February 12th, 2008
06:02 PM ET

No new scandals in another Clinton White House?

Bill and Hillary Clinton at a 'Super Tuesday' primary night rally in the Grand Ballroom at Manhattan Center Studios on February 5, in New York City. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Hillary Clinton is promising that in her White House there wouldn't be any new scandals involving her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

She was asked in an interview how people can be certain that a new personal or business scandal won't erupt that Republicans could use to blow her agenda and her administration out of the water.

Clinton replied: "You know, I just can assure this reader that that is not going to happen. You know, none of us can predict the future, no matter who we are and what we're running for, but I'm very confident that that will not happen."

History suggests otherwise. Bill Clinton's eight years in the White House were plagued by scandals – from Whitewater to Gennifer Flowers, to Monica Lewinsky to his impeachment.

In the same interview, Hillary Clinton was asked what kind of role her husband would play in her administration. She said he wouldn't be a shadow prime minister or secretary of state. But she did point to two other roles he could play: that of a sounding board, which is a traditional role for family members of presidents. And, Hillary says that as a former president, Bill would be well-suited to help repair America's image overseas.

Here’s my question to you: Hillary Clinton promises no new scandals involving her husband. Do you believe her?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Hillary Clinton
February 12th, 2008
05:05 PM ET

Whose endorsement would matter in Dem. race?

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

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

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both want the same thing from their former rival, John Edwards: his endorsement.

Clinton made a secret visit to Edwards' North Carolina home last week to ask for his support, and Obama is also planning to meet with Edwards. With his strong following among working-class white voters, it's expected an Edwards endorsement could give either candidate an important edge in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

But Edwards isn't the only big-name Democrat who hasn't picked sides yet. How about Al Gore?

Sources close to the former vice president say not to expect him to endorse either Clinton or Obama during the primary season. They say he's on good terms with the two candidates and talks to both of them.

But there's another reason. If it becomes necessary down the road, Gore would be in a position as an elder statesman of the Democratic party to negotiate a deal between Clinton and Obama.

As for two other top Democrats – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – sources say neither has plans to endorse a candidate.

It's very much an open question how much endorsements matter. Even with the support of both senators, John Kerry and Edward Kennedy along with other members of the Kennedy family, Barack Obama still lost the Massachusetts primary to Hillary Clinton.

Here’s my question to you: Whose endorsement would make a difference in the Democratic presidential race?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Democratic Race
February 12th, 2008
02:18 PM ET

If Obama sweeps Feb. contests, where does that leave Clinton?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/02/12/art.hc.poster.gi.jpg caption="]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"Suddenly, against all odds, the once-mighty Clinton campaign is beginning to feel like the last days of Pompeii."

That's the lead sentence in a terrific piece by Thomas DeFrank in today's New York Daily News.

Although he insists it's too early to write off the Clintons, DeFrank writes about "a growing sense of doom and dread" surrounding Hillary's campaign, adding that their insistence that things will turn around in Ohio and Texas sounds eerily like Rudy Giuliani's disastrous wait-until Florida turnaround strategy.

The New York Times also reports today how Clinton has been boxed into a must-win position in those two March 4th races. However, even though the candidate herself is reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination isn't slipping away from her, some aren't convinced.

Several Clinton superdelegates say they're wavering because of Barack Obama's momentum after his weekend victories. Some say they might end up "going with the flow" and supporting whichever candidate appears to show the most strength.

Here's the thing: Obama's momentum doesn't show any signs of slowing down. On the contrary, polls suggest he has a commanding lead in today's Potomac Primaries in Maryland, Virginia and D.C. Polls also show him gaining strength in both Wisconsin and Hawaii, states that vote next Tuesday.

The Clinton camp says, "There is no evidence that voters are voting based on momentum – in fact the evidence is to the contrary." They point out that Obama's victory in Iowa didn't translate to a win for him in New Hampshire.

Here’s my question to you: If Barack Obama sweeps the rest of February’s contests, where does that leave Hillary Clinton?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

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

Filed under: Uncategorized