Books: 'The Way to Win'

'Taking the White House in 2008'

Washington Post national political editor John F. Harris was online Thursday, Oct. 5, at noon ET to discuss his new book, co-authored with ABC News director Mark Halperin , " The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 ," a look at the upcoming presidential election, how the Bushes and Clintons have managed to stay in the White House for over a decade and the impact of today's political culture on campaigns.

Read excerpts from the book.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Sarasota, Fla.: What does your book offer to a member of the general public with an average interest in politics? In other words, why should I buy and read your book?

John F. Harris: Good morning, and thanks for your question and your interest in The Way To Win: Taking the White House in 2008.

I wrote the book with a friend and colleague Mark Halperin, the political director of ABC News.

We are journalists, not political strategists, so we do not offer ourselves as experts as people who know how to win elections. But we do report and analyze in great detail on the lessons of two people in particular--Bill Clinton and Karl Rove.

To our mind, they are the two great political strategists of the modern age. Both of them spent several hours with us, sharing their insights about how politics is changed in their years in the business, and what they do in elections.

So we hope it is a fun book, for general readers and political junkies, but also one that makes serious points about how politics works now--and some of the distressing ways that it does not work as well as it should.

_______________________

Roseland, N.J.: I have to admit to finding a kind of "Alice in Wonderland" quality to your conclusions. You argue the prime reason for Kerry's downfall was that Republican operatives slipped attacks on Kerry into the mainstream media via Drudge, attacks they would never print on their own, but felt OK printing because since they were on Drudge they were "already out there".

And this failure, on the part of the media, to filter out this garbage, was Kerry's fault. For not realizing they would regurgitate it.

Instead of browbeating Kerry for not being cynical enough, shouldn't you be criticizing the media for propagating this bile? Or as members of the media, did that conclusion not occur to you?

John F. Harris: The book is quite critical of how our business does not do enough to live up to its highest and best standards, and too often participate in turning American politics into a "Freak Show," the term we use in the book.

But the book also aims to describe modern presidential elections as they are--not necessarily how they should be.

The fact is, Kerry let his Republican opponents hijack his public image--a signal failure of anyone running for president--and we tell the story of how that happened.

We also offer stories of how more skilled politicians--certainly Clinton, and in several instances Bush--have been more adept in navigating this Freak Show environment.

So the book is both clinical--describing what is--and prescriptive--offering ideas about how politics and journalism should work better.

Our material on Drudge falls in the clinical category. The fact is Republicans use him very effectively to promote their "opposition research" on Democrats, and the fact is Drudge does drive a lot of coverage by mainstream news organizations.

At the Post, I think we are pretty disciplined in resisting the Freak Show, but I do not think that discipline describes the news media generally.

_______________________

New York, N.Y: I read your co-author's opinion piece in the NYT over the weekend - it sounds as if your consensus point of view is that if Karl Rove et al can get away with fracturing the American people once again they will win and should win. So many journalists seem to share this point of view and limit their column inches to scolding the Democrats for being unable to fight both the Republican party and the press that applauds their methods. I see in every direction an enormous cynicism developing amongst the electorate as a consequence of just this sort of win at any cost politics. Now that we have this latest spectacle of sordid ineptitude where do you think the future politicians will come from? Has this political style become the death of idealism?

John F. Harris: In the book, we describe two brands of politics--Clinton Politics and Bush Politics.

Bill Clinton is the primary sponsor of Clinton Politics, and Karl Rove is the strategist behind Bush Politics.

Clinton believes that most Americans deeply want unity, and pragmatic, centrist politics. He thinks voters don't get what they want because operatives like Rove are so skilled at using wedge issues (like accusing Democrats of being weak on terrorism, or gay marriage) and keeping Americans enflamed at each other's throats. He thinks effective politicians thrive when they rise above the partisan wars and lay claim to the center (even if that means blurring a lot of tough issues.)

Rove believes that the reason politics is divisive is because Americans are genuinely divided. He thinks effective politicians try to clarify issues on favorable terms, gaining a majority even it is sometimes a very narrow majority.

What Mark Halperin wrote in the New York Times is that Bush Politics has worked in two elections--2002 and 2004, and there are signs of it working to some degree in 2006.

But as we point out in our conclusion, Bush Politics is not necessarily an effective governing strategy, even if it wins elections. Additionally, it gives politicians little room for error if their fortunes turn. We've seen how much trouble Bush has been in when his approval rating--never high, even during 2004--slipped last year and this year.

Then, needless to say, this Foley scandal is horribly timed for Republicans, and may disgust even the GOP base enough that the Bush Politics strategy will not work in 2006. The Republicans are in a lot of trouble.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi Mr. Harris -- Thanks for coming on to talk about your book! It looks like a potentially fascinating analysis, but I must admit some perplexity in the excerpt The Post published (at least on .com). There seemed to be paragraph after paragraph of caveats and statements about what the book is not -- so much so that I gave up on getting to anything of substance in the short time I had available to read it.

I'm sure the substance of the book is much more interesting.

Good luck!

John F. Harris: We did want to lay down some caveats of what the book is not--it is not an endorsement, or even an argument about, either Clinton's or Bush's policies. It is not a discussion about whether Bush knows "The Way to Win" in Iraq, for instance.

Here's what it is: A look at what the best political strategists think, and what they do.

It is based on studying the past several presidential elections, and on some long and fascinating conversations with Clinton and Karl Rove.

Both figures are shrouded in a certain mystique--Clinton is "the best politician of his lifetime," as he is often called, and Rove is an "evil genius." But we find that when you strip away the mystique there are a lot of very practical things they have learned.

Some of what the Clinton and Bush political dynasties have learned has come from watching the other very closely--and drawing lessons from what went right and wrong.

We think the politicians who rise to the top in 2008 will be the ones who have learned the lessons of what Rove and Clinton know.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: John,

Eric Boehlert has a very critical assessment of your book on Media Matters: Here's how dishonest Beltway journalism has become

While I would be interested in your response to all of his points, for the sake of brevity I'll pick one to ask you to answer. Boehlert writes:

"Rather than offering any fresh insight into the distasteful Swift Boat chapter, Halperin and Harris simply regurgitate the preferred corporate media storyline. For instance, the two write, 'The Swift Boaters pointed out authentic flaws and contradictions in some of Kerry's assertions about his war service,' and then promptly fail to specify a single assertion that the partisan Swifties proved to be flawed.

The irony is thick but nonetheless completely lost on Halperin and Harris; their slanted, lazy restating of the Swift Boat story is precisely the kind of reporting that helped doom the Kerry campaign."

This is one example of many Boehlert offers of flaws. How do you respond?

John F. Harris: I did take a look at that review, and as a general matter I don't get too worked up about that kind of criticism.

The reviewer seems quick to level criticism not just of the book but of the presumed motives of the authors. In that he is in keeping with the spirit of the age, on both sides of the ideological spectrum.

We write that Kerry failed to respond effectively to the Swift Boat Veterans, and we note that a good many of their allegations were inaccurate and unfair.

Boehlert did misread the book when he said that we are not critical of our own business--to the contrary, we deplore how "Freak Show" values have infiltrated too much of mainstream journalism.

But, again, the book is predominately about what effective politicians and their strategists do, as contrasted with what ineffective ones do.

Please ask yourself if Bill Clinton would have responded to the Swift Boat Veterans more effectively than Kerry did, and whether George W. Bush responded more effectively to news stories about gaps and contradictions in his National Guard record than Kerry did.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Who do you think has a better handle of the state-by-state political landscape, Rove or Clinton?

John F. Harris: They share several traits in common, and that is one. You could wake either Rove or Clinton up at 3 a.m. and ask them about who is the party chairman of any given state, they could also recount the state's voting history in minute detail.

Both Clinton and Rove are focused on electoral college math, and have a network of political contacts around the country.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why do you think that Clinton and Rove -- for all of their political genius -- have thus far failed to deliver durable governing majorities for their parties?

John F. Harris: This is a very good question. I believe it is because the country is quite polarized, and divided by very narrow margins. Changing that dynamic is hard.

Both of them had the ambition to build a durable governing majority, but I think you are right in observing that neither has succeeded.

_______________________

Bowie, Md.: How did Bush win in 2000 as "a uniter, not a divider" who "had worked with Democrats and Republicans" in Texas.

Then in 2004, after one of the most divisive administrations in decades, win almost exactly the same election?

John F. Harris: I think Bush knew in 2000 that he had to run on what was essentially a Clinton Politics strategy.

I think many people in our business--and I include myself in this--failed to discern how genuinely conservative Bush, Rove, and Cheney were, and how their ambition was to create a presidency much different in style and direction than Clinton's.

2004 was a totally different strategy. Of course 9-11 and the Iraq war totally changed the context. The fact that so few states changed between 2000 and 2004 speaks to how set the nation's basic political patterns are.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: What do you consider the keys to a successful writing collaboration? What do you recommend avoiding? Did you both work equally on all parts of the book, or divide the labor according to area of expertise? I recall that Rosalyn Carter, who by all accounts loves her husband dearly, said after co-writing a book with Jimmy that it was one of the worst experiences of her marriage, and vowed never to do so again.

John F. Harris: That's funny about the Carters.

It can be hard..both logistically (Mark lives in New York, and I am in Washington) and stylistically in terms of the writing.

In our case, we were helped because we have very similar ideas about both politics and the media. We did all the important interviews--Clinton, Dick Cheney, and several with Karl Rove--together.

We also both love politics--we tried to make the book both entertaining and serious--so working on it together was a lot of fun.

_______________________

Hillary Clinton?: So can Hillary Clinton win in 2008?

John F. Harris: We write that she has learned the lessons of both Clinton's presidency and the Bush/Rove experience--we call them the "Trade Secrets" of modern presidential politics--better than any other person in either party.

Yes, she is a polarizing figure. But she has also proven that she can be a very effective politician, and she is capable at protecting her public image in ways that to me make her likely a more effective presidential candidate than either Gore or Kerry was.

So the answer is, yes, she certainly can win. That is not a prediction that she will win.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: "whether George W. Bush responded more effectively to news stories about gaps and contradictions in his National Guard record than Kerry did"

Actually, for all the problems I have with the general tone of the Boehlert piece, he does address this issue in some detail. He concludes:

"Halperin and Harris -imply] the National Guard story never gained traction with reporters because the Bush camp was timely -- and accurate -- with its responses. It's purposefully dishonest analysis like that that makes The Way to Win such a dispiriting read. And if you haven't already, the book will make you wonder about the long-term health of American journalism."

John F. Harris: The National Guard story did gain traction for a while--you may have heard of a CBS program called "60 Minutes"--but Bush moved much more swiftly to address this treat to his public image.

The Bush team seized on CBS's errors to contain the story--even though there were a lot of questions that remained unanswered.

That is one of the lessons Hillary Clinton has learned--when attacked, she responds to the accusations that are false and overreaching so she can avoid responding to other accusations.

Boehlert from what I know of his writing is a bright guy, but I think as an ideologue he has a hard time accepting the premise of our book--which is that it is possible to study what Clinton and Rove know and do in a more detached way, without endorsing one or the other.

We did not write in order to bless the performance of mainstream journalism--he seems simply to have misread us on that point.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: I'm reading the first chapter of your book now and enjoying it!

Let me ask this: are there certain politicians who, regardless of their ability and drive, are just unelectable in today's climate (short of the other candidate falling on his/her own sword).

And, when you personally hear rumors of different politicians considering a run for president, do you think to yourself, "not a chance!"

John F. Harris: I think there are lots of politicians who have thrived on Capitol Hill in states and think "I could run for president" without a clear idea of what the most effective politicians do.

Here are some of things effective politicians do.

They have a theory of the case about how they are going to get elected--one that takes into account the strengths and weaknesses of their own party, not just the opposition. (Example, Clinton effectively addressing his party's gaps on some cultural issues in 1992.)

The best politicians also think hard about how to keep control of their public image--they do "opposition research" on themselves, so they know what attacks might be coming and how to respond.

The best politicians also have a good idea of what they plan to do once elected. Journalists tend to focus on who has the best stump speech, or looks, or the best commercials. In fact, ideas do matter, and you'd be surprised how many candidates are really winging it in terms of their own ostensible agenda. That is not the way to win.

_______________________

Oxford, Ohio: Hi Mr. Harris, thank you for this chat. I look forward to reading your book if for no other reason to see how you can blame Kerry's defeat largely on his failure to counter the Republican attack machine. A three million vote loss cannot be ascribed to the negative attacks on him, many of which he set himself up for (poor grammar, I know).

Again, I haven't read your book yet, but I hope you will also have discussed his failure to stand for anything and for everything. His wooden performances and serial condescension made Gore look manic and warm by comparison. It is remarkable to me that he came so close in the Electoral College with a deficit almost six times larger than the Bush deficit in 2000.

John F. Harris: I believe Kerry made many errors, and his inability to handle the Freak Show was just one.

But, let's face it, he did a lot of things right, too. If he had won Ohio, he'd be president.

_______________________

Washington, D.C. : You wrote: "Additionally, it gives politicians little room for error if their fortunes turn."

This, to me, is an amazingly important point.

Obviously, parties and politicians who are in power want to maintain it, essentially, forever.

But if they govern as if they really believe they can maintain it forever, they run the risk of collapsing under their own weight.

I believe that since 2000, the Republicans have essentially governed as if they were ushering in a New Red Era that will never end.

I suppose it's possible -- but I think we're seeing plenty of evidence today that they may have gotten ahead of themselves, and this despite have a far more united platform than the Democrats appear to.

John F. Harris: I too think it is an important point.

The essence of Clinton Politics is never getting too far out of step with public opinion. After the disastrous 1994 elections, Clinton said "never again," and he was focused always on keeping his public approval ratings high--in the sixties most of the time--and they even went up during a sex scandal.

This gave him a margin of error that Bush does not have.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: I find it more than a little rich that Mark Halperin is co-authoring a book that blames Kerry for failing to fight back against the Swift Boaters when Mr. Halperin's "The Note" pushed the story so heavily, even going so far as to criticize a New York Times piece that discredited some of the allegations.

And how can Mr. Halperin complain about the Freak Show when The Note feeds it with frequent links to articles at the WSJ Opinion page, Washington Times, and even Fox News? Isn't this a bit like letting the killer conduct the autopsy?

John F. Harris: Greetings, Rochester (my hometown.)

I'll pass on your comment to Mark, though I disagree with it.

The Note is a well-written and entertaining and often incredibly perceptive digest of the day's political news.

It is not part of the Freak Show.

With luck, we can get Mark on line for a chat soon to take this question directly.

_______________________

Very effectively to promote their "opposition research": Uh...that is also quite true of Halperin's "The Note". So isn't it a bit disingenuous for you folks to publish a book on this, while quite happily doing it yourselves?

John F. Harris: Again, I do not agree.

But we should get the creator of "The Note" on line to answer these questions and talk about his own contribution to The Way to Win....you can read more at www.thewaytowin2008.com.

_______________________

Alabama: I voted for Clinton in 1996, but could you explain why you consider him a great strategist? I liked him as president, but the fact is that he was aided by Perot's candidacy in 1992 and 1996; that Congress was lost on his watch; and that his personal shenanigans played a big role in undermining his accomplishments for the Democratic Party. His party is arguably weaker after his presidency than it was before it, which is astonishing for a two-term chief executive.

John F. Harris: This a question I understand, but ultimately I have a different view. Clinton got elected in 1992 as only the second Democrat since 1964 to win the presidency, and he was the first Democrat since FDR to win two terms.

Gore and Kerry both showed that this is not such an easy feat.

We believe that Clinton has a lot interesting to say about The Way to Win elections, and I hope you'll take a look at the book to read about some of these.

Thanks for a great chat.

John Harris

_______________________

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.