John Solomon

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 money and politics reporter John Solomon was online Wednesday, Sept. 5 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.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Anonymous: Thanks for taking questions. Today I was able to catch the Today show's interview with President Clinton. Every time he speaks it makes me wonder how much better off we'd be if we'd have had a thoughtful, cool-headed president the past 7 years. What struck me was his repeated use of the word "we" when discussing how his wife would govern. I'm thrilled that President Clinton is out there with his wife, and if she's nominated, I hope they both go to the mattresses together (maybe poor choice of words). My question is, do you think the Clinton campaign is subtly pushing the message that "a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill" -- and if they are, do you think it will work?

John Solomon: This is a good question that captures an interesting paradox of the Clinton campaign. Publicly, advisers took great pains early on to show Hillary Clinton was independent-minded and not dependent on her husband. It's part of the reason they were slow to roll Bill Clinton into fundraising when Obama's juggernaut was making waves earlier this year. At the same time behind the scenes, Bill Clinton is a key, if not the key, political adviser. He increasingly is out on the stump with her and helping with fundraising, and he still can wow a crowd. So all of that provides evidence that the Clintons have returned to where they began in the 1992 campaign: with the promise that Americans would get two for the price of one.

_______________________

New York: John, thanks for the chat. Do you think that Karl Rove's departure is a result of his disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity -- delayed so that it doesn't look like he's being punished? I wondered this after reading a report about Robert Draper's book on Bush, in which he says Bush "hit the roof" when he learned that Rove hadn't been truthful about his role.

John Solomon: I don't think so -- the Libby commutation mostly put that controversy to rest. I think Rove's departure was of his own timing, both political and personally. He gets an early start on establishing private sector opportunities while moving to a less visible perch as congressional investigations led by Democrats examine his strategies and conduct on numerous fronts -- including his efforts to stage political briefings at agencies and his use of "an asset deployment team" to organize federal government announcements, Cabinet secretary travel and grant announcements to benefit Republicans.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Given that the Republicans already have begun a series of ads attacking Democrats as nonsupportive and disrespectful of veterans' wishes to see the Iraqi occupation continue, is your newspaper going to start printing fact-checking of those ads, like in the last election? I hope so, because one of the ads at least implies we are fighting in Iraq against the people who attacked us on 9/11, thereby conflating the two events -- as our president has been doing over and over without the MSM making an issue of it.

washingtonpost.com: Election 2004 Ad Watch

John Solomon: In fact, our fact-checking efforts are well under way thanks to the return of one of The Post's most recognized and respected journalists, Michael Dobbs. You might remember Dobbs's outstanding work during the 2004 elections, fact-checking the Swift Boat ads and the controversy those ads created. He'll be doing fact-checking full time for the next year, anchoring an important part of our political coverage. I can't wait for his first story!

_______________________

Washington: Your front-page article on Monday detailed scandal-plagued financial supporters of three Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. But you made no mention of any controversy involving a Republican candidate. Why not? One example that would have fit quite well: Mitt Romney's national finance co-chairman, Alan Fabian, recently was indicted on 23 counts of money laundering, fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice, among other crimes. The Washington Post has yet to report a single word about this. Why not?

washingtonpost.com: When Controversy Follows Cash: Some Fundraisers With Legal Issues Slip Through Campaigns' Vetting (Post, Sept. 3)

washingtonpost.com: Democrats Denounce Indicted Executive's Fundraising Efforts for GOP (Post, Aug. 14)

John Solomon: Actually, my colleague Matt Mosk and I reported on the Romney matter and included the following passage in our draft of the Monday story. "Likewise, Republican Mitt Romney faced questions about one of his Utah finance chairmen, Robert Lichfield, because of lawsuits he is facing alleging abusive treatment at boarding schools he founded to handle troubled youths." Unfortunately, it was edited out. That sometimes happen when stories get trimmed to make room for late-breaking news. But if you have any doubts about The Post's commitment to vet and examine leaders of both political parties, you only need to examine the front pages of the past few weeks that have included stories by myself and my colleagues exposing Karl Rove's "asset deployment team," the role of Dick Cheney's chief lawyer in pressing anti-terrorism policies that troubled some in government, and our extensive coverage of the attorney general and Larry Craig controversies.

_______________________

Marin County, Calif.: Morning, thanks for answering questions today. Based on public animosity towards party-politics today, and the two-party stronghold on our government, do you think a popular candidate could declare his/her independence and succeed to and in the presidency?

John Solomon: This is a question that has surfaced every election since 1992, when Ross Perot made quite an impression running as an independent. From polling I've seen and my own talks with voters across the country, I always get the sense that the right candidate at the right time could in theory make a competitive race. In practical terms, though, the two establishment parties have numerous financial and institutional advantages that have been built over decades, from get-out-the-vote machines to 50-state political operations. An upstart independent would have to build these from the ground up to be competitive -- even if he or she self-finances the whole thing. And I think the window for realistically doing that in 2008 quickly is closing.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Thanks for doing these chats! I'm confused about Fred Thompson. What message do you think he sends by skipping tonight's New Hampshire debate but choosing to run commercials at that time?

washingtonpost.com: Thompson Unveils Ad Ahead of Thursday Kickoff (washingtonpost.com, Sept. 5)

John Solomon: I don't think Thompson's skipping of the New Hampshire debate will hurt him much, because he can argue he had just entered the race and wasn't part of the planning for tonight's event, which stretches back several weeks to when he still technically was testing the waters. But now that he finally has committed to the race, he'll be expected to join these debates in the future. And for those pining to see where Thompson stands on issues, he has spent extensive time in the past several months writing pieces for conservative publications and appearing on conservative talk shows to state his positions on everything, including medical tort reform, immigration and gun control.

_______________________

Idaho: Do you really think Larry Craig can hang on to his Senate seat? It seems like the last thing the Republicans would want is for this to drag out in the press for a month.

John Solomon: Most political and congressional experts I've talked with think Craig's political career is over. Whether he leaves the Senate at the end of this month as originally planned or he tries to extend his stay for a while to fight the ethics probe and conviction, his electability in future elections appears indelibly injured. To recover from such a setback, he would need strong allies -- and there doesn't appear to be many, even in his own party.

_______________________

Washington: Which GOP candidate has the best chance to break into the top tier of candidates at tonight's debate?

John Solomon: I think there are two candidates to watch tonight. The first is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who just a few weeks ago was all but written off. His surprise second-place finish in the Iowa straw poll breathed new life into his candidacy. If he is to keep the momentum, he needs a strong night to show he can stand toe-to-toe on the issues with frontrunners like Giuliani and Romney.

The other candidate to keep an eye on is John McCain, once considered a frontrunner before his campaign fell on hard times with a staff shakeup and financial woes. McCain's famous rise during the 2000 primaries against George W. Bush was built in part on his ability to seize the public's fancy with populist issues like campaign reform. So far this election, he has been mired down in defense of his positions on the divisive issues of Iraq and immigration. I'd be looking to see if he can re-claim the reformer's mantle tonight by highlighting some different issues -- budget discipline and deficits, for instance.

_______________________

Keyport, N.J.: John: I have heard that with the death of Brooke Astor we are heading into the decline of what at one time was seen as high society? Do you think the outcome in 2008 will matter to the super wealthy either way?

washingtonpost.com: Brooke Astor; Benefactor, Fixture of N.Y. High Society (Post, Aug. 14)

John Solomon: A great question. One of the socioeconomic trends that has fascinated me in the past decade is the changing face of the country's wealthiest Americans. Unlike the robber barons of the Industrial Era, today's Information Age billionaires often experienced fame and wealth at a much younger age, thanks to the Internet and technology boom. And their businesses, philanthropic interests and political issues are far less dependent on an American-centric economy, thanks to globalization. Issues like temporary work visas, outsourcing of jobs, and intellectual property and piracy are critical. They also worry about the American workforce's ability to compete against the emerging economic powers in China, India and other third-world countries that offer cheap and increasingly skilled labor. As such, the next president and the next Congress are very important to them.

_______________________

John Solomon: Thanks for all the good questions. I look forward to chatting again soon.

_______________________

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.