How significant is Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama?
Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Barack Obama January 10, 2008 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Click on the Play Button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It could be the beginning of the end for Hillary Clinton.
Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama today is huge. Richardson, after all, served under President Bill Clinton as ambassador to the U.N. and secretary of the Energy Department. He's also a friend of the Clintons who watched the Super Bowl together with the former president last month.
So it couldn't be easy for Hillary Clinton when Richardson – whom both candidates had lobbied hard for an endorsement – came out today and called Obama a "once-in-a-lifetime-leader." Richardson said the speech Obama gave on race "appealed to the best in us."
The New Mexico governor and former presidential candidate's endorsement carries a lot of weight. He's the only Hispanic governor in the country, which presumably will help Obama in the Hispanic community.
He's also a superdelegate, and this may be the key. Richardson could potentially have a lot of influence over the remaining undecided superdelegates, which is still roughly half of the almost 800 party insiders. Today he suggested that it's time "for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall."
Clinton shrugged off the endorsement saying that both she and Obama have many great endorsers and it's the voters who will ultimately decide this election.
But when it comes right down to it, there are endorsements and then there are endorsements. Yesterday Dick Morris, former political adviser to President Clinton said the race is over and Obama has won. Today Bill Richardson, who likewise has ties to the Clintons, announces he's endorsing Obama.
Here’s my question to you: How significant is Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Pres. Bush puts foot-in-mouth on Iran & nuclear weapons
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/21/art.ahmadinejad.gi.jpg caption=" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad casts his ballot in the parliamentary elections at a mosque on March 14, 2008 in South Tehran."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's been quite a week for U.S. foreign policy.
In a radio interview meant to reach the Iranian people on the Persian new year, this is what President Bush had to say about the Islamic republic's intentions:
"They've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people. And that's unacceptable to the United States, and it's unacceptable to the world."
Uh, Mr. President, your own intelligence experts have said that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Experts on Iran and nuclear proliferation tell the Washington Post that the president is flat-out wrong, that Iran has never said it wanted a nuclear weapon for any reason. The National Security Council says Mr. Bush was referring to Iran's previous statements about wiping Israel off the map. But that's not what he said.
One global security expert says the president's comment on Iran is as uninformed as John McCain's statement in front of foreign leaders in Jordan that Iran is training al Qaeda. This is a man who touts his foreign policy experience as one of the top reasons why he should be elected, but who apparently gets confused when it comes to Sunni vs. Shia vs. Iran vs. al Qaeda. It's embarrassing.
Oh, and there was this: The White House announced that President Bush will still attend the Beijing Olympics despite China's crackdown on Tibet. Mr. Bush's position is that the Olympics "should be about the athletes and not necessarily about politics." So it's fine that Chinese soldiers are killing Tibetans... let the games begin.
Of course we owe China so much money, it would be a little tough for President Bush to say anything else, wouldn't it? We didn't used to be like this.
Here’s my question to you: Why would President Bush say Iran has declared it wants "to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people" when his own experts say that's not the case?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Spending $ on someone else the key to happiness?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/21/art.sharing.money.gi.jpg caption=]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Turns out money really can buy happiness. But there's a catch: you have to spend it on someone else.
A new study conducted by Harvard Business School and the University of British Columbia finds that spending as little as $5 a day on someone else could make you significantly happier. I'll give you my address at the end of this.
Experiments on more than 600 Americans found people were much happier when they spent the money on others even if they thought they'd be happier spending it on themselves.
One of the lead researchers points out that this study goes along with a growing body of research that shows that helping others is the best way to help yourself.
Another expert suggests that it's experiences, not possessions, that actually make people happier. So if you buy yourself a new car or TV, the elation wears off relatively quickly. But if you take a friend out to lunch, you'll feel good longer. She also suggests that kind acts make you think that people are grateful and that is also linked with happiness.
Meanwhile, the study – published in this week's edition of the journal Science – may also explain why people aren't happier even though America keeps getting richer.
Here’s my question to you: Is spending money on someone else the key to happiness?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments