obama is still lost in limbo of what to do and how to do it, so he tries to find popularity to overcome ignorance of the issues....

    December 31, 2007 at 9:33 am |
  117. Brian Nancoo - Trinidad

    Senator Obama sounds more like he is running for the Messiah position and not the President of the USA.Lets see,he's going to make friends with Iran,Cuba,and Venezuela, end the war in Iraq,fix everything that's not working right in Washington and get the top Republicans to join his cabinet.I'm really pumped about what he's got planned for the 7th Day!

    January 2, 2008 at 2:00 pm |
  118. AtomicWarBaby

    Arnold Schwartzenegger is NOT a true "Environmentalist" ! Not when he holds "Court" like an Arab "Prince" in his "Cigar Pavilion Tent" behind the Governator's Mansion in California!! He uses the "Cigar Tent" to shmooze with politicians, celebs, etc., offering them Cigars.

    He has been one of the Cigar Industry's premium "Celebrity Smokers", i.e., celebrities the cigar companies (and Cigarette companies) pay Big Bucks $$$$$$ to help promote their tobacco products.

    From Betty Davis & John Wayne "The Duke" to Madonna & Stallone, to Military Celebs like Gen. Tommy Franks, (who posed for Cover Photo of "Cigar Aficianado" Magazine; to Britney Spears (who said she got hooked on cigarettes, becuz she had to smoke for a part in a Movie!)

    Anyone who still promotes smoking, especially if they get rich doing it, is not worth a plug nickel in my book. This is the 21st century, for Chrissakes!

    January 3, 2008 at 4:47 am |
  119. Dave

    As a Canadian, I find it facsinating to watch avidly your political process. It's of great interest to me and many other Canadians, just who does become president and who his/her appointments go to.
    I can look at them with a complete non-partisan view. I look at our process of electing a new Primeminister and his government. The election is called one day and 30 days later we have a new government. It costs us less in getting to the finished product but in the end we are stuck with what we got..
    Your process however, in my opinion, although long, sometimes boring and insensitive when you see the candidates going at each other but, in the end the one that is left standing, after all of the crap that is thrown at them, truly has earned the right to represent his constituents and the country. The end product may cost you a lot more getting there, but you probably have resolved to the best value. (George. W. Bush excluded)

    As I see it, the best person for the Presidency on the Dem. side is Obama and Dodd or Biden as his 2nd in command; on the Rep. side I see Giuliani as President and Thompson as his 2nd (if he would ever get off his ass)

    One more thing please; Has there been a poll done regarding Americans in other Countries that are eligible to vote; has there been a poll of the Military bases overseas.; and not that it would matter, but I feel it would be an interesting point of view, as to who other countries would like to see as president.

    Dave Agnew

    January 3, 2008 at 12:45 pm |
  120. VINCE

    WHAT A SHAME NO ONE IS DEALING WITH REALITY!!
    THIS ELECTION IS TOO IMPORTANT TO FRITTER AWAY ON SOME IDIOTS, BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING OF PAST HISTORY AND AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW "STUPID IS, AS STUPID DOES!!"

    January 3, 2008 at 10:10 pm |
  121. Bob Lemlin

    Obama's win means hope. A black man won the Democratic nomination in the whitest state of the union and the Republican winner thinks the world was created 6,000 yeras ago. That's hope!

    January 4, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  122. Anne

    Barack and others found Joe Biden was the man with the original ideas providing possibility of real change and of putting the US back on a path of integrity. Barack is smart to take a good idea and use it . Hopefully Americans can see the strength of bringing the best to an administration in spite of political affiliation. We don't know enough about Barack yet but of the candidates still in the fight he seems to have originality and considerable possibilities.

    January 4, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  123. Jim Green

    Jack–THX fro reading my letter yesterday–until we get serious about making our electronic voting machines "fail-safe", we need to urge congress to pass legislation mandating that we can use paper ballots ONLY during the upcomong presidential election. I am all for progress–and I am not sure whether HAVA was contrived, or a harmless error on the part of congress–but until we get this fixed we have no assurance, whatsoever, that this is a democracy! In short, in terms of an issue, immigration, the economy, etc. pales in comparison! I agree with Gore Vidal, I don't think Bush has ever been legally elected president– the following is my plan for how we can make electronic voting "fail-safe"–sorry for the length....will also blog....

    Jim Green
    YouTube: JGREEN56789 (interestingly, HUCKABEE-EVOLUTION is averaging 50 hits a day...)

    FOR RELEASE ANYTIME: Editor: When congress passed HAVA (Help America Vote Act) in 2002, and appropriated $4 billion to fix the problem, it also planted the seeds for the destruction of our democracy by corrupt "privatization" scams, which exploited electronic voting, while America slept. What resulted poses far more of a threat to America than terrorism. The following steps are necessary to correct the problem, the issue is non-partisan and whether or not you agree, your readers should have the opportunity to consider. Accordingly, Please Print. THX, Jim Green

    ELECTRONIC voting is here to stay, and the irony is that it has the potential to provide us with the with the most accurate (and certainly the fastest) results in U.S. history…but not in its present form, which, in the wrong hands and left uncorrected, contains the potential to destroy democracy in America…this is what we need to do to fix it….We don’t have a minute to spare:

    FAIL-SAFE ELECTRONIC VOTING

    1) EVERY electronic voting machine (hereafter EVM) must count and produce a hard-copy of the votes each voter has recorded for the candidates in each election; And in addition, an extra copy of their recorded votes would be produced (not necessarily a hard-copy), marked "Voter's Copy", and containing the NOTICE: "Do Not Destroy Until Every Election On Your Ballot Is Certified".

    2) After confirming that their votes are recorded correctly, the voter would then insert the hard-copy ballot into a software-free (count only) optical scanner (hereafter OS), for a second count. The hard-copy ballot would be retained by election officials in the event a candidate asks for a recount (not possible under the current system, and which undermines the legality of each such election). The EVM and the OS must be manufactured by different companies (which is universally true today).

    3) Election officials assigned to oversee the EVM, would be prevented by law from overseeing the OS, and vice-versa, and stiff criminal penalties would be imposed for violations.

    4) Further, every EVM would be programmed with raw data re the total registration rolls, by party, and norms for their voting history, etc.,--as an "alert" to a possible irregularity, such as an "Undervote"-and standards established to suspend certification, at least temporarily, of a particular election until the discrepancy is cleared up. (This is what computers do best, and it would be very easy to create such a program).

    5) At the end of the election day, tallies would be taken from the EVM and the OS, for each candidate. If the tallies didn't balance for any given election, or if there is an "alert", that election cannot be certified until the "error" is corrected. If the candidates agree, minor discrepancies in the count could be disregarded. While probably rare, the Voter, or a random sample of Voters, would be required by law to return the Copy of their recorded votes to the election office to clear up any "error", or where an "alert" signals the need for same.

    Contrary to the propaganda, almost sure to follow, the time difference and complexity of equipment between this method, and where EVMs are in current use, is negligible, and in some cases less complicated, and much of this equipment is currently in place (but, inexplicably not used). Most importantly, this will return the responsibility for our elections, and our vote counting, back into the hands of the individual voter, where it belongs, and out of the hands of "corporate control"-it is after all "our democracy", itself, that is at risk if we don't take these steps-and in that regard, is there any time or cost differential that is too great?

    Reply To: Jim Green - Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000

    jgreen5@satx.rr.com (830) 303-0032 http://www.Inclusivism.org

    -– Original Message -–

    From: Inclusivism
    To: caffertyfile@cnn.com ; Cafferty, Jack
    Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:22 PM
    Subject: Re. Obama's Victory

    Jack...what it means is that when the voters are "hands on" in an election–the result is vastly different than when corporations are in charge of our electronic voting equipment..for instance the 2004 election.....and it it obvious the voters want CHANGE! To get change, however, we will have to fight for it rather than just sitting back and hoping for the best–because that bus is never going to get here!

    Jim Green
    Seguin, TX
    http://www.Inclusivism.org

    January 5, 2008 at 10:18 am |
  124. Claudia Colmer

    My comment on Barak Obama suggesting Republicans in his cabinet, just illustrates why the Congressional Black caucus chose not to endorse him for President.

    I hope he is not the Democratic nominee, since he does not respect democratic voters suggesting a fraud like Arnold( with his family's Nazi past) is worth anything! But after all how can I vote for someone who acts like the poodle dog of Ms.Winfrey and her ignorant brain dead, mostly female viewers. They scream with delight over anyone she displays on stage!

    January 5, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
  125. Craig Hartung

    Just a follow up to my note on you self-proclamations of self-engrandizement on Obama and your head being where the sun don't shine.

    New folks like you are the consummate bumbles and have been ever since they started believing their own press. How was your trip to the woodshed of knowledge.

    Even an old GOP guy like me saw how full of your self you were on Obama. Your and his platitudes will now slip into oblivian

    January 9, 2008 at 12:48 am |
  126. sharon

    I wouldn't consider either one of them.

    March 5, 2008 at 2:25 pm |