Post Politics Hour

washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

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 staff writer Dan Balz was online Friday, Aug. 17, 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.

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.

____________________

Dan Balz: Good morning. If you're not in Iowa today, you're missing all the Democratic candidates -- not to mention pork on a stick, deep-fried Twinkies and the world-famous butter cow -- all at the Iowa State Fair. I'm not there, however. Back in Washington for a few days and ready to take some questions from those of you who are not in some cool place, on a beach or otherwise checked out.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: With Republicans already laying the foundation for a 2008 election campaign premised on the accusation that the Democrats cost us Iraq by stabbing the surge in the back it would be good to know how Obama or Clinton would rebut that charge. But instead your Wednesday article perpetuates rather uncritically Obama's chosen topic about how important it is to sweep the past under the rug and move forward "united" as if six years of disastrous one-party rule had not happened.

I am really curious: who in the electorate is demanding candidates that will "unite" the country? What poll ranks a desire for a "uniter" over someone who will protect middle class pensions, jobs and health or above a President who will get us out of the Bush Iraqi quagmire or launch an anti-global warming agenda? Why give ink to such an abstract issue that will be pushed aside by Republican attacks on Democratic weakness etc. when you could be reporting on specifically how Obama or Clinton would fight back? C'mon Dan,stop writing fluff pieces and get real.

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

Dan Balz: We'll start with a friendly questioner. This is a good, meaty topic and one I'll be writing more about soon -- possibly as soon as this chat ends.

This is a country ready for a change from the present. The question, as you suggest, is what kind of change. Is it a change in direction in Iraq, is it a new health care system, is it a vigorous attempt to do something about climate change or energy policy? Or is it a desire to put an end to the divisiveness of the Bush era? George W. Bush is the most polarizing president in history and that has taken a toll on the country.

That's part of the argument between Obama and Clinton and part of what I explored with Obama in the interview on Monday. I thought for this interview it was valuable to explore Obama's views on the pounding he's taken over foreign policy. That gives you an insight into how he would deal with Republican attacks, if he were to become the nominee. I also wanted to get a sense from him about how he would frame the debate with Clinton over who's more capable of making changes that people are looking for.

_______________________

Washington: Maybe I'm cynical, but has there been any discussion that the engagement of the President's daughter will be used to deflect attention away from this Administration's disastrous record? With the Iraq report coming out in the fall, and the primaries heating up (that will surely focus on the Bush record), a White House wedding will be a terrific way to steer headlines away from what really matters. Heck, the groom-to-be used to work for Rove, so maybe there's been some political calculation in this...

washingtonpost.com: Jenna and Henry: Now They're Really, Really Official (Post, Aug. 17)

Dan Balz: Well, I'd say you're more cynical than I am. I doubt that Jenna Bush's engagement will overshadow the debate over Iraq or any of the other issues on the table right now.

_______________________

Northampton, Mass.: Recently Rudy Giuliani claimed he spent as much or more time at the World Trade Center site after 9/11 as most rescue workers. Today the New York Times analyzed his mayoral records and says that in the three months after 9/11, he spent a total of 29 hours (including time there for TV interviews) at Ground Zero. I know this was broken by your competitor, but your paper has spent a lot of time on things like John Edwards's haircut. It seems like a lot of these gaffes by the Republican candidates (and there are plenty of them out there) aren't getting the same coverage. I would assume this was a sign that most of you assume a Democrat will win the White House next year, so you're giving them more scrutiny -- except that given the ideological bent of your editorial page it makes me very suspicious (and yes, I know, a big firewall, you have nothing to do with each other, etc.). Dan, I want to trust that what I read from you guys represents the best reporting of the unbiased "truth" you can do, but I have to say these kind of things make me very suspicious. Help me out here. Thanks.

washingtonpost.com: For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn (New York Times, Aug. 17)

Dan Balz: I disagree with your premise. We've run pieces looking critically at Republicans like Giuliani and Romney and McCain, just as we've looked at the Democrats. There are an awful lot of candidates out there and a lot of potential stories to report and write. We certainly aren't focusing our investigative work only on one party and I think if you look at the totality of our coverage, you'd agree. I would add, also, that for the New York Times, Giuliani is a local story and probably warrants more attention. The same for anything related to what happened in New York on 9/11.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: In the spirit of CBS' Bill Plante, if Karl Rove is such a genius, why is the current Republican presidential field so weak? Granted, he will go to work for the eventual nominee, but wouldn't part of Rove's Bush legacy-building be finding a strong successor now?

Dan Balz: It may not be that they're so weak, it's that all of the leading candidates have obvious flaws and in general have some issue or another on which they have differences with the party's base. You could make the argument that two of the party's most attractive candidates are disqualified from running: One is Arnold Schwarzenegger, who doesn't meet the constitutional requirements; another is Jeb Bush, who was a very popular governor of Florida but probably is disqualified by virtue of his last name.

You suggest all the Republican candidates are weak, but Giuliani and McCain tend to hold up well when matched against Clinton or Obama in hypothetical general election polls. If you ask people would they favor a Democrat or Republican for president, the Democrats have a big edge, but when you attach names, the Democratic advantage shrinks considerably. The landscape favors the Democrats, certainly, but the candidates' individual attributes can change the equation.

_______________________

Columbia, S.C.: Do you get the sense that Obama is flaming out? The media is starting to jump on his recent comments on Pakistan and Talking Diplomacy (Cuba, etc.). "Good Morning America" ran a lengthy piece this morning. More of the pundits seem to think that his play is failing -- it looks more like inexperience than a change of course in diplomacy. I agree -- do the voters? And are there any candidates who can challenge if Obama falls away?

Dan Balz: I think Obama faces some significant challenges, but he's a very talented politician who has become more comfortable as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy pronouncements have drawn a lot of criticism from Democrats and the press has written about them as well. The race could look a lot different in a few months.

_______________________

Glenside, Pa.: Democracy Corps found in their polling that the most important quality for Democracy Primary Voters was uniting the Country, in response to a questioner above. What's your take on the Rove-Clinton spat? It's thought it rallies the bases, but some have argued that it raises questions about Clinton's electability. Essentially polarizing campaigns tend to work against the Democrats, as there are more married than single people and more religious than secular people.

washingtonpost.com: Analysis: Clinton's Double-Edged Fight (AP, Aug. 16)

Dan Balz: There are a lot of ways to look at the Rove-Clinton spat and you highlight them pretty well. She certainly will energize and unite Republicans, if she is the Democratic nominee. But the attacks from Rove and the Republicans will allow her to say again that she's better prepared than any of her rivals to win in what is likely to be a very tough general election campaign. But the attacks on her also play to Obama's implicit argument, that by nominating Clinton, the country would be guaranteed a continuation of the partisan warfare of the past decade or so.

_______________________

Philadelphia: When are we going to hear from Ashcroft about that night in the hospital?

Dan Balz: Excellent question. I talked recently to an associate of his about this. It didn't sound as if anything will be coming soon.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: A large majority of the pain and strain caused by the war in Iraq has been felt by small-town families who have sent their sons and daughters over there. That being said, and as he runs back and forth through Iowa, is it a good idea for Mitt Romney to make his five healthy and non-serving sons front men in his campaign?

Dan Balz: As you probably know, Romney has been quizzed about his sons and offered a somewhat lame answer by saying they are serving the country by helping to elect him president. Assuming that he was trying to be humorous, the answer nonetheless fell flat. Someone said recently -- I can't remember who -- that this is the kind of question that Republicans should expect. It's similar to questions Democrats get about whether their children attend public or private school. I don't know whether this will become a real issue for Romney, but it created an uncomfortable moment.

_______________________

Anonymous: "By nominating Clinton, the country would be guaranteed a continuation of the partisan warfare of the past decade or so." Why is that?

Dan Balz: I'm suggesting that is part of Obama's implicit message -- that the country is mired in partisan gridlock and that Clinton carries baggage from those wars. He said in our interview that she was the target of some unfair criticism as first lady, but added that, nonetheless, the history is there. He said he thinks he can guide the country more effectively than she can.

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: Hi Dan. It seems increasingly likely the Sen. Clinton will get the nod from her party to run for the White House. Given her relatively high "negatives," what would be her effect on the many competitive senatorial races "down ticket" in 2008? Will she have a positive or negative "coattails"? Thanks.

Dan Balz: My friend Ron Fournier of the Associated Press -- he's one of the best in the business -- did a piece in the last week quoting any number of Democratic Party officials from "red" states about the prospect of a Clinton nomination. Many were concerned about her impact on other candidates in their states. John Edwards argues that he would be able to run more competitively in many of these states than any other Democrat. Clinton's team argues that she proved in New York that she can win over Republican areas and would not be a drag on down-ballot candidates.

_______________________

Baltimore: Dan -- re: Romney and his sons in the military: As others have pointed out, all of FDR's sons (four of them, I think) volunteered during World War II, and they didn't do cushy duty. I think questions about their children's lack of military service will be thorny for both Republicans and Democrats next year. Interesting that the two prominent politicians with sons in the service -- John McCain and Jim Webb -- go out of their way not to grandstand about the fact.

Dan Balz: Thanks for posting. Duncan Hunter has talked a few times about his son's service in Iraq and Joe Biden said the other day that his son could be deployed next year as part of a National Guard unit.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Mike Huckabee seems to be the newest interesting flavor among the GOP candidates. Hardly anyone but Mike and his wife thinks he'll be the nominee -- but even Democrats say he's likeable. If he had a 1 percent chance of becoming the nominee a month ago, what do you think that's gone up to today?

washingtonpost.com: Memo to Huckabee: It's Time to Take Some Risks (washingtonpost.com, Aug. 15)

Dan Balz: Mike Huckabee is still a long-shot in the Republican race, but he is clearly someone who has helped himself in debates and in his retail campaigning. He's very conservative, engaging with audiences and pretty shrewd about things. The Iowa straw poll has given him the opening he's been looking for and he could surprise some of the better-known Republicans next year.

_______________________

Baltimore: There have been a couple of fairly high-profile Republican retirements announced in the House in the past week. The Republicans have to defend more Senate seats than the Democrats, and they have not been able to recruit many of their top-tier challengers for Senate runs. Barring a miracle, the war in Iraq still will be an issue in November of 2008. Are the conditions in place to see another wave election in the House and Senate?

washingtonpost.com: Seat Nearly Lost by GOP Again to Be Up for Grabs (Aug. 17)

Dan Balz: The retirements certainly suggest Republicans think it's going to be another bad year next year. Everything points now to more Democratic gains but it's too early to be very precise about how congressional races may turn out. So much yet to play out -- in Iraq, here at home, and in the presidential campaign, which will help set the tone for the congressional races.

We are out of time and I'd like to thank everyone for sending in questions. Sorry I couldn't get to all of them. Have a great day.

_______________________

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.