Clinton fundraising at convention?
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Yet another sign that Hillary Clinton is doing her dead-level best to take title to the Democratic National Convention.
In addition to the laundry list of concessions she has already wrung out of Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton plan to use the convention to raise money to pay off more of her campaign debt from the primaries.
Hillary Clinton has announced she will award one lucky donor a trip to the convention – with her. And in case that's not incentive enough, Bill Clinton sent an e-mail to potential contributors promising a memorable week with his wife.
Watch: Cafferty: Clinton in debt?
"You'll get to see Hillary speak on Tuesday, and Barack Obama – the next president of the United States – on Thursday. And I hear Hillary and you will have a chat – I'll make sure to stop by." Makes you want to borrow against your house.
I mentioned Hillary Clinton's doing her best to take title to the convention? Clinton will have her name placed into nomination and there will be a roll call vote. She gets her own prime-time speaking slot. She will be introduced by her daughter, Chelsea. The video preceding her will be produced by her own production company – the same bunch that did the "Man From Hope," for Bill Clinton. Oh, and he's going to speak too. All this for the loser in the race.
The clock is ticking when it comes to Clinton's debt. According to campaign finance rules, candidates only have 20 days after the convention ends to fund-raise for their personal loans. So if you see Senator Clinton out in front of the convention hall with a cup of pencils, buy one. She needs the money.
Here’s my question to you: Is the Democratic Convention the appropriate place for Hillary Clinton to raise money to pay off her campaign debt?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
News media objective in presidential race?
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
John McCain is whining about the media - again. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, wants to meet with the president of NBC News to protest the network's coverage... saying it's abandoning "non-partisan coverage" of the presidential race.
McCain's not happy with what NBC's Andrea Mitchell said on "Meet the Press" yesterday, when she questioned whether McCain may have known about some of the questions at the faith forum Saturday night ahead of time. John McCain was supposed to be held in a so-called "cone of silence" during Barack Obama's interview, which happened first. But it turns out McCain was in his motorcade on the way to Rick Warren's church during the interview.
Watch: Cafferty: Media objective?
McCain's campaign insists the Arizona Senator didn't hear the broadcast of the event in the car and didn't hear any questions. They say the insinuation from Obama's camp that McCain cheated is outrageous and they're going after Andrea Mitchell for "simply repeating Obama campaign talking points".
This isn't the first time McCain has been critical of the media's coverage of the race. The campaign recently put out a video spoofing how much the media love Obama.
A recent Pew Poll found 48% of those surveyed say they're hearing too much about Barack Obama, compared to 26% who feel the same way about John McCain. But, a media study that came out last month found that NBC, ABC, and CBS were tougher on Obama than they were on McCain during the first six weeks of the general election campaign.
Here’s my question to you: How would you rate the objectivity of the news media in covering the presidential race?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What does Musharraf’s resignation mean for U.S.?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Perez Musharraf resigned today after nine years in power. It had come down to "quit or be kicked out."
His popularity had been in decline since March of last year, when his opponents say he misused his constitutional powers by suspending Pakistan's Chief Justice in a bid to run for another five-year term.
He was re-elected president in October. But in February, voters handed an overwhelming victory to his political foes and Musharraf was facing impeachment if he didn't resign. It was a victory for democracy in Pakistan but a potential setback for the war on terror.
President Musharraf has been one of the United States' most important allies in the campaign against al Qaeda in Afghanistan since the 9-11 attacks. For his support, Pakistan was paid more than ten billion dollars. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thanked Musharraf again today, calling him "one of the world's most committed partners in the war against terrorism and extremism."
But officials in Afghanistan expressed relief, saying Musharraf had been an ally of the United States "in words only, not by actions," and blaming him for Pakistan's failure to crackdown on the growing Taliban insurgency in the tribal border areas.
Even the U.S. has been losing patience with Musharraf of late, recently confronting the new coalition government with CIA evidence that the Pakistani intelligence service helped plan a terror attack against the Indian Embassy in Kabul last month.
But with Musharraf out of the picture, now what?
Here’s my question to you: What does the resignation of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf mean for the U.S. and the war on terror?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What are Russia's intentions when it comes to Georgia?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/08/18/art.gori.gi.jpg caption=" The city of Gori, Georgia is still under Russian control."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Russia says it's started its withdrawal from Georgia, but there's no indication that that's actually happening.
The Kremlin said yesterday that it had agreed to the troop withdrawal as part of a cease-fire agreement. But Russia's president Dmitri Medvedev hasn't specified how fast it will happen, or how many troops they're talking about. Instead, he said troops would withdraw to South Ossetia and a so-called "security zone" around it... whatever that means.
You gotta love the Russians. The city of Gori is still under Russian control. And the Russian military has apparently been moving launchers for short-range ballistic missiles into South Ossetia – even as they promised to start pulling troops out. They've also been carrying out bomber training missions over the Black Sea. And there are reports Russian soldiers destroyed a key railroad bridge just outside Tbilisi, cutting off East-West transportation routes throughout the country.
The U.S. and Europe are wary of what exactly Russia is up to in Georgia. There are serious political and military implications in all of their actions here.
A U.S. official says they've seen "no rapid pullback" so far, and describes the situation as "status quo." The White House keeps talking tough, saying that Russia needs to start the withdrawal "without delay”, but it doesn't appear Russia is paying much attention to what Washington has to say these days.
The Pentagon sees all this as a signal from Russia that it considers its sphere of influence to include Georgia and neighboring regions like Belarus and Ukraine. It's a way of Russia flexing its muscles, if you will. And so far the rest of the world can't do much about it.
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to Georgia, what are Russia's intentions?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why isn’t there more support for third party candidates?
Third party presidential candidates: Ralph Nader (Independent Party), Bob Barr (Libertarian Party), Cynthia McKinney (Green Party). (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Americans are disgusted with our dysfunctional government, right? They overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress and the president, and for straight 6 months now, at least 80% of us say we're dissatisfied with where this country is headed.
So if the system is indeed broken, it seems like lots of Americans wouldn't want to vote for either the Democrat or the Republican in November. However, a new Gallup Poll finds that only 2% of registered voters name a third-party candidate when asked who they'll back for president.
2%... that's compared to 83% who name either Barack Obama or John McCain. The third-party candidates this time around include Bob Barr for the Libertarian Party, Independent Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney for the Green Party.
In 1992, Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote, one of the best showings ever for a third-party candidate. In fact, Perot may have been the reason why Bill Clinton won the first time around. But, when it comes down to it, the way the two-party system is set up often makes it very difficult for third-party candidates to get any traction. It's an uphill battle to get on the ballot and to get the kind of money necessary to compete.
Here’s my question to you: Why isn’t there more support for third party candidates?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why do military donations favor Obama over McCain?
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to the money race, it appears Barack Obama is ahead on the battlefield. Members of the military are donating more money to Obama than to the military man John McCain. A lot more money.
A nonpartisan organization called the "Center for Responsive Politics" reports U.S. troops serving abroad have given almost six times as much money to the Democrat Obama as they have to the Republican McCain.
Watch: Cafferty: Military $ for Obama?
These are pretty shocking results when you consider that historically military donations favor the Republican. Also, McCain is a decorated war hero who spent almost 5 years as a POW in Vietnam. He graduated from the U-S Naval Academy and was a naval aviator for 22 years. His military experience is a big part of his candidacy. Obama has never served a day in the military.
It might just mean that Obama's message of being against the war in Iraq is resonating with the people who have been called on to fight it. Obama says he would pull out all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.
McCain has been a staunch supporter of the war and insists the U.S. will only withdraw troops when the conditions on the ground are right. At one point, McCain suggested the United States could be in Iraq for 100 years.
Here’s my question to you: Why are members of the military donating more money to Barack Obama despite John McCain’s military background?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Has Hillary taken over the convention?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/08/15/art.clinton.denv.gi.jpg caption="Hillary Clinton will give a prime-time address at the convention. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)"]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Democratic National Convention is shaping into quite some party for Hillary Clinton.
Her name will be placed into nomination. She'll give a prime-time address, introduced by her daughter Chelsea. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will get his own plum speaking slot on a separate night. She will also have her own production team to create the introductory video that precedes her speech – the same people who produced Bill Clinton's biography video "The Man from Hope" in 1992.
And, there's now language in the party's platform that refers to the "18 million cracks in the highest glass ceiling," and suggests that media sexism contributed to Hillary's defeat. All this makes it easy to forget that Hillary Clinton is the loser.
Barack Obama and Clinton say they agreed to put both of their names into nomination after weeks of negotiating. It's meant to help unite the party and head off potential embarrassing problems at the convention from Hillary supporters. You can bet Obama wants a drama-free convention and sees this laundry list of concessions as a way of keeping the peace.
Others suggest this amounts to little more than extortion. One expert says the Clintons have "got Obama hostage and are exacting their ransom" with all of these convention demands. New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin writes that "Obama blinked and stands guilty of appeasing Clinton”. He points out by giving in to her, Obama doesn't stand to get any votes he wouldn't have gotten anyway, and that those who refuse to accept him as the legitimate winner probably won't change their minds because he's caved in.
If he can't stand up to Hillary, how's he going to fare against Vladimir Putin?
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to the convention, has Barack Obama let Hillary Clinton take over?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What would Powell endorsement mean for Obama?
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/08/14/art.powel.tux.gi.jpg caption=]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
For a moment there, it looked like Colin Powell was going to endorse Barack Obama.
But the former Secretary of State has denied a report that he would publicly back the Democrat for president at the party's convention. Several sources say he hasn't made up his mind yet, and Powell himself insists he won't be going to the convention in Denver. However, despite Powell's immediate denials, the reporter who broke the story on Fox News yesterday stands by it – saying that the Obama people expect Powell to endorse him.
Powell indicated earlier this year that he was considering endorsing a Democrat or Independent. He said he was keeping his options open and called Obama an "exciting person on the political stage."
An adviser to Powell says that he likes and admires John McCain, which would factor into any decision he makes. But another source close to Powell says although he's known the Arizona senator for over 30 years, he hasn't found a reason to vote for him yet. That's not such an encouraging sign if you're John McCain.
One of the things Powell is waiting for is the vice presidential picks from both candidates. A Powell aide says that a decision to back Obama wouldn't be a surprise, but a decision to attend the Democratic convention would be.
Nonetheless, for Obama, hope springs eternal. As long as Powell hasn't said no, the possibility remains that one of the most popular people in this country could still come out and support him.
Here’s my question to you: What would Colin Powell's endorsement mean for Barack Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
McCain condemns Russia, supports Iraq invasion
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations."
So says John McCain, as part of his tough talk about Russia's attacks on Georgia. In calling for Russia to get out, McCain says he doesn't think we'll reignite the Cold War, but that you can't justify the "extent and degree" of Russia's intervention in Georgia. The presumptive Republican nominee insists that we need to make sure that in the 21st century, we all have respect for the sovereignty and independence of nations.
Watch: Cafferty: McCain a hypocrite?
Say what? The United States invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq more than 5 years ago. And you, Senator McCain, were all for the idea. You voted for the war, remember? At the time, McCain insisted that the U.S. needed to act before Saddam Hussein could develop more advanced weapons. And since then, McCain has remained steadfast in his support of arguably the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. At one point, McCain said U-S troops could remain in Iraq, a sovereign nation, for 100 years.
When it comes to punishing Russia for its actions, the Arizona Senator says its potential membership in the World Trade Organization should be reviewed along with its membership in the G-8. He believes an international peacekeeping mission should be sent to Georgia and that NATO should re-consider adding Georgia and Ukraine to the alliance.
Here’s my question to you: Is John McCain hypocritical to condemn Russia for invading Georgia when he voted to invade Iraq?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Can swift boat author sink two Democrats?
Author of swift boat book that attacked John Kerry in 2004 is now going after Barack Obama. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Summertime and the swift boats are sailing.
The author of the book that attacked John Kerry's record on a Vietnam War Swift boat, and ultimately torpedoed his campaign, is now going after Barack Obama.
Jerome Corsi is out with "The Obama Nation", which will debut at number 1 on the New York Times best-seller list this Sunday. It portrays Obama as a radical liberal who's tried to cover up his connections to Islam. The book also questions whether Obama's drug use as a youngster ever ended. Real nice stuff.
Critics say that a lot of the book's accusations are unsubstantiated or just not true. Corsi has a record of putting out lots of wild theories in other books that call into question his credibility. And, Obama's campaign says the book is "nothing but a series of lies that were long ago discredited".
Nonetheless, political attack books – like "Unfit for Command" about John Kerry – have become a pretty effective tool in campaigns. The former Democratic presidential candidate was criticized for responding too late to the swift boat attacks.
This is why Kerry along with some of his former top aides say the Democrats have to fight back hard and quickly this time around. Kerry launched a web site yesterday questioning the claims in Corsi's book. And, his former chief strategist says Obama's campaign has to "debunk every single assertion" in the book, although he acknowledges it's a fine line to walk in not drawing too much attention to the book in the process.
Here’s my question to you: Can the author of the swift boat book sink two Democrats in a row?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments