October 5th, 2009
06:00 PM ET

Would you vote for a military commander for president in 2012?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As the U.S. continues to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - it seems like a sharp military mind in the Oval Office may come in handy. The New York Times reports on growing speculation that General David Petraeus - who oversees those two wars - might run for president in 2012. Petraeus' people deny it - but some say the White House is still suspicious.

Aides to Petraeus say he hasn't voted for more than five years - to preserve a sense of military impartiality. And although he's been described as a Republican - one top military official close to the general says he couldn't confirm his political party.

In any case - the Times points out how Petraeus, who was a favorite of George Bush, has taken on a more muted voice in the debate over Afghanistan. But he continues to have a seat at the table, as the Obama administration wrestles with sending as many as 40,000 additional troops to the fight .

There was a time when military service was a political asset - Eisenhower came to the White House via the military and was one of America's most popular presidents... JFK, Nixon, Carter - among others - also served.

But in recent elections, the attitude towards men in uniform has changed... voters rejected John McCain, John Kerry and Bob Dole - all veterans.

Here’s my question to you: Would you vote for a military commander for president in 2012?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Elections • U.S. Army • US Military
October 5th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

What major new laws will Congress pass before adjourning?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama has only been in office a little more than eight months now... but many are beginning to wonder if his political capital is already spent. The president came into office with several top priorities - including health care reform and climate change legislation.

Health care has taken up most of the summer and it's still not clear what the final outcome is going to be. Democrats are close to bringing the legislation to the floor of both houses of Congress for debate. They say they're confident a bill will pass this year... and they see more momentum now than they did under President Clinton 15 years ago - which, when you think about it, is irrelevant.

If health care reform doesn't pass, does it really matter how much momentum it had?

As for climate change legislation - forget about it. The president's top energy adviser says there's no way Congress will be able to pass a bill this year. Which means the U.S. will have nothing to show when talks on a global climate treaty start in Copenhagen in December.

Not finished yet... In the wake of the financial meltdown last year - President Obama and Democratic leaders talked a lot about imposing new regulations on Wall Street. But so far - that's all that is… just talk. Nothing's been done.

Here’s my question to you: What major new laws will Congress have passed by the time it adjourns for the year in early December?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Congress
October 5th, 2009
04:00 PM ET

How big a deal was losing the Olympics for Pres. Obama?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There's no question Chicago's losing the Olympics was an embarrassment for Pres. Obama. One headline on the Drudge Report read: Obama + Michelle X Oprah = 0

Princeton history professor Julian Zelizer writes on CNN.com that the usually calm and steady president has made two recent mistakes that have shifted the public's focus off the big issues like health care.

The first was when Mr. Obama waded into the controversy surrounding the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Gates by saying the police acted "stupidly" when he didn't know all the facts of the case. The second mistake was the president's decision to fly to Copenhagen for the Olympics pitch.

Zelizer suggests the Olympics situation is more troubling - since it was well-thought out by the president and vetted by his advisers - whereas the Gates comment was an off-the-cuff moment.

In the grand scheme of things - the Olympics flap is not as big a deal as Republicans will make it out to be. And - come election time, it's likely that whatever happens with health care reform, the economy and whether or not the U-S sends more troops to Afghanistan will all weigh heavier on voters' minds.

But President Obama's decision to go to Denmark and appear before the International Olympic committee may be seen as a lapse in judgment for a man who had perfect political instincts during the campaign.

Here’s my question to you: Politically speaking, how big a deal was losing the Olympics for President Obama?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: President Barack Obama