Boycotting the Olympics because of China’s crackdown on Tibet?
A burning car sits on a street in the Tibetan capital Lhasa after violent protests broke out on March 14, 2008. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
China has been hoping to boost its image in the eyes of the world as it gets ready to host the Summer Olympics in Beijing, but the Chinese government's crackdown on protesters in Tibet is not helping.
What began a week ago as mostly peaceful protests by monks has spiraled into violent clashes, with Tibetans attacking the Chinese and burning their businesses. The Chinese government is now vowing to protect its territory and issued a midnight deadline that's now passed for protesters to either surrender or face harsh consequences.
There are reports of Chinese authorities parading handcuffed Tibetan prisoners in the capital of Lhasa. Chinese police are going house-to-house checking id cards and residence permits. The Chinese government puts the death toll at 16, with dozens injured. But the Dalai Lama's exiled government says 80 people have been killed.
Meanwhile, the protests that started in Tibet have spilled into three neighboring provinces and even to Beijing. And sympathy protests are also going on around the world.
China insists the violence won't harm the upcoming Olympic games. The U.S. has called on China to show restraint.
However, it’s getting support from who else but Russia – another beacon of human rights. The Russian government says it hopes China will take "all necessary measures to stop illegal actions." It adds that any efforts to boycott the Olympics are "unacceptable."
Olympic officials also say they are opposed to a boycott because of the violence in Tibet.
Here’s my question to you: Should countries boycott the Olympic Games in light of China's crackdown on protesters in Tibet?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton?
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
There's no doubt the 2008 campaign has been full of twists and surprises, and here's one more: Republicans are coming out in huge numbers to vote for Hillary Clinton.
That's right. About 100,000 Republicans came out to support Clinton in Ohio. 119,000 voted for her in Texas, and 38,000 in Mississippi.
The Boston Globe reports on why this is happening: Some Republicans are supporting Clinton hoping it will prolong her bitter fight for the nomination with Barack Obama. Others think Clinton would be an easier opponent for John McCain to beat in November. And still others are voting for Clinton because they want to keep her in the race to expose more information about Obama ahead of the general election.
Consider this: up until recently, Obama was getting a lot more support than Clinton was from Republicans in the primary contests. At the time, many traditional GOP voters said they liked Obama and were willing to cross party lines. But, once McCain sealed the deal with his party's nomination, things started to change. In Texas and Ohio, more than double the number Republicans turned out to vote in those Democratic contests than in earlier ones – and Clinton ran about even with Obama in both states.
Some loud voices within the party – like conservative radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham – have been actively calling on Republican voters to do just this. For example, Limbaugh said Republicans should vote for Clinton "if they could stomach it" since it is so important to "sustain the soap opera" between Clinton and Obama.
Here’s my question to you: Is it a smart strategy for Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should superdelegates end Dems’ bloody fight?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/17/art.clinton.obama.ap.jpg caption=]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Democratic superdelegates are looking for an exit strategy. There's a growing sense among these almost 800 party insiders that they want the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama resolved before the convention in August.
However, The New York Times reports that interviews with dozens of undecided superdelegates found them uncertain about who could actually step in and help end this thing before the party bloodies itself too much.
Many of these undecided delegates say they plan to wait and see what happens in the remaining primary contests, although many also believe they'll ultimately side with the will of the voters. This goes against the approach Clinton is pushing – that the superdelegates should decide for themselves who would make the best candidate.
A lot of the superdelegates are talking about having some power broker step in and strike a deal. Some of the names mentioned include DNC chairman Howard Dean, former Vice President Al Gore and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But others think it would be impossible for an outside person or group to reach an agreement between these two candidates who have so much support.
Meanwhile, it looks like Democratic voters aren't so sure about the whole concept of superdelegates to begin with. A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows 50% of registered Democrats think it's a bad idea for the party to have superdelegates. 42% think it's a good idea.
Obama leads Clinton when it comes to pledged delegates, number of states won and the popular vote. As for superdelegates, Clinton leads Obama 237 to 207, although he continues to narrow the gap there.
Here’s my question to you: Should the superdelegates step in and end the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama before the convention?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Do you want more Democratic debates?
Televised CNN/LA Times/Politico Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, January 2008 at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In the off chance you haven't had your fill of political debates this primary season, you're in luck.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – who have already faced off against each other 20 times – could meet up for at least one and maybe two more debates.
Both candidates have agreed to debate in Philadelphia next month, ahead of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. Also, Obama has agreed to a match-up on April 19th in North Carolina. No word yet on whether Clinton is in for that one.
It's not clear how much effect these debates have on voters. Throughout this primary season, we've pretty much seen it all during these face-offs: Clinton and Obama have been nice to each other, they've been nasty to each other, they've been honored to share the stage with each other, and then they've gone on the attack.
The single most memorable moment in all these meetings may have been when Senator Clinton was asked about giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens – an idea put forth by her good friend and supporter Client Number 9, also known as New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.
So what's yet to come in Pennsylvania and perhaps North Carolina is anyone's guess.
Here’s my question to you: How interested are you in more debates between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments