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 White House reporter Peter Baker was online Wednesday, Aug. 16, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.

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.

____________________

Peter Baker: Good morning, everyone. Sorry we've been scrambling the normal schedule lately, but August is August. Thanks for tuning in today. No shortage of politics to chat about.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Peter,

I have to say I don't understand Sen. Allen at all. He is not a dumb person, he knew he was being videotaped, why make those type of comments to anyone, and then come up with the lame excuse that he had no idea what he was saying?

Peter Baker: Lots and lots of questions today about Sen. George Allen's use of the word "macaca" to refer to a volunteer from his opponent's campaign. I covered Allen when he was governor so I'll take a couple questions on this, but just a couple, if that's all right, since I haven't covered Virginia in 10 years and would be more qualified to chat on White House or national political issues.

It's hard to know what the senator was thinking, obviously, though everyone is busy mind-reading today from one vantage point or the other. He was in a small town in the far corner of Virginia and obviously wasn't thinking through how his comments would look on video to the rest of the world. Allen has an avuncular, joshing style on the campaign trail and he probably thought he was being funny rather than mean or offensive. But he's put himself on a national stage with his 2008 ambitions and if nothing else this is a lesson that his comments will face a far greater degree of scrutiny than he is accustomed to.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: The liberal blogs are not happy with the Post's reportage on the Allen macaca incident. Here's John Aravosis of Americablog this morning:

"Nice of the Washington Post to, yet again, ignore the fact that Macaca isn't just a genus of monkey - in French it's also a slur for dark-skinned people of North Africa, and George Allen's French-speaking French mother just happened to come from North Africa. No, that's not relevant to the story, but the genus of Macaca in Latin is."

Wouldn't it be fairly easy for The Post to contact a French/African linguist on this matter?

Peter Baker: You'll have to ask the reporters covering the story why they include one thing or another. While yes, his mother was French, I have to say I've never heard George Allen utter a word of French so I'm not sure I would assume what he knows or doesn't know. But the notion that the Post is somehow giving Allen a break on this is fairly laughable given that it's put the story on the front page for two days running.

_______________________

Kensington, Md.: I read your coverage of the Sen George Allen incident and I must tell you that after watching the video myself on youtube.com, I don't see a racist. I see a campaign opponent at a rally working a camera hoping to hurt Allen and I see Allen dishing comments directed to his opponent for not living in real America and also saying he should "get outside the beltway" (not reported by The Post) The Macaca nickname or whatever may or may not be racial, but Allen doesn't look angry or racial, just perhaps rightfully annoyed at the gotcha game the camera man and operative is trying to play on him. I think The Post missed the perspect and background here. It also reads like a personal attack on Allen from the A section. I would expect better from The Post.

Peter Baker: The great thing about the modern communications world is readers can read our stories, then go to our web site (or another web site) and view the original material and make their own decisions about intent or meaning. Our stories haven't presumed to say what he intended or meant, but rather provided competing views of it, including the senator's explanations and his denial that he had any racial motive. Today's story again included that as well as his defenders providing their viewpoints. But something like this is a story and we didn't make him say what he said.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Allen Quip Provokes Outrage, Apology (Post, Aug. 15)

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Allen on Damage Control After Remarks to Webb Aide (Post, Aug. 16)

_______________________

Roswell, Ga.: Good Morning and thanks for taking questions.

I am not a MSM basher, I think the MSM does a great job most of the time. However, I have noticed on these chats that all of you get very defensive when chatters question some of the things you do. And ironically, like the Bush administration, refuse to admit you could be wrong! On Monday's chats with Howard Kurtz and Charles Babington, there was a pretty heated debate about using the adjective "antiwar" to describe Democrats and Ned Lamont in particular. It was pointed out that "antiwar" implies against ALL wars, not the Iraq war itself, and using that antiwar term feeds directly into the Republican propaganda machine, allowing them to paint everyone who is anti Iraq war with the broad brush of being weak on national security and terrorism, etc. One person asked Mr. Babington why Lamont is labeled antiwar but Lieberman is not labeled pro-war. Mr. Babington gave a lousy answer that Lieberman has an 18 year track record and Lamont does not, so calling Lieberman pro-war was too simplistic. Howard Kurtz finally came as close I have seen anyone get to admitting he might be wrong by saying, "I don't think I have used antiwar much myself but perhaps our participants have a point that it implies views that go beyond the specifics of the Iraq conflict."

What would be so bad about any of you reporters saying, "You know, you're right. In the interest of accuracy, we should be using the term anti Iraq war, not just anitwar."

Peter Baker: Okay, let's move on to other topics. Thanks for this note. I hope we don't sound defensive, at least I'm sure we don't mean to be. Journalists are much better at critiquing public performances than providing them, so maybe we haven't calibrated our own answers as well as we ought to. From my point of view, thoughtful criticism of what we do is not only good but healthy. And the Post has some of the smartest, sharpest readers around who keep us on our toes. By asking questions in chats like this, you make us think about the words we use and the nuances in ways we might not have otherwise.

On your question about the term "antiwar," for instance, I didn't realize anyone would object to that if they were, in fact, against the war. I'm not sure that anyone reading a phrase like "antiwar candidate John Smith" would interpret that as anything other than John Smith being against the Iraq war. That seems pretty clear to me. Do you know if Ned Lamont objects to being described as antiwar? What's wrong with being called antiwar if you're against the war? But since you've raised the issue, I'll mull it over and discuss it around the newsroom. Thanks for the question.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Over at Slate, Doonesbury has a straw poll up: "What was Lieberman's defeat all about?" Sure, it's a silly, unscientific Internet poll, but I'm really struck by the results.

By a 3-1 margin, Democrats think it's all about Joe ("vain, sanctimonious, out of touch"). By a similar margin, Republicans think it's all about Bush ("Dems are going anti-war, Joe got taken out").

By and large, I think the media has clearly framed this as being about Bush. But is it possible that's a partisan way of framing the event? Democrats don't seem to agree.

Peter Baker: My colleague, Dan Balz, did a smart piece right before the primary explaining that there were two threads to the Connecticut race, with one being that Senator Lieberman was perceived by many Democrats to be out of tune with his home state and so on. But given that we're not a Connecticut paper and we're writing for a Washington and national audience, it's not surprising that the Post and the rest of the national media are focusing on the aspect of the race that matters to the rest of us, namely what it tells us about President Bush and the Iraq war more broadly.

_______________________

Albuquerque, N.M.: Peter,

Thank you for your continued "fair and balanced" answers and comments. I may not like all the things you say but I can honestly say that your comments are truthful. A real breath of fresh air from the media. Keep up the good work.

Peter Baker: Thanks for that!

_______________________

Dallas, Texas: Howdy to The Wash. Post folks.

Since a recent Gallup polls shows Secretary Rice is an acceptable candidate at 68 percent (Rudy was 73 percent and McCain at 55 percent), how long could she wait before she had to declare herself as a candidate for 2008?

Peter Baker: Always a Condi question on these chats. Interesting. Well, first, of course, she disclaims interest in running, so let's get that out of the way. Now, assuming she doesn't mean it or she changes her mind or she's persuaded to change her mind, it would be hard to imagine running or even doing the things you need to do to prepare for a campaign while serving as secretary of state. So presumably that might force her to resign first, and there aren't any signs that she wants to do that anytime soon.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi Peter, thanks for taking my question.

I read your report this week on the efforts Bush takes to avoid interaction with the press corps. How much of this is new?

Hasn't Bush always kept his fundraisers closed (at least since 2000 presidential campaign when Bush closed his and Gore kept his open to the press)? Is this another case of "Now you tell us -- six years later"?

What other topics can you list that fall into the category of things that are evident to the press that covers the White House, but which are unknown to regular readers of The Post?

Can you list three things?

Peter Baker: Gosh, don't have a list today. As I think of them, I'll try to write stories, how's that? You're right that Bush has for some time closed fundraisers in private homes (as the story said). What seems to be different is that increasingly he's taking trips just for these closed fundraisers (or with a single throw-away, no-news "open press" event built in) and that the press is not paying to follow since they're barred. It's a mix of factors going on, both the White House policy and the economics of the media.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: Do you expect Newt Gingrich to run for President in 2008?

Peter Baker: I suppose it's possible, but wouldn't bet on it at the moment. Speaker Gingrich wants to influence the debate and so it's in his interest to keep open the possibility as long as possible so people pay attention to his message -- he's said as much pretty straightforwardly.

_______________________

Washington D.C.: Peter, you covered the Clinton White House before the Bush White House. Didn't there used to be some sorts of questions considered too political for the White House press secretary to respond to? And is that no longer the case? And if so, isn't that kind of significant?

Peter Baker: A good question. There's a fuzzy line that a White House press secretary tries to straddle; they don't want to look like they're the RNC or DNC chairman. Each press secretary tends to find a different place along that line where they end up feeling comfortable, and that line does shift the closer we get to an election. Is your question: has the line moved in the Bush White House? Off the top of my head, I'm not sure it has, at least not dramatically. But maybe I'm wrong. I'll give it some thought. Thanks for asking.

_______________________

Durham, N.C.: What percentage of working time are George W and Dick spending on the road 'fundraising'? And what percent is working for U.S.?

And, we're paying them for this?

Peter Baker: Don't have a breakdown of time. They do spend a good amount of time fundraising. The vice president had headlined 81 fundraisers in this election cycle as of last week and has four more this week. The president's numbers are somewhat less but don't have them at fingertip. Having said that, my memory of covering President Clinton is that he seemed to do a lot more fundraising than President Bush, but that's not empirical. I'd want to look at numbers before saying that definitively. It's a hazard of the job to some extent in the modern era.

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.: Did Clinton allow reporters at fundraisers while in office? Why doesn't Bush? I, for one, am very curious what he says to his financial supporters. He is, after all, my president. Do I have a right to know?

Peter Baker: Clinton did not allow reporters into all fundraisers until campaign finance became a big scandal in his second term. At that point, under pressure, he agreed to allow at least a single pool reporter into every fundraiser, including those in private homes. The White House also often provided a sound feed from those fundraisers into a separate press filing center so everyone could hear the remarks.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: To answer your question about what is wrong about being called anti-war if you are against "the war." We are in more than one war-- the war against terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq. Lebanon and Israel is at the forefront of everyone's mind too. I'm against the Iraq War.. have been since Day 1. However, I supported the war in Afghanistan. The reason people, especially a candidate, might object to being labeled antiwar is because it does exactly what the Republicans try to do -- wrap all these wars up into one, when they are not connected, and make the argument that so and so is against war in general and not in the interest of national security. I'm definitely not antiwar ... in fact I think in some cases war is actually the best way to solve long-term ideological conflict. But I'm very against the IRAQ war and wouldn't want to be characterized as antiwar.

Peter Baker: A bunch of responses like this to the question of using "antiwar" to describe candidates such as Ned Lamont. I'll post a few others. As I said, to me the term seemed clearly to refer to Iraq and not at all loaded. I hadn't heard anyone say otherwise until today. Maybe we're trying too much to find hidden meanings in things. But it's a sensitive political environment and now that you've raised the question, I'll think about your points and talk about it with editors and colleagues.

_______________________

Virginia Beach, Va.: I wouldn't have said that The Post reporters sound defensive, exactly, but perhaps you do need to think more carefully about the terms "anti-war" etc. I'm not some lefty liberal crazy, but I do believe that the Republicans with their mantra's of "cut and run" and "brandishing steel" (which considering the source makes me crack up every time I read it) and weak on terror narratives have been consciously trying tar the Democrats as basically antiwar, period. And I don't think that's the case...I don't hear any Democrats talking like Afghanistan was not a necessary war...but the Republicans are basically getting you guys to reinforce their narrative with the anti-war label.

Peter Baker: Here's another.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Why is this so hard for people at The Post to understand? I notice you say antiwar and immediately say it means anti-Iraq war. Do you honestly not see how these terms don't mean the same thing? There are many wars. Lamont may not be anti all of them. By calling him antiwar you allow his opponents to paint him anti any war they choose. To my knowledge Lamont is not a pacifist which is really a more precise definition of antiwar. Is saying anti-Iraq war so much harder? You use words for your living. It seems to me you would want to be as precise as possible. It's only four extra letters to be precise. I just don't get it. It's not that big of a deal. What's odd is The Post employees wilful ignorance in recognizing that their wording is vague.

Peter Baker: Here's one more.

_______________________

Sagamore Beach, Mass.: You seem to be taking a lot of tough questions today, so I'll try to get this one in again: why is it that the Post and other papers took Clinton scandals (from Socksgate to Monica Lewinsky) so much more seriously than it takes the scandals that have taken place under Bush (misleading the public about WMD, cronyism at FEMA, the outing of Valerie Plame, etc.)? And why is that the press continues to speak of Bush as "likable" in the face of very low favorability ratings?

It is fair to say that the president's experience as the head of a fraternity has served him well with Beltway reporters?

Peter Baker: Hmm, interesting question. I'm not sure we took it more seriously than we take other issues. We were covering an ongoing independent counsel investigation of the president of the United States that led to impeachment proceedings and a Senate trial. That was the decision of political actors, not journalists. If there were an independent counsel investigation and impeachment proceedings, we'd be covering those just as intensively, I'm sure.

_______________________

Indianapolis, Ind.: A follow up to the posting "things that are evident to the press that covers the White House, but which are unknown to regular readers of The Post?" I remember many times in the follow-up reporting to a presidential election there would be some reporter writing that, "everyone knows that the candidate has a temper and treats his staff like crud." Well...it turns out that only you guys in the press knew that and decided not to tell us. For me it's that unknown that gets me mad. As a voter I need to know all the information that I can get.

Peter Baker: Fair enough. I agree. We should be telling you as much as we can. Sometimes it's harder than it seems, though. To fairly write that a candidate has a temper, for instance, requires at least some evidence -- a scene witnessed by a reporter, a staffer telling us about an incident, etc. We shouldn't hide things we do know, but we also have an obligation to write only what we actually know.

_______________________

West Coast: Dear Mr. Baker,

I posed a question about the strange POST editorial, entitled "A GOOD LEAK" which ran about three months ago. You mentioned you hadn't read it, and since then, every time anyone has asked a POST reporter about it, they're opted out, saying one should ask the next editorial person who hosts a chat. PROBLEM IS, that hasn't happened, they've been hiding since declaring the outing of a CIA agent as an act of civic duty by Dick Cheney, a form of truth seeking through selective leaking.

ANY CHANCE SOMEONE WILL COME ON TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE'RE ALL DEAD?

Peter Baker: Ah, sorry, wish I could help you. But I'm just a worker-bee from a different part of the factory. You're going to have to ask someone at much higher pay grade. Sorry.

_______________________

Beaumont, Texas: Thank you for the chat. I'm the one who posted the original question about calling Lamont "antiwar" while not calling Lieberman "prowar." I made another point then that was not posted: that "anti" anything tends to cast the candidate in a negative, and thus politically detrimental light. Many historians feel that "antifederalists" would have been more successful at making their case if they had not referred to themselves as "anti." On a more recent note, there's a reason the movement calls itself "prolife" instead of "anti-abortion." "Anti" just sounds bad.

Peter Baker: Hmm, okay, maybe. But is it possible that's reading too much into things? I'm happy to call myself anti-slander, anti-libel and so on. Most of us wouldn't object to calling ourselves anti-crime or anti-discrimination, right?

_______________________

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.

Keep up the good work it IS appreciated.

Peter Baker: You're right, we shouldn't be scolding and I'm sure we don't mean to be. Howie takes a lot of questions and is great about interacting with readers, so let's remember that. But we should always keep in mind how our words might be interpreted even if unintentionally, just as we end up forcing politicians to think about theirs, hmm? I know all of us here have enormous respect for our readers and appreciate all the smart questions and fair feedback and, yes, pointed criticism you give us. So if it helps, consider this a thank you from this side of the chat.

_______________________

Peter Baker: On that note, let's wrap up today's session. Thanks again for participating. Look forward to next time. Now go out and have some fun.

Best,

Peter

_______________________

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.