February 15th, 2008
06:05 PM ET

Bloomberg: U.S. resembling third world country?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/02/15/art.bloomberg1.gi.jpg caption=" New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The United States has a "balance sheet that's starting to look more and more like a third-world country."

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is lashing out at Washington over the federal government's plan to give rebate checks to more than 130 million people.

Bloomberg says: "I suppose it won't hurt the economy but it's in many senses like giving a drink to an alcoholic." A spokesman later said the mayor meant Washington can't stop itself from spending, and he wasn't saying Americans who get the checks are part of the problem.

Bloomberg is also critical of the current crop of presidential candidates, accusing them of looking for easy solutions to complex economic problems. The mayor added that while they seem to be talking more about the economy now, they're looking for quick fixes in order to win votes instead of taking a good, hard look at the roots of the problem.

He did have some kind words for Barack Obama, praising his plan to create a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" to rebuild things such as highways and bridges.

It's funny how our mayor here in New York keeps popping up. His supporters think the country's economic problems create a unique opportunity for Bloomberg, with his business background, to run as a third-party candidate for president.

Bloomberg continues to insist he's "not a candidate" and says he's speaking out on national issues as part of an "experiment" to see if he can influence the dialogue of the race.

Here’s my question to you: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the U.S. resembles a third world country when it comes to our economy. Is he right?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Uncategorized
February 15th, 2008
05:04 PM ET

Black leaders rethinking Clinton support?

Senator Barack Obama, Congressman John Lewis, Senator Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton march to the Edmund Pettus Bridge COMMEMORATING the 1965 'Bloody Sunday' Voting Rights march March 4, 2007 in Selma, Alabama. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There is more bad news for Hillary Clinton. Some African-American leaders are rethinking their support for her.

Congressman David Scott of Georgia says he's defecting from the Clinton camp and will instead support Barack Obama. Scott says he has to represent the wishes of his constituency. His district voted more than 80% in favor of Obama on Super Tuesday.

Also, the New York Times reports that civil rights veteran Congressman John Lewis, also of Georgia, is switching his superdelegate vote to Obama.

They quote Lewis as saying "In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit. Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap." Lewis' spokeswoman says the story is inaccurate, that the congressman has left the option of changing his superdelegate support on the table, but hasn't decided yet.

Barack Obama was asked about this today. He says, "I think increasingly the superdelegates that I talked to are uncomfortable with the notion that they will override decisions made by voters."

What this shows is there's a growing sense among some of the party's black leaders that they shouldn't stand in the way of Obama's historic run for the nomination... and that they shouldn't go against their constituents' wishes.

One black supporter of Clinton, Missouri, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, describes some of this. He says Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, an Obama supporter, recently asked him "If it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate... do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?"

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if some African-American leaders are rethinking their support for Hillary Clinton?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Hillary Clinton
February 15th, 2008
02:10 PM ET

Who would win McCain-Obama generational battle?

John McCain and Barack Obama shake hands at the debate prior to the New Hampshire primary in January. Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

If John McCain and Barack Obama end up facing each other in November, it would be a historic election representing a true generational battle.

The match-up would pit the 71-year-old McCain, who if elected would become the oldest president ever, against the 46-year-old Obama, who would be one of the youngest.

We're starting to get a glimpse of what this race would be all about. By seizing on the mantle of change, Obama has drawn record numbers of young voters to the polls who see him a something of a rock star.

And, after their respective victories in the Potomac Primaries on Tuesday, both men seemed to set their sights on each other. McCain called hope a "powerful thing", saying he's seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways.

He then went on to contrast his POW experience with Obama's speeches, adding: "To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude." Those would be classified as "fightin' words." McCain says, "I'm fired up and ready to go."

The age difference isn't lost on Obama either. He points out McCain's "half-century of service" to the country. In his speech the other night, Obama tied McCain to President Bush's "failed policies of the past" adding, "George Bush won't be on the ballot this November, but his war and his tax cuts for the wealthy will."

What a race it would be.

Here’s my question to you: In a hypothetical match-up between John McCain and Barack Obama, who wins the generational battle?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Barack Obama • John McCain