Talking Points Live

Terry Neal (post.com)

Should the White House take relief in the president's recent poll numbers? What do you make of Bush's fundraising prowess? Will any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates drop out before the first wave of primaries?

washingtonpost.com Chief Political Correspondent Terry Neal took his Talking Points column live to discuss the latest political news and any interesting political stories you've seen this week.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Terry Neal: This was another incremental week in politics, with no significant
major developments on the campaign trail but with many fascinating minor
developments, including the Howard Dean's return to the top of the pack,
Wesley Clark's cooling off, and the efforts of virtually all of Dean's
opponents to take off after him.

On the other hand, it was a mixed week for the White House, with the
bad news still dominating the good news coming out of Iraq. On the other
hand, there could be bright clouds on the horizon for President Bush on
the economy, considering new report that last quarter's growth was the
best in nearly two decades. But the bad news is, the vast majority of
the public has yet to feel any economic resurgence, with more than 70
percent of respondents in a new ABC News poll describing the economy as
"not good" or "poor" and some economist raising doubts about whether the
resurgence will actually create significant numbers of new jobs by next
year.

Meanwhile, the Senate prepares to vote again on the nomination of
Charles Pickering. And it appears increasingly as though the president
will get his way on the Iraq funding authorization currently being
debated in a House-Senate conference committee.

Feel free to ask about these or any other political questions you have
today.

More Anti-Dean nastiness

Rivals continue to pick apart Dean's record (Boston Globe, Oct. 29)

Al Sharpton disses Dean/The politics of black leadership
Sharpton Calls Dean's Agenda 'Anti-Black' (Post, Oct. 29)

Jesse Jackson Stumps for Causes, Not a Candidate (New York Times, Oct. 29)

Lieberman starts running ads...
Lieberman's Risky Ads (Post, Oct. 29)

Economy rebounds? What impact for 2004?
Economy Grows at 7.2 Percent Annual Rate in Third Quarter (AP, Oct. 30)

My column about John Edwards
Whither John Edwards? (washingtonpost.com, Oct. 29)

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: I'm a Democrat and your column about John Edwards clearly exemplified my frustration with him for running this year. It's true that he has the positive attributes that you mentioned. However, his one weakness is a huge one. He looks so young that many voters don't want to trust him with their security in a war on terrorism. It is for that reason I think that he would have been better off focusing on keeping his Senate seat and getting more experience in foreign policy. I think that four years from now he would have been a stronger candidate. But Edwards read too many of his press clippings saying what a huge star he is that he believed it. Now Democrats will probably lose his Senate seat. Why do you think that he got so much media hype, espcecially before 9/11?

Terry Neal: I agree with your assessment about why Edwards has yet to catch on with many voters. He has all the tangigbles a candidates needs: he's smart, nice looking, articulate and well-versed on the issues. But so much of politics is visceral, and I think many people just look at him and say, "he's too young." But he's not, really. He's 50 now, which is old than Bill Clinton was when he was elected in 1992.
But I don't think that is his only problem. I think the other problem is that Iraq is dominating the debate and he's running a campaign focused on domestic issues. Voters care about these issues, but I bet you less than 1 percent of the population can tell you the difference between his health care plan and Howard Dean's. So what's to differentiate him? With Iraq dominating the debate, you have essentially two groups of candidates, those who supported going to war last year and those who did not. Edwards is lumped in among John Kerry, Richard Gephardt and Joe Lieberman as candidates who supported the war resolution, but are trying to criticize President Bush for his handling of the war. And if Edwards can't elevate himself over that crowd on domestic issues, he is essentially, Kerry/Gephardt/Lieberman with less experience.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: After reading your article on John Edwards, I was left with a question for the candidates that voted Yes initially to the Iraq war -- it seems that they could dismiss their vote by stating that they believe that they were mislead by the White House and the information provided (now discredited) showed Iraq to be a greater threat than it actually is. It seems most Americans would accept that explanation. Do you think that the Democratic candidates that voted yes worry that by explaining their vote that way could hurt them politically? And why?

Terry Neal: This is a really good question. Here's how I see it: If these candidates are going to argue that they were misled, the first problem that raises among the party activists who oppose the war is about their judgment. Nearly everything that has been revealed post-war about the administration's arguments for going to war was raised prior to the authorization vote. Those who voted against the resolution did so because they doubted the administration's arguments about the threat posed by Iraq. Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards chose to believe those arguments.
The other potential problem these candidates have is that if they argue that their votes were based on misinformation and deception by the White House, don't these candidates then have to acknowledge that they regret voting as they did? And what politician running for higher office wants to say, "oops, my bad" on something as significant as sending the nation to war.
So what you're left with are candidates firmly standing by their votes, saying they are convinced even today that those votes were correct, while trying to criticize the President for his handling of the war. This, I believe, is striking some party voters as contradictory and accounts for some of the struggles these candidates are having.

_______________________

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Two questions, if you will: Is Clark's candidacy, as Woody Allen might say, a dead shark? Why isn't there more coverage/outrage about the "Mission Accomplished" sign when clearly W was again playing with the facts? If everything was going great in Iraq, you know the admin would be boasting about that sign.

washingtonpost.com: Poll: Support for Clark ebbing (CNN, Oct. 27)

A Sign of Mixed Perceptions (Newsday, Oct. 30)

Terry Neal:
No, I don't think Clark's candidacy is a "dead shark." I still think there are four or five candidates who could conceivably win this thing, and he's one of them. It's just too early to write anyone off. That's why people are still paying attention to John Edwards--who like Bill Clinton did around this time in 1991--could start to take off. Clark's stumbles, I think were exacerbated by his late entry into the race and the fact that everybody was paying attention to his missteps when he made them. Had he made some of the same mistakes last January, they probably wouldn't be an issue now.
On your second question, I do think there has been quite a bit of coverage on the "Mission Accomplished" sign. Bush was asked about it at the White House press conference yesterday. And there are stories in newspapers virtually every day that raises the specter of that sign, if not explicitly at least implicitly. In fact, there are stories in newspapers today about how the number of post-war combat fatalities have surpassed the number of combat war fatalities in Iraq.

_______________________

Boulder, Colo.: Mr. Neal,

Was the poll about the economy taken before the stunning news about the 7.4 percent growth in GDP?

Isn't this great news for the President, especially since much of the growth is directly attributable to consumer spending, which was fueled by the tax cuts? Or will the media let Democrats temper this piece of truth by pointing to increased deficit projections?

Terry Neal: No, of course not. The GDP news just came out today. I only pointed that poll out to say that people are not yet feeling the effects of what may or may not be the beginning of the economic turnaround. If those poll numbers change, it's not primarily going to be because people read the news about the GDP growth, but because people are feeling the effects of the GDP growth.
And yes, I absolutely agree that it could be very good news for the president if he sustains anywhere close to that over the next few quarters.
At this point, we'll have to wait to see whether this was an anomoly, a temporary phenomenon caused solely by some sort of euphoria over the third major tax cut, or whether it will be a sustained phenomenon that leads to a reduction in the unemployment rate, which is the economic indicator voters most closely pay attention to.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Just read a report that Dean is close to getting the endorsement of the Service Employees International Union, the nation's largest labor union. If he does this, how much does this hurt Gephardt? Does it give Dean the boost he needs to put Gephardt away in Iowa?

washingtonpost.com: A Big Union Feather in Dean's Cap (Yahoo News, Oct. 30)

Terry Neal: Thank you for your question. This is an important development. I'm not sure whether SEIU is considered the "largest labor union" per se. But it is, I understand, the largest and fastest growing union in the AFL-CIO. Whatever the case, it's got more than 1.3 million members, which means it is a force to be reckoned with. And yes, word is it will either endorse Dean or make no endorsement at all when its board meets on Nov. 6. Some board members or people close to the organization have been quoted in media reports today saying it looks like it'll be Dean.
This is a big development because it thwarts AFL-CIO president John Sweeney's effort to solidify the organization behind Dick Gephardt. And that could very well have ramifications, particularly in Iowa, a state that Gephardt needs to win, and where union members could make up between a fourth and a third of caucus-goers.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I think Al Sharpton's cheap criticism of and his highly inflammatory use of the "race card" to attack Dean will haunt him. He was the one calling for all Democrats to focus on winning the White House by attacking Bush, not other Democrats. Sharpton has placed himself on the same league as Lieberman, Gephardt and Kerry. These cheap attacks only look like desperation and will strengthen Dean on the long run.

Terry Neal: I do think Sharpton's criticisms raise questions about his early vows to not attack his Democratic opponents. And I think his characterization of Dean may reverse some of the good will he created among some voters who have been happily surprised (not so much that they planned on voting for him) by the largely positive way he has run his campaign.
Things started to take a turn for the worse a few weeks ago, when Sharpton lashed out at the media, saying his lack of coverage could be attributed to racial bias in the media. I think that statement combined with the Dean statement evoke images of the old Sharpton, which he himself has tried to distance himself from this year.
Now having said that, Sharpton does raise an issue that many of the other Democratic candidates are raising increasingly this days about Dean's apparent inconsistencies. Sharpton was talking about, among other things, that Dean has said in the past that it was time to consider economic-based, rather than race-based affirmative action. Yet now he's out on the campaign trailing talking about his strong support for race-based affirmative action.
It's difficult to judge what the impact, if any, this will have on Dean's candidacy. He's working hard to attract minority voters. Sharpton's statements might resonate with some, but I don't think he has reached the level of stature that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had among blacks in the 1980's when he ran. So my guess is many black voters will dismiss it as Sharpton just being Sharpton.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: I do not believe that Al Sharpton, Carol Mosley Braun and Representative Kucinich honestly believe that they have a shot at the nomination but are running only to increase their name recognition and reputation. As much as I enjoy Al Sharpton's performances during the debates, I feel that these three should drop out and let the other candidates who are honestly trying for the nomination get a chance to speak more in depth during the debates. What do you think?

Terry Neal: I wish I could tell you with some certainty what's going on in the minds of Sharpton, Kucinich and Moseley Braun. But I can only guess. And I suspect the same thing as you do. And frankly, running for president is a good way to increase your profile. Heck, it helped Alan Keyes get his own show on MSNBC and it turned Gary Bauer into a near-household name.
I would be surprised, for instance, if Braun--a one-term senator who lost her seat to an unknown novice politician and has raised virtually no money and is at 1 or 2 percent in key state polls--is really sitting around thinking about whether she'll be holding her first press conference in the Rose Garden or East Room of the White House next year.
I don't say any of this to denigrate any of these people. There are protest candidates in every election, from all sides of the ideological spectrum, and they serve a purpose, and that is to make disenfranchised or (racial, ethnic, religious, ideological) minority voices heard. And they tend to keep the more mainstream candidates on their toes. Protest candidates are a great, time-honored tradition, but they generally don't win presidential elections.

_______________________

Terry Neal: It's been grand, but I've got to run. Thanks for your great questions. Same time, same place next week.
Take care,

Terry

_______________________