February 25th, 2008
05:00 PM ET

How will Ralph Nader affect the race?

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

Ralph Nader on Meet the Press. Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Some people just won't take "no" for an answer.

Consumer activist Ralph Nader is planning his 4th consecutive bid for the White House – fifth if you count his 1992 write-in campaign.

Nader says he's running as a third-party candidate because he wants the chance to improve our country by fighting back against big money and special interest groups.

He thinks most people are disenchanted with both the Democratic and Republican parties because of the Iraq war and the state of our economy. And he's right, but they are also disenchanted with Ralph Nader – as evidenced by his 0-5 record in presidential runs.

In addition, many Democrats still blame Nader for Al Gore's loss in 2000. Being tone deaf, Nader rejects the idea that he's a "spoiler" candidate. He says voters won't choose a "pro-war John McCain." Note to Ralph: voters won't choose you either. Last time out Nader corralled a whopping 0.3% of the vote.

Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were quick to make it seem like Nader's announcement wasn't such a big deal. Clinton says that it's not helpful to whoever the Democratic nominee is, but it's a free country. Obama called Nader a "singular figure in American politics", but also dismissed him, saying 8 years ago Nader thought there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush.

Here’s my question to you: Ralph Nader says he’s running for president again as a third-party candidate. What effect will he have on the race?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Uncategorized
February 25th, 2008
04:59 PM ET

How much does experience really matter?


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"Ready on Day One?" That's the question posed by a front-page story in USA Today.

The story looks behind the political slogan and makes a startling discovery. None of the three main candidates for the White House is very long on the kind of experience being touted as necessary to run the country. You see, these three have never run anything that amounted to that much. Not a business, not a large corporation, not a state. No governors here, nothing. They are professional politicians whose managerial experience amounts to overseeing their campaigns and managing their offices in the Senate. Although truth be told, they probably all have someone else who actually does both of those things.

In fact, these three candidates have less executive experience than any president in nearly 50 years.

The irony is the candidates who had the most executive experience – Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Bill Richardson – are out of the game already. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is still in it, but probably not for that much longer.

Experts say voters haven't focused on the readiness issue yet, but eventually they will. Maybe that's because so far, the campaign has been all about "change." And, as hungry as voters are for change, there's probably still something to be said for experience. Some former presidents have dealt with some pretty serious stuff just months after taking office – like JFK and the Cuban missile crisis and Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to being president, how much does experience really matter?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: 2008 Election
February 25th, 2008
02:46 PM ET

Time for Hillary to drop out?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/02/25/art.clinton.ri.gi.jpg caption=" Sen. Hillary Clinton in Rhode Island."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There's a growing chorus of voices starting to call for Hillary Clinton to give it up.

In a Newsweek column called "Hillary should get out now", Jonathan Alter says if she wanted a graceful exit, now would be the time – before the Texas and Ohio primaries – to drop out and endorse Barack Obama. He says it would be the "best thing imaginable" for Clinton's political career, meaning it would set her up perfectly for 2012 if Obama loses. Alter says Clinton doesn't have a reasonable chance of winning the nomination, but he doesn't think she'll call it quits.

He writes: "The conventional view is that the Clintons approach power the way hard-core gun owners approach a weapon – they'll give it up only when it's wrenched from their cold, dead fingers."

Meanwhile, in another tough piece, Robert Novak asks who will tell Hillary Clinton that it's over, that she can't win the nomination and the sooner she gets out of the way, the better the chances her party will beat John McCain in November.

Novak writes, quote: "Clinton's burden is not only Obama's charisma but also McCain's resurrection. Some of the same Democrats who short months ago were heralding her as the "perfect" candidate now call her a sure loser against McCain, saying she would do the party a favor by just leaving."

Here’s my question to you: Is it time for Hillary Clinton to admit defeat and quit the race?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: 2008 Election • Hillary Clinton