Style vs. substance?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Ask a feminist why Hillary Clinton is struggling to get the Democratic presidential nomination and you might be told she is bumping up against the ultimate glass ceiling.
Her career and resume are beyond impressive. And yet in the last several weeks, she's begun to lose the nomination to a man whose charisma and style belie his comparative lack of experience.
When it comes to voting for president, Americans tend to pick people they like. It's just the way we are. Give us a choice between a Jaguar convertible and a Toyota Prius, and most of us will go for the glamour and glitz every time.
Add in the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman and it gets even tougher. The conventional wisdom is for a woman to be taken seriously, she has to come across as tough and competent. Clinton is certainly both of those. But on some level, those very qualities that might make her a great president are probably working against her.
It's nothing new: Jack Kennedy was "Jack Who" until the debates against the far more seasoned political professional Richard Nixon. But once the public caught a glimpse of Kennedy's charisma, Nixon didn't have a chance.
Here’s my question to you: Which is more important in a presidential campaign: style or substance?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Which party can better address economic problems?
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. Antioch, California, has experienced a spike in home foreclosures with a reported 271 homes repossessed between January and August of this year. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In 1992, Bill Clinton rode into the White House on the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid." 16 years later, it's looking more and more like the economy will be uppermost in voters' minds in this presidential race.
Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both been responding to the economic anxiety and fear of recession – especially in states like Ohio and Wisconsin – by campaigning with populist messages.
Clinton stresses economic policies that focus on programs to help families burdened by high oil prices and health care costs, home foreclosures and student loans. She's also going after institutions like hedge funds, oil and drug companies, and trade agreements that she says mean more exported jobs.
Obama is striking a similar tone, describing how the wealthy "made out like bandits" during the Bush administration. He's calling for an end to tax breaks for companies who move jobs overseas and instead giving tax relief to the middle class.
When it comes to the Republicans, John McCain made headlines earlier this week with his pledge of "no new taxes" if he becomes president. McCain says if the economy continues in its current slump, he could see an argument for lowering interest rates and taxes and decreasing corporate tax rates.
McCain says he's open to the idea of helping homeowners who face foreclosure as long as they're "legitimate borrowers". The Arizona senator also believes "the first thing we need to do is stop the out-of-control spending", and promises to eliminate the 10,000 earmarks that Congress adds to spending bills.
Here’s my question to you: Which party is better able to address America's economic problems?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is Wisconsin make-or-break for Clinton?
(PHOTO CREDIT: AP)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Hillary Clinton has her eyes on the monster, March 4th contests in Ohio and Texas, but today's Wisconsin primary could prove to be a crucial race for her.
A win could reinvigorate her campaign and perhaps grab back some of the momentum that seems to be all Barack Obama's at this point. A loss could raise some serious questions about whether she has anything left.
Wisconsin is made up of lots and lots of voters who you'd think would support Clinton. It has been described as "practically tailor-made to resuscitate Clinton's campaign."
For example, 9 in 10 of Wisconsin's Democratic voters in 2004 were white. Clinton has so far been holding an 11% point advantage over Obama among whites. Also, working class people make up a larger proportion of Wisconsin's population than the rest of the country's Democrats. And, the state's voters tend to be a bit older than the national Democratic average.
One Democratic pollster even says Wisconsin is a place where Clinton should do better than everyone expects her to do.
But there are some wild cards out there. Turnout could be larger than in 2004, throwing off some of these estimates. Plus Wisconsin is an open primary, meaning Republicans and independents are free to vote in the Democratic primary. With McCain all but a cinch for the GOP nomination, that could happen. And from what we've seen so far, that would tend to favor Obama.
Here’s my question to you: Is the Wisconsin primary a make-or-break race for Hillary Clinton?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments