Post Politics Hour
washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

John F. Harris
Washington Post National Political Editor
Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:00 AM

Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post national political editor John F. Harris was online Thursday, Aug. 17, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news.

Political analysis from Post reporters and interviews with top newsmakers. Listen live on Washington Post Radio or subscribe to a podcast of the show.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Crestwood, N.Y.: I'm not very fond of Lieberman, and never have been, but where is the optimistic outlook of the Lamont people coming from? Just the other day, on his show Chris Matthews actually referred to Lieberman as a 'dead man' politically. It seems obvious that if the GOP isn't going to run a real candidate, then Lieberman is going to be the de facto Republican in the race, and he then only needs a decent chunk of the Dems to win. Am I overlooking something? Is there a historical nosedive pattern amongst 'turncoat' candidates? Is all of his Democratic support going to abandon Lieberman as Iraq goes even further into the toilet? Will the Republicans stay home? I don't see any of this at this point. Do you?

John F. Harris: Good morning. There's still a lot of interest in the Lieberman-Lamont race, and for good reason. I expect this will remain one of the most interesting races through the fall.

I did not see Chris Matthews, but the comment you attribute to him does seem to reflect what I perceived to be an evolving conventional wisdom about Lieberman's prospects as an independent. I do not have my own take as of yet whether that conventional wisdom is true. It does seem that Lieberman faces some considerable practical obstacles with so many prominent Democrats backing Lamont. In addition, he can not count on organized labor for help with voter turnout, as he has in past years.

On the other hand, it could be that Lieberman has enough support nationally that he'll be able to stay financially competitive. And I'll note a Quinnipiac University poll (which seems reasonably respected in Connecticut) that shows Lieberman running at 53 percent to 41 percent against Lamont. Republican Alan Schlesinger is for now a non-factor at four percent. This is still a great race to watch, and at a minimum anyone calling Lieberman a dead man would seem to be a bit premature.

_______________________

Onondaga, N.Y.: If Senator Clinton does well in upstate NY in this year's Senate race, is it a sign that she has "red-state" appeal or that NYers lack a real alternative?

John F. Harris: I am myself an upstate New York native--grew up in Rochester--and I have been struck by how she ran reasonably well in Republican-leaning areas in 2000, and seems to have solidified her support since then.

As you point out, she has no effective opposition for re-election this year, so we can't read too much into the result. I think a lot of Democrats assessing her possible presidential candidacy would want to reassure themselves that Clinton could win every state that Kerry did in 2004, and then add a few more. She will argue that she has shown broad appeal, but this is going to be very much a matter of debate within the party and among political experts.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Doesn't the "macaca" comment hurt George Allen more than it might say, a Senator from Wyoming? There are many, many people of Indian descent in Virginia. Many of these folks vote Republican. Since the last Mason-Dixon poll doesn't show a majority of Viriginians supporting Allen, doesn't his help Webb more than the media is letting on?

John F. Harris: There are a lot of comments on Allen and his bizarre "macaca" comment. I have been following the story with interest. Also bewilderment: What did he mean with that strange choice of words?

I known Allen for many years, since covering his run for governor of Virginia to 1993. He is a fun politician to cover, who enjoys jousting with the press and has proven himself to be a formidable competitor. I learned then never to underestimate him. Because of this background, I have long thought he might be a serious force in 2008 presidential politics.

That said, I believe this incident is quite damaging to him. The tape of the incident shows an Allen style that I recognize--with him teasing/mocking a staff member for Webb's campaign who has obviously gotten under his nerves. While he evidently thinks it was in good fun, it is certainly clear why others would find his comments bullying and offensive.

And the use of the obscure (at least to me) word "macaca" is, as I said, just plain bizarre. It is beyond plausibility to me that a politician of Allen's experience and savvy would intentionally invoke a racist slur in public and on camera. But what did he mean with that choice of word?

The reason it's potentially quite damaging is that Allen is just now trying to get noticed on a national stage as he prepares to run for the GOP nomination. This is not an ideal introduction to people outside Virginia, to put it mildly.

Also, as Post Virginia reporters have pointed out, this plays into existing concerns about whether Allen is racially insensitive. This was an issue in the Allen campaign I covered in 1993, due to reports that he had displayed a Confederate flag in his office. Allen said he did not intend this as a racist emblem, and he took it down.

Allen does have a sentimental attraction to Old Dominion history. A lot of Virginians do, in my experience. The problem is this sometimes involves sanitizing what the Civil War was about--slavery--and plays into "Lost Cause" mythology.

Based on my reporting, I do not believe that Allen is motivated at all by racial animus. It just does not fit with who he is, in my view, and does not fit with a number of African-Americans I spoke to who know Allen and have worked with him.

On the other hand, he does have a towel-snapping style--as well as a combative streak--that long has struck some voters as smug.

Let's get our chat host to post some of the recent Allen articles from yesterday and the day before on the macaca incident.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: So what is the latest on what I think is the Democrat's best choice for a presidential candidate in '08: Mark Warner. He has southern appeal, will put Virginia into play (and my guess would be a win for the Dems) and is very charming. I know he hasn't officially declared but what are you hearing?

John F. Harris: Here's another Virginia politician who I know somewhat well from my years covering the street.

I knew Mark Warner first in 1989 as a political operative, just like any other fellow you might meet around a campaign only with a lot more money. (Even then, in his early 30s, he had amassed a fortune in cell phones.) He helped Democrat Doug Wilder become the nation's first elected African American governor, and was later state party chairman for the Democrats.

I have been very impressed by what he has achieved politically--getting elected as a Democrat in a conservative state, worked effectively with a Republican legislature and finished his term with sky-high popularity.

That does seem like a good record with which to launch a national campaign.

But Warner backers should be realistic: His appeal is so far untested outside Virginia, and his experience with the rigors of national politics is minimal compared to Hillary Clinton, who presumably would start the 2008 nominating contest as the frontrunner.

_______________________

Rochester, Minn.: Have you seen the TV coverage of Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton in the last two weeks? Would you compare Hillary Clinton chewing out Rumsfeld equal to Condi on Hardball, Meet the Press, ABC News Sunday, and Fox? The coverage of both of these women lately seems to be laying the foundation for a face off of women in 2008, would you agree?

John F. Harris: I do not agree. With respect to consultant Dick Morris, who wrote a book on the theme that Clinton v. Rice will be the matchup in 2008, I just do not think that Rice will be a candidate for the Republican nomination. She has said she won't and I believe her. And if she did change her mind I'd have real questions about how effective she would be given that she has social views that are less conservative than typical Republican primary voters, and she would have to run with her identification with the Iraq war, which is unpopular even with an increasing number of Republicans.

I imagine there will be a lot of speculation about her as a possible vice presidential candidate. She is an arresting public figure, I agree, I just do not see her and HRC in a head-to-head match up next time.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Good morning, Mr. Harris, and thanks for chatting with us today. Senator Joe Biden, who plans to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, was supportive of Connecticut Democratic Senatorial nominee Ned Lamont yesterday on Chris Matthews Hardball, but said he'd do nothing to actively oppose his old friend Joe Lieberman. Don't you think active support of the Democratic candidate in this race will be a litmus test for the big enchilada in two years?

John F. Harris: Yes, I do think it will be something of a litmus test for 2008 Democratic contenders. Or at least many 2008 contenders seem to think so. That's why both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, made clear immediately after the primary that they are backing Lamont and eager to help him in the general election.

I was struck that former president Bill Clinton, who had campaigned with Lieberman before the primary, took a whack at him in an interview with ABC the other day. We had a story about it in the Post and I'll get the host to post that.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Clinton Gives Lieberman A Lesson in Independence , ( Post, Aug. 16, 2006 )

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Regarding Mark Warner again -- you mentioned his lack of experience in the rigors of national politics, but history shows that Governors have had more success than Senators in presidential races. Couldn't this play rather favorably these days? It seems like incumbents are dropping like flies.

John F. Harris: Yes it could play favorably--you are right about governors having better track records.

But I think I am right that presidential campaign trails can be rough for people who have not competed at that level. Warner will need to demonstrate that he is capable of responding to criticism, avoiding mistakes, and the rest. Based on his Virginia record, he may be able to do that, but he is still untested.

It will be interesting to watch his campaign unfold.

_______________________

Minot, N.D.: 2008 will be Clinton and Obama vs. McCain and Rice, if you must know.

John F. Harris: Excellent. Now we know. Let's go to Vegas.

_______________________

Roseland, N.J.: You're actually quoting only the "likely" voters in the Quinnipiac poll, and of course, in this election who knows what's likely and what's not. The "registered voters" results show Lieberman 49%, Lamont 38%.

Two points about the poll. First, no incumbent senator should be comfortable with re-elect numbers under 50% or barely over. Lieberman's practically been crowned the "de facto" Republican candidate in deep blue Connecticut- not a mantle I'd want to wear right now. Lieberman's got a thin, long tightrope to traverse here.

Second, Lamont didn't get a normal post-primary win bounce, as Lieberman's independent run sucked at least half the coverage his way. A large section of the electorate, especially independents, still don't know who Lamont is. That is both a problem and an opportunity.

This is going to be a bitter, angry, awkward campaign. Pass the popcorn.

John F. Harris: Good points all. Thanks very much.

_______________________

Nashua, N.H.: Many analysts now say the Democrats have a good chance of retaking the House this fall, but it appears that most still feel the Senate is unlikely to flip. Which six Republican senators would have to lose to make this happen? I'm guessing that the races involving Santorum, Burns, Chafee, and Talent would pretty much all have to break the Democrats' way ... who else?

John F. Harris: I would agree with all your picks of vulnerable Republicans. Given the GOP's problems in Ohio, I think you can put incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine on that list. There is a chance Democrats could pick up Tennessee, where Frist is leaving and Rep. Harold Ford is the Democrat.

As you note, most political prognosticators do believe that a Democratic takeover of the Senate is a longer reach than the House.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post Web site posted an article today regarding K Steet lobbyist wooing Democrats in anticipation of their takeover in Congress. Is there any history for a minority party without any real agenda or plan winning control of Congress simply because the ruling majority party was so inept and corrupt? In the 90s the Republican's at least put forth their bogus Contract with America (balanced budget, term limits, etc.) to fool the American people into voting for them. It seems like the Democrats offer nothing, yet appear poised to win big.

Your thoughts?

John F. Harris: My colleague Jeff Birnbaum wrote a very good article on the Post' front page today on this topic--Democrats suddenly coming back into vogue among lobbying firms as chances for a shift in Congress rise.

Let's get that piece up there if we can.

Democrats do seem to be banking more on disaffection with the GOP majority rather than a clearly identified program of their own. I would note that it remains a matter of considerable debate how much the Contract with America contributed to the 1994 takeover (polls showed most voters had not heard of it.) In any event, that document was not released until late September 1994. It does not appear that Democrats intend to release such a rallying platform, but they still have time if they want to borrow from the Newt Gingrich strategy of a dozen years ago.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Democrats' Stock Is Rising on K Street , ( Post, Aug. 17, 2006 )

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Yesterday, Peter Baker got this comment:

"Syracuse, N.Y.: Peter-

I have to agree with Roswell, Ga.

While I think most of The Post writers do a good job in these chats there times when some of you get very defensive. You are after all writers and presumably have some skill in being able to phrase your responses appropriately. Mr. Kurtz frequently begins responses with "Look" which I always take as "Watch out here it comes!"

For what it's worth, I think most people like to "chat," not be scolded.

..."

I have to differ. Some come in with the attitude that they are always right, that The Post is wrong and must apologize. The Post writers (in a polite way) put them in their place.

Just my thought.

John F. Harris: Peter asked me about this. I promised to think about whether we should rethink "antiwar" as a descriptive term, but so far I have not heard a good case for doing so.

If people want to send me an e-mail on why we should I will read those. You can link to me off the Web site.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What are the chances that The Post would publish, in advance of the coming mid-term elections, the voting record of each incumbent on the major votes taken since the Republicans gained control over the national government AND a one-sentence comment on which segment of the electorate (low income, middle income, high income, all) benefited most from each of those votes? Some politicians are counting on our short term national memory for political events so why not help us remember what our politicians have or haven't done to or for us? This would help hold politicians accountable, not an unusual job for the media; and it would help shape the national political debate around the context of the last five years, protecting against the expected wedge issues and fear tactics that will flood the airways in the final days before we vote. In other words, do you your part to prevent the politicians from distracting voters from the actions incumbents have taken that have influenced our lives and futures.

John F. Harris: You should take a look at washingtonpost.com's inventory of information about members, as well as background on competitive races.

Here's a link to voting records.

In addition, go to our Bellwethers project. That's a collaborative project between the Post political staff and our colleagues at post.com to help readers make sense of the coming mid-terms.

Thanks for the chat. That's it for today.

_______________________

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. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.