
(CNN) – John McCain backtracked Monday from his earlier comment that he could lose the presidential race over the Iraq war.
On Monday morning, McCain had told reporters that if he can't convince the American people the United States is succeeding, "then I lose. I lose," according to the Associated Press.
"We quickly retracted that," McCain later said of the comment. "I was not allowed to retract it, obviously. I don't mean that I'll quote ‘lose.' I mean that it's an important issue in the judgment of the American voters.
"I hope that that clarifies, it's not often that I retract a comment. I retracted the finality of that statement. I think the issue of the war in Iraq we all know is important to the American people and will be a major factor in their determining who they are going to support in the election in November," he said.
McCain also told CNN's Dana Bash that "I think that clearly my fortunes have a lot to do with what's happening in Iraq. And I'm proud of that because Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama said we will not succeed militarily and we have."
With Ralph Nader now in the presidential race, there’s a serious question those of us in the news media have to ask: How much air time do we give him?
He made his announcement Sunday on NBC's “Meet the Press,” where host Tim Russert gave him about 15 minutes to make his case.
I also have interviewed Nader on many occasions, most recently on Late Edition on Sunday, Febuary 3. He spent about ten minutes with me discussing the possibility of his throwing his hat into the ring. I had the impression that he was again on the verge of doing so – just as he did in 2000 (when he won 2.7 percent of the popular vote) and 2004 (when he won only 0.4 percent.)
In 2000, he did win 96,837 votes in Florida – a state that George W. Bush carried by only 537 votes. Many of those Nader votes no doubt would have gone to Al Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot.
In that interview with me earlier this month, he branded Hillary Clinton a “panderer.” He clearly liked Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards but with both of them out of the contest, he appeared a lot more eager to announce.
I also had the impression that he was struggling a bit in going after Barack Obama, who, if elected, would be the nation’s first African-American president. But he did say this to me: “He’s too abstract and too general. He comes on as a constitutional law specialist, but he offers nothing to hold this outlaw presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney accountable…And he’s not speaking out.”
Now, Nader is in and is not holding back in his criticism of Obama. (As you can imagine, he finds John McCain totally unacceptable.)
I would be interested in getting your thoughts on the question I posed at the top – how much air time should we give him in the course of this upcoming general campaign? How seriously should we take his candidacy? Will he be a credible third party candidate along the lines of Ross Perot back in 1992 or will he simply be a marginal candidate with no real chance of winning?
Let me know what you think. And thanks.
– CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer

"Ready on Day One?" That's the question posed by a front-page story in USA Today.
The story looks behind the political slogan and makes a startling discovery. None of the three main candidates for the White House is very long on the kind of experience being touted as necessary to run the country. You see, these three have never run anything that amounted to that much. Not a business, not a large corporation, not a state. No governors here, nothing. They are professional politicians whose managerial experience amounts to overseeing their campaigns and managing their offices in the Senate. Although truth be told, they probably all have someone else who actually does both of those things.
In fact, these three candidates have less executive experience than any president in nearly 50 years.
To read more and contribute to the Cafferty File discussion click here
(CNN) - The anti-Iraq war group VoteVets.org is taking aim at John McCain over his Iraq war stance in a new television ad launching later this week.
The ad, to begin running in the Washington, DC area on Thursday, features veteran Rose Forrest, who served in Iraq for 12 months.
"John McCain says it's ok with him if the U.S. spends the next 1,000 years in Iraq," she says in the ad.
Then, picking up her infant son, Forrest says, "What kind of commitment are you making to him? How about a thousand years of affordable healthcare, or a thousand years of keeping America safe. Could you afford that for my child, Sen. McCain, or have you already agreed to spend trillions in Baghdad?"
The 30-second spot is set to run for two days, though it may expand beyond that to other markets. The McCain campaign has not responded to a request for comment on the ad.
News of the ad comes the same day VoteVets, along with several other organizations including MoveOn.org, SEIU, and Americans United for Change launched a nationwide campaign to defeat Republican members of Congress, and link the cost of the Iraq war with the country's economic downturn.
Former presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, touted the nationwide effort in a conference call with reporters Monday morning.
"People don't understand why we're spending $500 billion and counting in Iraq at the same time that we've got 40 million-plus Americans who don't have any healthcare coverage, 37 million living in poverty, people terrified about being able to pay their bills," Edwards said. "All of these things are made much worse by concern about what's happening in Iraq."
The groups said they were prepared to spend $20 million on television advertisements between now and November that take aim at McCain and at least 50 members of Congress.
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
(CNN)—John McCain joined President Bush Monday in condemning Congress for its failure to renew legislation that would provide legal immunity for telecom companies that participate in warantless government wiretapping.
“[It’s] worse than embarrassing,” McCain said at a campaign event in Ohio, it’s “disgraceful” that Congress has not yet approved FISA renewal.
Opponents of the measure have said the government already possesses the necessary jurisdiction to monitor potential terrorist activity and it would provide the government with too much power.
Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both oppose giving retroactive immunity for telecoms, though when the matter came up earlier this month, only Obama made it to the Senate vote. Clinton was on a campaign trip in Texas.
Despite the gridlock between the White House and Congress over the new terrorism surveillance program, the telephone companies have agreed to continue cooperation with government wiretaps for now, according to a joint statement released Saturday by U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell.
President Bush said Monday that without this renewal it would not be possible to properly monitor terrorist communication. If a terrorist is calling the United States “we really need to know what they are saying, and we need to know what they are thinking, and we need to know who they are talking to,” said Bush.
He added, “Should companies who are believed to have helped us after 9/11 till today, get information necessary to protect the country be sued? My answer is absolutely not, they shouldn't be sued.”
–CNN’s Emily Sherman


Recent Comments