Should Obama offer Clinton the V.P. spot?
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Now that Barack Obama appears on the verge of becoming the Democratic nominee, the buzz about a so-called "dream team" is starting up again.
ABC's George Stephanopoulos says that there are "intermediaries" discussing the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket. And he thinks Clinton "would be under some pressure and would like to accept." Former congressman Harold Ford also says an Obama-Clinton ticket is something the Democratic Party is going to have to seriously consider in the next few weeks.
There's even a group called "Vote Both” that's trying to push for such a ticket. It's seen as a way to unite the party after an often bitter campaign. A recent poll found a majority of both Clinton and Obama supporters like the idea.
But, not so fast. Obama's campaign says the Illinois senator is still focusing on the upcoming races and undecided superdelegates, that it's premature to talk about running mates.
The Clinton campaign says it hasn't had any discussions with the Obama camp about the ticket, and spokesman Howard Wolfson says he hasn't heard Clinton express any interest in such a ticket.
Some Democrats aren't so sure it's a good idea. One strategist who supports Clinton told Reuters if Obama picks her as his number two, it would counter his message of change. The same person said it might not be "all that useful" to Clinton's political future to be vice president. Instead she could have "an enormous influence" in the Senate over a long period of time.
Here’s my question to you: Should Barack Obama offer Hillary Clinton the number two spot on the ticket as a way of getting her to quit the race now?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Who has best plan for facing gas at $7 a gallon?
The demand for fuel globally is outpacing the supply, which is one of the reasons oil prices have nearly doubled in just the last year. (PHOTO CREDIT: AP PHOTO)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
If the cost of gasoline is hurting Americans now at about $3.61 a gallon, imagine what would happen if it reaches $7 or $8 a gallon in the next couple of years.
While Hillary Clinton and John McCain pander to voters with a proposed gas tax holiday that will never see the light of day, Goldman Sachs is out with a report that oil prices could reach $200 a barrel within two years.
The demand for fuel globally is outpacing the supply, which is one of the reasons oil prices have nearly doubled in just the last year. This prediction from Goldman Sachs, along with a weaker dollar and concerns about declining production, helped push oil to a record of more than $123 a barrel today.
Meanwhile, the Energy Department says strong demand from places like China, India, Russia, Brazil and the Middle East will support high prices and keep global oil demand growing by about 1.2 million barrels a day this year.
The government says it expects gasoline prices to peak at about $3.73 a gallon in June, but some private analysts think gas will go even higher – topping $4 a gallon this summer.
So what's our next president going to do about all this? Clinton and McCain want to cut 18 cents off the price of a gallon of gas for a period of three months, which would save you a total of between $30 and $70. It's the same old story from the Washington politicians… slap a bandage on an open wound and hope the public doesn't notice it's still bleeding.
Here’s my question to you: Which candidate has a plan for dealing with gas at $7 or $8 a gallon within two years?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What will Clinton do now?
Sen. Hillary Clinton at her Indiana Primary rally last night. Click the Play Button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: AP PHOTO)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
"The campaign may go on but the contest is now over: Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for president."
Democratic strategist Bob Shrum tells The New York Times that now the only decision left for Hillary Clinton is how she wants to end this.
New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin puts it this way: "Unless Obama falls off a cliff, or the Reverend Jeremiah Wright pushes him," he will be the nominee. Another paper calls Clinton "toast."
All this points to a pretty grim scenario for Hillary Clinton. Her 14-point loss to Obama in North Carolina coupled with one of the narrowest wins of the primary season in Indiana mean Obama woke up this morning with a larger lead in both pledged delegates and the popular vote.
Plus she's out of money. In the past month, Clinton was forced to loan her campaign $6.4 million out of her own pocket.
Then there are the superdelegates, who could now start to move in larger numbers to Obama. Or even superdelegates who currently support Clinton and could switch to Obama. Finally, The New York Times suggests that senior Democrats who support Clinton – like Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell or New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine – could now ask her to consider quitting.
On all of this, Hillary Clinton is absolutely tone deaf. Last night she told supporters, "it's full-speed on to the White House." This is denial in full bloom.
Here’s my question to you: What will Hillary Clinton do now?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why can’t Democrats make up their minds?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Here's something that might surprise you: After a 16-month, often bruising fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, most Democrats aren't eager for either candidate to drop out of the race. After all the contests and debates, speeches and TV commercials, fliers and phone calls, the Democrats want the suffering to continue.
A new USA Today-Gallup poll finds 60% of Democrats say Clinton and Obama should keep campaigning. Of those who want a speedier resolution, 23% say Clinton should give it up and only 15% say Obama should drop out.
There had been calls for Clinton to get out of the race a while back, but they've quieted down some since her strong performances in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It's looking increasingly unlikely the party will have a nominee until the uncommitted superdelegates weigh in.
This poll also shows most Democrats think the superdelegates should commit to a candidate by the end of June, which is what the party chairman Howard Dean is calling for. Only about a quarter say the superdelegates should be able to decide at the party's convention in August.
All this seems to suggest Democrats aren't too worried about the Clinton-Obama contest tearing the party apart. Instead, there seems to be a willingness to allow the rest of the voters to have their say.
Here’s my question to you: Why can't the Democrats make up their minds?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Are Clinton's comments on Iran appropriate?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/05/art.clinton.lafayette.ap.jpg caption=" Obama says Clinton scolded him about Iran before."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Hillary Clinton sounds too much like President Bush. That's Barack Obama's take on Clinton's threat to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacks Israel.
Clinton initially made the comments a couple weeks ago, saying: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Obama says this isn't the language we need right now. He says it's too similar to the kinds of things President Bush says, what Obama calls "bluster and saber rattling." Obama says Clinton is changing the rules right before an election. He said she scolded him about Iran before, saying "we shouldn't speculate about Iran, we've got to be cautious when we're running for president."
Clinton's not backing away from her comment. She says she wants to make it "abundantly clear" to Iran that if they attacked our ally Israel, they would face a "tremendous cost." However, Clinton adds that "nobody wants to go to war with Iran." She refuses to say whether she would order a nuclear response.
Here’s my question to you: Is Hillary Clinton’s comment that the U.S. could “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons appropriate?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Has your perception of the candidates changed?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Over the course of the campaign, Americans' views of the top three candidates have changed some. According to a Gallup poll done in late April, here are some of the qualities associated with each:
John McCain: he's "too old, he's a "good man, likable," he would give the country more of the same - be another George Bush, and he has a "good military background." And the number of people who view him favorably are about equal to the number who don't like him.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, the most common perceptions are that she is dishonest or not trustworthy, past scandals or baggage associated with her husband, the former president, that she is qualified, capable, and strong.
But the number of people who have a negative view of her, 55%, is almost twice the number that view her favorably, 30%. Barack Obama is viewed slightly more positively than negatively, 42% to 39%.
People see him as young and inexperienced but with new ideas. He is also seen as lacking substance-all talk and no action. People disagree with his religious views (Thank you Rev. Wright) and he is seen by some as an "elitist" or "snob," although those views are not widely held.
He is also, of course, much better known now than when the campaign began.
Here’s my question to you: How has your perception of the three major presidential candidates changed during the course of the campaign?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Another Clinton defector?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/01/art.joe.andrew.ap.jpg caption="Joe Andrew is encouraging fellow Democrats to heal the rift in our party and unite behind Sen. Barack Obama."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
This could be the beginning of the end. The leader of the Democratic party under Bill Clinton is switching his support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama five days before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.
Joe Andrew is a superdelegate who was chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1999 to 2001. He's from Indianapolis and endorsed Hillary Clinton on the day she announced she was running for president.
Andrew is calling on Democrats to unite "behind Obama and heal the rift in our party." He says the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now hurting the Democratic Party.
He says Obama never asked him to switch his support. It was Obama's handling of the Jeremiah Wright controversy and his decision to oppose a summer gas tax holiday which Clinton and McCain are both in favor of that convinced him to switch.
Andrew's decision puts Barack Obama just 19 superdelegates behind Hillary Clinton now and could open the floodgates for more undecided superdelegates to make up their minds. He says the Democrats cannot wait any longer.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean that the former chairman of the DNC, Joe Andrew, is leaving Hillary Clinton to support Barack Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Has Rev. Wright swayed the superdelegates?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Ever since Super Tuesday, Barack Obama has been outscoring Hillary Clinton big time when it comes to picking up support from the superdelegates. The Wall Street Journal suggests he's close to taking the lead, and that if he doesn't stumble badly in Indiana or North Carolina next week enough of them will break his way after June third to give him the nomination.
Seems simple enough. He leads in pledged delegates and she can't catch him there. He's won more states, has more popular votes, is a much better fund-raiser - very important consideration - and has shown he can appeal to Independents and Republicans. Piece of cake. Just run out the clock and get ready for McCain.
Yesterday on this program former President Carter, who is a superdelegate, was asked if he would support the candidate he voted for in the Georgia primary. His answer was, "Yes, unless I change my mind."
And therein lies the problem for Barack Obama. Superdelegates are free to change their minds. And thanks to the angry tirades of a bitter old man who seems less like a pastor and more like a racist with each passing day, Obama could have a serious problem.
Here’s my question to you: Will Rev. Jeremiah Wright cause Democratic superdelegates to rethink their support of Barack Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Major Clinton fund-raiser defects to Obama
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
They're called "Hillraisers"...the people who raise the big bucks for Hillary Clinton's campaign. And based on recurring reports of money problems–unpaid bills, personal loans from the candidate, etc.–she can ill afford to lose any of them.
But NBC news was the first to report that Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon who has raised an estimated $500,000 for Senator Clinton is leaving to join Barack Obama's campaign as a member of his national finance committee. A formal announcement is expected this week. Guerra-Mondragon has reportedly become concerned about the increasingly negative tone of Clinton's campaign.
He is a former ambassador to Chile who was appointed by President Clinton in 1994 and joins a growing list of Clinton people who don't like what they see in Hillary's campaign. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former labor secretary Robert Reich both are supporting Obama.
It's interesting to note that no one is leaving Obama's campaign to join Clinton.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if one of Hillary Clinton's major fund-raisers is leaving to join Barack Obama's campaign?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Obama have accepted another debate?
(PHOTO CREDIT: AP)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Lincoln-Douglas made it famous...a debate with no moderator...but it doesn't look like it's going to happen between Obama and Clinton.
With just over a week to go before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, and the two candidates running virtually neck and neck in Indiana, Clinton wants to debate Obama in both states, as a means of picking up votes in a race that he currently leads overall.
She says that she will debate him any place at any time, adding that it could even be done on the back of a flat-bed truck. He would probably prefer to run over her with a flat-bed truck at this point. She called over the weekend for this less-restrictive style of debate which got its name from a series of debates that took place during the 1858 U.S. Senate race between Republican Abraham Lincoln and Democrat Stephen Douglas.
She says that voters in Indiana would "love" to see that kind of debate and that it would be quote "good for the Democratic Party, it would be good for our democracy, and it would be great for Indiana." unquote.
Barack Obama has declined–saying that there will not be any more debates between now and the May 6th primaries. There have been 21 debates and Obama says he would spend time quote "talking to as many folks possible on the ground, taking questions from voters." unquote. But that's probably not the real reason. He's ahead...and the front runner traditionally would rather sit on the lead than take the chance of doing something stupid in another debate.
Obama's campaign has said repeatedly that most debates have offered little new information.
And he criticized the line of questioning in the last debate in Philadelphia earlier this month saying that it was more about "gotcha games" and "stirring up controversy" than the issues.
Here’s my question to you: Should Barack Obama have accepted Hillary Clinton's invitation to a Lincoln/Douglas-style debate with no moderator?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments