Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com political blogger, will be online Wednesday, Aug. 15, 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.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Chris Cillizza: Good morning everyone. Sorry to be a few minutes late. Let's get chatting.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Chris,

Thanks for doing these chats and sharing your valuable insights with us.

With Dennis Hastert announcing that he will not run again, can you give us a sense of how competitive his now open seat is likely to be? Also, what are the Democrats chances of picking up the seat being vacated by Ray LaHood? Finally, do you see any other Republican house members likely to step down this year and create competitive races for their open seats?

Thanks.

Chris Cillizza: The news that Hastert isn't planning on running again wasn't unexpected but could -- and we emphasize could -- set off a competitive open seat.

His district, which takes in much of the territory west of Chicago gave President Bush 55 percent of the vote in 2004 -- one of the president's best performing districts in the state.

Republicans are likely to face a primary between state Sen. Chris Lauzen and wealthy dairy magnate Jim Oberweis. Oberweis is the favorite as he has run statewide three time in the last three election and has millions in personal wealth to contribute to a campaign.

The likely Democratic nominee is Bill Foster, a successful businessman in his own right who may well put large amounts of his own money into the race.

This seat's competitiveness depends on the national political environment. Republicans should hold it but if Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) is on the Democratic ticket and public opinion continues to decline in regards President Bush and the war in Iraq it could be one to watch.

_______________________

Chevy Chase, Md.: Chris, I love The Fix. Thanks for taking this question. It seems like Barack Obama's recent "moves" have created some clear points of demarcation between himself and the other candidates, most notably Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, many of these moves could just as easily be termed campaign gaffes that evidence his inexperience. I can't decide, and I'd love to hear your take: is Barack Obama a brilliant candidate with a solid strategy or just a smart but inexperienced senator who happens to be running for president? Is Senator Obama, as Senator Clinton has suggested, abandoning his "politics of hope" approach to the campaign with his recent attacks or is he merely noting where he diverges from the other candidates? How do you think this approach will ultimately play out, assuming it continues?

Chris Cillizza: Thanks for the kind words about The Fix.

And, it's a very good question that, to be honest, I don't know the answer to.

I've written recently about how there appears to be a disconnect between how Obama is perceived by the media and how he is perceived by everyday Americans.

In each of the recent debates, focus groups conducted in the immediate aftermath of the event seem to show that Obama won and yet most media professionals haven't shared that opinion.

I think it is uniquely possible that Obama's campaign will (or has already) turned into a movement that is symbolized by him but in truth much larger than anyone person. If that is what is happening out in America, it may well be hard for anyone -- including Hillary Clinton -- to stop Obama if he gets a win in an early state.

There is the other option, however, which is that Obama is something of a fad and has not yet demonstrated that he has the staying power to stick with a more experienced politician like Clinton. If you chose to see the race through that lens, his recent comments about Pakistan could be viewed as detrimental to proving to voters that he is up to the job.

As I said above, I don't know what the right answer is. Obama is one of the most fascinating politicians I have ever had the chance to cover and I am looking forward to seeing how it all turns out.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: In the Dan Balz piece, Obama raised valid concerns (that a lot of people have) about another Clinton presidency. He even seemed to go out of his way to say that Bill Clinton's presidency was good for America, and that a lot of the possible problems with another Clinton in the White House are not their fault. And all Clinton can come back with is the same old tripe about going negative? I know they know that there is a difference between highlighting your capabilities in comparison with your opponents and going negative. It just seems to me that they missed an opportunity to respond substantively to a concern that many Democrats have. Also, if they can't handle a valid criticism from Obama, how on earth will they handle what would surely be a very negative general election campaign?

Chris Cillizza: Thanks for highlighting Dan's piece, which, if you haven't read, you should -- immediately.

It provides a fascinating window into the message of Obama's campaign as he prepares for the final push between Labor Day and early Jan. when actual votes start.

Obama's goal seems to be to paint Clinton as a politician of the past who is fundamentally unable to bring true change to Washington. The Obama campaign has made clear they believe the Democratic nomination will come down to which candidate is perceived as the true change agent in the field and this rhetoric is aimed at defining Clinton as the past and Obama as the future.

Clinton's pushback -- that Obama is abandoning the "politics of hope" -- is aimed at taking some of the shine off of Obama's un-politician image. The Clinton campaign believes that if they can knock Obama off the pedestal he has stood on since his speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2004, they will win the race. The biggest danger for the Clinton campaign is that she is seen as just another politician while Obama is seen as a game-changer.

_______________________

Scottsdale, Ariz.: Sen. Hillary Clinton responds to Obama's pointing out differences with "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is turning away from the politics of hope and employing attack politics instead." Does this mean she wants Obama to agree with her on everything? To me she is demonstrating how thin-skinned she is and how divisive her candidacy as president would be. Frankly, I'm sick of Clintons and Bushes and I'm not alone.

Chris Cillizza: A view from the pro-Obama point of view. ...

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Today Obama says he can unite the nation better than Hillary can. But Republicans aren't hammering the Democrats for failing to unite the country so why choose that theme? I want to know, for example, which candidate can refute Republican attacks that Democrats are stabbing the surge in the back? That is the kind of attack Republicans are already making.

washingtonpost.com: Obama Says He Can Unite U.S. 'More Effectively' Than Clinton (Post, Aug. 15)

Chris Cillizza: And a (sort of) pro-Clinton view. ...

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: How will we know that Mike Huckabee has tapped into real campaign money? Must we wait for the end of Sept. reports or will you see signs on the campaign trail sooner than that?

Chris Cillizza: Huckabee has been THE STORY of the Republican race since his second place finish last weekend at the Ames Straw poll.

The media buzz will only last for so long though and Huckabee has to figure out a way to turn the positive press into tangible benefits for his campaign -- most notably money and organization.

His campaign is already attempting to do just that; I'm in the midst of penning a Fix post on the specifics so make sure to check out the site later today for more details.

_______________________

Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Hi Chris: Love your work. My question -- is it me, or does it seem that Fred Thompson continues to get a "pass" on all those factors which, for every other candidate, were considered crucial? I.e. getting an early start is crucial ... but not for Fred. Raising huge sums of cash is crucial ... but not for Fred. Early creation of a stellar campaign team is crucial ... but not for Fred. Wanting this job in every fiber of your being and being willing to work like a dog for it is crucial ... but not for Fred.

Will we soon reach the point where political analysts concede that the ship sailed, and Fred wasn't on it? Thanks!

Chris Cillizza: I actually think Fred-mentum has slowed considerably of late for just the reasons you outlined.

He took a hit in the press when he didn't raise as much money as his campaign had predicted and there were a slew of stories over the last month detailing departures from his senior campaign staff.

I do think you're right, however, that many Republican activists seem willing to overlook potential Thompson pitfalls in hopes that he will be the conservative savior they have been waiting for.

Thompson will announce his candidacy right around Labor Day. The two weeks after that announcement will be critical in judging whether the campaign is back on the right track or whether it's more of the same.

If he misses that chance, he may not get another one from either the media or social conservatives.

_______________________

More on Obama: At the end of the day, how can Obama be a vigorous campaigner and go after the GOP nominee without appearing wildly inconsistent with his whole "politics of hope" schtick? Watching his recent mild disagreements with Clinton leaves me wondering if he hasn't painted himself into a corner. In theory, we all love positive messages, but negative campaigning -- and defending oneself strongly against attacks -- clearly work in elections. How does he thread that needle?

Chris Cillizza: That, to me, is the question at the heart of the Obama candidacy.

Much of Obama's rise to prominence has come as a result of his politics of hope -- the idea that there is more to our politics than partisan bickering and point scoring.

But, in election after election, partisan bickering and point scoring -- not to mention negative ads -- work. Voters decry them but ultimately they are swayed by negative messaging.

Can Obama go through the entire race without attacking his rivals? It seems unlikely. But, if he does decide to hit (or hit back) at Clinton or Edwards does he necessarily sacrifice the mantle as the change candidate?

It's quite a tough needle to thread.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Given the huge amounts of fundraising on the Democratic side already, would this definitively preclude a late entry by Al Gore? I did think that if Sen. Clinton became the obvious nominee that Gore would jump in, but at what point does it become too late for him? Or, is there enough money out there to be tapped for a late run?

Chris Cillizza: Regular Fix readers know that I am one of the last remaining people in politics who thinks Gore still might run.

But, even for me, the prospect is getting less and less likely.

The reality is that Gore seems to be genuinely enjoying the private sector and he has enjoyed far more success and influence as a private citizen than he likely ever dreamed was possible.

While Gore has acknowledged there is no more influential position than president, he also knows that to get to the White House requires a grueling process that he has never enjoyed.

So, it may be time to close out the possibility of a Gore candidacy. Of course, it is always darkest before the dawn. ...

_______________________

Glen Ellyn, Ill.: Hi Chris,

Living next door to Hastert's district, I have to take exception with your assessment of James Oberweis. He has a lot of money, but has proven in past races to be a poor candidate and atrocious campaigner. I seriously doubt he could be elected to dog-catcher, let alone to congress.

Chris Cillizza: Another opinion on Oberweis. ...

_______________________

Columbia, Mo.: Some polls have showed Obama gaining ground on Clinton in New Hampshire. If Obama beats her in New Hampshire, how big of a blow will this be to Clinton? I think it would be severe, especially if she also lost Iowa because the loss of momentum would make it unlikely she wins Nevada or South Carolina, allowing Obama to build momentum, and he will have the money, to win big on Feb. 5th.

Chris Cillizza: HMMMM.

I LOVE playing out all the different scenarios of how this race could go.

If you talk to the Obama people privately, they feel very good about their chances in New Hampshire. Why? Because independents are allowed to vote in either party primary and Obama's message of a new politics of hope is extremely appealing to Independent voters.

What we don't know is how the results of the Iowa (and possibly Nevada) caucuses will impact the lay of the land in New Hampshire.

Traditionally, the winner in Iowa gets a huge bump in New Hampshire. (Kerry won both states in 2004, victories that all but sealed the nomination for him.)

If Edwards wins Iowa, does he all of a sudden become a threat to Clinton and Obama in new Hampshire? If Clinton or Obama win Iowa do they roll to a win in New Hampshire and then the nomination?

Or what about my dream scenario where a different candidate wins in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, setting up an absolute free-for-all on Feb.5?

I am getting excited just thinking about it.

_______________________

Phoenix, Ariz.: I keep hearing political strategists say that national polls at this time are not that reliable or revealing -- why then does the media keep trying to anoint Clinton the party nominee, or Guiliani, for that matter? Is the true reporting in the individual primary states, with a momentum carried forth from state to state?

Chris Cillizza: Another really good question.

There is a heated debate going on among both Republicans and Democrats over the importance (or lack thereof) of national polling.

If national polls are important to determining the identity of the nominee than former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have to feel pretty good about their chances.

If polling in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire is all that matters then former Gov. Mitt Romney is in VERY strong position while the race on the Democratic side is wide open.

As usual, we think the truth lies somewhere in between those two viewpoints.

It is absolutely true that polling in states where the race is actually engaged provides a better barometer of how the candidates and their messages are being received. Most people nationally don't know Mitt Romney from Adam but in Iowa and New Hampshire -- where he has spent money on advertising and campaign actively -- he is leading the polls. That means something.

But, national polling also has a role to play in the race too. National polling tends to drive money to candidates (although Obama hasn't has any trouble raising money despite regularly trailing Clinton in national surveys) and press coverage.

National polling also effectively paints the mood of the country and gives an indication of the issues that are and aren't resonating.

_______________________

St. Peters, Pa.: I'm glad to see you (sort of) coming to your senses about Gore. The guy ain't running. Let's stop fantasizing about it. Every time you say you think he still might run I temporarily lose a fingernail of respect for you. You usually redeem yourself in the next question or two. But asking if Gore is running at this point is like asking if Kucinich has a shot at getting the nomination. Sure, technically anything is possible but, as the magic 8-ball might say: All Signs Point to No Way.

Chris Cillizza: Well, since you have only 10 total fingernails of respect for me I don't want to jeopardize my credibility any further.

_______________________

Northampton, Mass.: "Politics of hope" doesn't mean that you can't respond when you are hit, and Obama HAS been hitting back, quite effectively I think, when Clinton, Dodd, and Biden as the establishment candidates have been tut-tutting him on foreign policy. As you already wrote Chris, what he says makes a lot more sense to people out in real America than those stuck with their heads up the beltway.

Chris Cillizza: An opinion on the preservation of the "politics of hope."

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Thanks for taking questions and nice seeing you at the yearlykos convention. Do the polls showing that GOP voters are not too thrilled with their choices for president make it more likely that Newt will jump in? He has sure been acting like he wants to run.

Chris Cillizza: I think Newt is probably running no matter what the polls say. He has really stepped up his criticism of the Republican field (and politics generally) over the last few weeks and his group -- American Solutions -- had a tent at the Ames Straw poll.

To be honest, I am not sure he makes a big impact on the race. Most polling I've seen shows him in single digits against the current field and with high negatives for a candidate not even in the race.

Gingrich is a fountain of ideas and what he has to say will likely impact the debate within the party. But, it seems unlikely at the moment that he has a realistic chance at winning the nomination.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: As promised when I met you, another geeky Western New York-centric political question: do you see vulnerable Blue state Republicans -- like those in N.Y.-25 (Walsh), NY-29 (Kuhl), and NY-26 (Reynolds) -- abandoning the surge come September? Will the recent news that Petraeus's and Crocker's reports will be written by the White House -- reported by the LA Times today -- give them less political cover for continuing to support the White House on Iraq?

Chris Cillizza: I LOVE House questions.

I think that people like Randy Kuhl, Tom Reynolds and James Walsh all know that they are prime targets in 2008. They also all know that the perception of continuing to support President Bush's Iraq policy could be lethal to their re-election chances.

Given that, I think it is very likely that they as well as any other House GOPers holding narrowly divided districts seek to place some distance between themselves and the president come September.

Will it work? Or is the "R" after their name a black mark that they can't erase?

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Now that we've seen several different debate formats, can we get real debates between GOP and Democratic contenders? With Thompson out, the numbers are almost even; wouldn't it be great to see Hillary debate Ron Paul, or McCain debate Dennis Kucinich? There would be a much greater opportunity for drama and ideas exchanged this way, don't you think?

Chris Cillizza: I'd like to see it. That said, I don't think we will see it.

Debate negotiations are famously long and tough, a fact that makes a Clinton-Paul debate only possible in the world of fantasy politics.

_______________________

Chris Cillizza: Folks that's all for today.

Make sure to The Fix early and often for the latest news on Campaign 2008.

Thanks for your continued support.

Chris.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over 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.