Opinion Focus

Washington Post opinion columnist Eugene Robinson was online Tuesday, Nov. 20 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his recent columns and the latest news.

Latest Column: A Sharp-Elbows Education (Post, Nov. 20) | Discussion Group: Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood

The transcript follows.

Archive: Eugene Robinson discussion transcripts

____________________

Eugene Robinson: Hi, everybody. Welcome to the pre-Thanksgiving edition of our weekly conversation. Today's column praised the sharp-elbows politics that are being practiced in both parties' nomination campaigns. I can tell already that some of you disagree...

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: I usually find myself in total agreement with your analyses and comments, but your defense of "horse race" reporting on the campaigns is quite puzzling. Do you really believe the mainstream media has been doing an adequate job for the past six years in informing the people what is happening in America and what it means to our democracy, to our futures? Not by a long shot, and it's worse with the campaign.

The focus on personality and campaign tactics is fine by itself, but as a substitute for reporting on what the campaign means in terms of the big picture is a terrible failure. You of all people should be asking your colleagues why they don't ask the Democratic candidates, for example, how they would answer the smears and attacks we all know the Republicans will flood TV and radio with. Who cares if Obama seems a little weak one day or Hillary has a strange laugh? Ask them how they are going to rebut the standard Republican attacks that worked in the past two elections and will be coming again.

Eugene Robinson: I'm confused. You say we shouldn't focus so much on the horse race and on "personality and campaign tactics," and then, as an example of what we should be doing, you raise questions about ... personality and tactics, and how they will influence the horse race in the general election. I think the Democratic primary contest, and the coverage thereof, are telling us a lot about how each candidate would rebut Republican attacks.

_______________________

Plainsboro, N.J.: Mr. Robinson: Last night on ABC News with Charlie Gibson, the lead story was Sen. Obama taking over the lead from Sen. Clinton. The graphic on the screen showed the numbers: Obama with 30 percent, Clinton with 26 percent and Edwards with 22 percent -- and in small type, the margin of error -- 4.5 percent. However, neither the reporter who reported the story, the anchor nor the senior political correspondent even mentioned the margin of error. The impression one is left with is that Clinton is history. Isn't that unethical?

Eugene Robinson: Not unethical, but you could call it imprecise or sloppy. It's certainly incomplete. Stories should always take note when an apparent lead falls within the margin of error.

_______________________

Akron, Ohio: Mr. Robinson, I believe your "Sharp Elbows Education" piece expresses a sophomoric opinion. Just because focusing on issues bores you jaded Beltway types, doing so does not by any means assure a coronation as you imply. In fact, issue are a real concern for most average, working Americans, if not for you spoiled little boys who pretend to be journalists. Don't you believe journalists, having become a willing conduit for negative trash -- such as the Swift-Boating of Kerry -- do a serious disservice to their country? Thank you.

Eugene Robinson: The Swift-Boating of Kerry was indeed disgraceful, but blame Republican operatives. And I think the reporting of the campaign, for the most part, has been about issues. Politics isn't always pretty, but the process does flush out the candidates' positions on the issues. Take the driver's licenses fight. It's obvious to me that the ultimate solution is comprehensive immigration reform. But how you get from here to there is a legitimate issue, and the candidates are well served by being forced to come up with answers now rather than next fall.

_______________________

Washington: Hi Eugene. I'm thinking that John Edwards has a point about Hillary Clinton's "don't use the Republican playbook" line to deflect criticism from her rivals. If she can't deal with some pointed barbs from other Democrats, what's she going to do when it's "Giuliani time"? I think her response comes off as whining. I also think she's trying to have it both ways on the gender question by saying she's a strong enough woman to compete with the boys, but also trying to imply that she's being picked on because she's not one of the boys. Suppose Obama said he was being picked on because he was black. People would be all over him for "hiding behind his race."

Eugene Robinson: I agree that some sharp questioning from fellow Democrats will do the eventual nominee a lot of good. Maybe one of them will come up with a concise, non-rambling position on immigration. Maybe one of them will come up with a concise, compelling analysis of the international disaster that George Bush calls the "global war on terror." If primary campaigns reveal a candidate's vulnerabilities while there's still time to shore them up, that's a good thing.

_______________________

Syracuse, N.Y.: Hello Eugene. I know all the talk, and your column today, is focused on 2008 but I want to ask a question about 2007 for a moment. President Bush's constant veto threats are very transparent; nothing is getting past his desk authored by a Congress controlled by the Democrats. Aside from being immature and petulant, it obviously serves this country absolutely no good whatsoever.

By now we know what we have here, and he's not going change anytime soon, so my question is this: Given this apparent strategy of the veto pen, is there anything in the next 12 months that has any chance of passing this Congress that might actually benefit a citizen of the United States of America who does not make his or her living inside the Beltway? Social Security? Healthcare? Alternative Minimum Tax? Anything? And if not, am I missing something, or doesn't Bush realize that his domestic "legacy" will consist of tax cuts for the rich, a failed response to Katrina, a polarized electorate, countless scandals, incompetence and No Child Left Behind (which at this point is on thin ice)? Not a lot there to take up shelf space at the Bush library, if you ask me.

Eugene Robinson: Great question, and I think you already know the answer. I don't see a breakthrough on any big issue until after the next president is inaugurated.

_______________________

Greenwood, Mo.: Whatever happened to the "two sources are needed to run with a story"? Does that exist in reporting anymore -- do editors demand it? Do commentary writers not have the same rules when it comes to printing something. Yes, my question is here because of Novak -- but he's an easy target. I want to know what the current rules are.

washingtonpost.com: Clinton and Obama Campaigns Clash Over Report (Post, Nov. 8)

Eugene Robinson: I don't have the original Novak item in front of me at the moment, but as I recall he was vague about whether he was relying on one or multiple sources. The two-source rule for anonymous sources still applies, at least in the news columns. My view is that it applies equally to commentary, unless the writer makes it clear that he or she is relying on only one source; in that case, if I were editing the column I'd want to know who the source was.

_______________________

Washington: Gene, as an opinion columnist, do you plan on making your own personal endorsement in the primaries, and then the general election?

Eugene Robinson: I don't plan to make a personal endorsement. I have no problem saying what I like and don't like about the various candidates, but to do a formal endorsement I'd feel obliged to conduct a formal endorsement process, which is unworkable. By the time we're done, I think everyone will have a pretty good idea of what I like and don't like about the various contenders.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Have you been following the ongoing battle between New York Times columnists regarding Ronald Reagan's 1980 trip to Philadelphia, Miss.? Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert argue that this trip was designed to reach out to Southern racists, citing Reagan's reference to "states' rights" and his failure to mention civil rights; David Brooks in two columns has taken issue with Krugman and Herbert, arguing that Reagan wasn't himself a racist and that his speech in Mississippi was benign; on Sunday, Lou Cannon weighed in on Brooks's side.

Early on in this batter I asked David Broder for his views on this issue and this is what he said: "I have great admiration for David Brooks, and even greater trust on his main source, Lou Cannon. I think both described the sequence of events at the beginning of Reagan's campaign accurately. I never have written or believed that Reagan deliberately appealed to racial prejudice, but I know such prejudice existed -- and exists -- and still affects our politics today."

Do you agree with Broder?

Eugene Robinson: The war had been contained to the New York Times op-ed page, but now you're trying to spread it throughout the commentariat. Yes, I've followed the back-and-forth. I have no idea whether Ronald Reagan was a racist or not; for the sake of argument, let's accept David Brooks's assertion that he was not. That's irrelevant to the question of whether the Republican Party, beginning with Nixon and continuing through this day, has followed a race-based strategy of appealing to Southern whites. It clearly has, in my view -- does the name Lee Atwater ring a bell? -- and a kickoff speech mentioning "states' rights" in Philadelphia, Miss., has to be seen as part of that long-running strategy.

_______________________

Glasgow, U.K.: Hello Eugene. I'm a U.S. citizen and I've just finished an advanced degree here in Britain. I hope to be back in the States in January. Anyhow, I've been following the political reporting from Britain and I'm becoming a bit concerned that too many media outlets are losing their independence. Certainly, commentators like yourself and a few others submit well-written and thoughtful pieces, but the daily reporting seems to lack analysis of the factual events.

Specifically, I refer to pointing out the inconsistencies, untruths, and flawed reasoning of candidates and elected leaders. Giuliani's comments about health care in Britain is just one example of the unwillingness of reporters writing about events to call public officials out when they spout balderdash. This function should not be left solely to columnists. Good analysis entails an independent inquiry into statements made and how they fit into objective facts. Daily reporting should be more than a diary of events. I think it's vital that news outlets reassert their Constitutional right and obligation to provide an independent medium for political news and information. What do you think?

Eugene Robinson: Michael Dobbs of The Post wrote two strong pieces debunking Giuliani's fantasy-based health care statistics. I wrote two columns about it. Other media outlets did similar pieces. Truth-squad journalism is not dead yet.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: For what it's worth, I liked the column! But now, about Obama: In your view, why was he/his campaign so irked about the Novak claim? And why throw punches at Clinton over it? Why not attack GOP instead?

Eugene Robinson: I think Obama saw an opportunity to boldly jump on this thing with both feet, dispelling the notion that he doesn't fight back. And he went after the Clinton campaign because that was the reputed source of the rumor.

_______________________

Washington: That margin of error question is true, but all polls have about the same margin of error. The main news in that poll is that now Obama ends up on top of the "statistical tie" instead of Clinton. And frankly, I think it merits the attention it is getting, for all kinds of reasons.

Eugene Robinson: I didn't mean to imply that the poll was meaningless -- far from it. I think the difference from the last poll, while within the margin of error, is great enough to clearly indicate there has been some movement in Obama's favor. What can't be said is exactly how much movement.

_______________________

African American Middle Class: Hi Eugene. In regard to the study showing that 58 percent of the children of African American middle class families find themselves in a lower socioeconomic class, I was wondering what the study showed for upper-middle-class and upper-class African American families? Also, how is it that income has increased overall for African American families if the middle class is being whittled away?

washingtonpost.com: Middle-Class Dream Eludes African American Families (Post, Nov. 13)

Eugene Robinson: I'm going to be writing about this study in Friday's column, and I'm still working my way through the numbers. So stay tuned. Regarding your last question, I do know that census data and other studies suggest a pretty high degree of income polarization within the African American community.

_______________________

Bluffton, S.C.: Thank you for taking my question. I liked your column today. It seems to me that Sen. Obama would have been wrong either way: If he would not have responded, then he would have been blasted for that; if he responded, as he did, then he is taking the Republican bait. Is that just part of the territory for being a frontrunner? Would Kerry have faired better in his bid for the presidency had he responded as quickly and as passionately as Obama did? And last but not least, do you think the Novak article was a Trojan Horse sent by the Republicans to try to see the reaction and try to inflict some damage on one or both candidates?

Eugene Robinson: I don't know, and short of hauling Bob Novak before a special prosecutor (again), I doubt we'll ever be sure. For the moment, Obama comes out looking like the aggrieved party (faceless accusers, phantom information).

_______________________

Washington: Mr. Robinson, did you see the article this morning about the U.N. overestimating the crisis of AIDS, and how some of the "alarmism" may have been because of "fundraising objectives"? You don't think the U.N. has done the same thing with global warming, do you? (Note: sarcasm.) Thank you, love the chats.

washingtonpost.com: U.N. to Cut Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic (Post, Nov. 20)

Eugene Robinson: Believe it or not, I have actually read quite a few of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, and there's no hoax. It's true that scientists (like journalists) tend to have a herd mentality. It's also true that climate science is really hard. But the basic consensus on climate change looks almost certainly right to me.

_______________________

Fredericksburg, Va.: I enjoyed your insightful column on Single-Payer Health Care. Do you think we will see such a system in this country in the next ten years, or does the Bill Crystal/Newt Gingrich dictum (if "Socialized Medicine" comes to this country, Republicans never will hold power again) still hold sway?

washingtonpost.com: 'Socialized Medicine' Snake Oil (Post, Nov. 13)

Eugene Robinson: I think you mean Bill Kristol (I'm not aware of what position the comedian Billy Crystal has taken on single-payer health care). I think we'll move closer to a single-payer system -- remember, we already have millions of people covered by Medicare and Medicaid -- but the watchword will be "universal" and it will end up being some kind of mandate ensuring that everyone has "private" coverage, which will look less and less private as the years go on. But that's just my guess.

_______________________

Scottsdale, Ariz.: Your column today seemed to indicate that you pundits would like more mudslinging. How about providing more substance instead? These so-called debates certainly are not informing we-the-people on where the candidates stand on issues. The media and sponsors seem more interested in provoking a row (higher ratings) than having serious debate. Then, after the "debate," the pundits all talk to each other about which candidate delivered the best jab. Do we even have journalists anymore? Is anybody out on the road with the candidates and real people, or do you all sit around and talk to each other?

Eugene Robinson: As you've gathered, I disagree with the premise that substance is being overlooked in the coverage of this campaign. But I have to concede that the self-referential pundit loop can get to be a bit much. And that question to Clinton about diamonds or pearls? Please. No mas!

Well folks, my time is up. See you again next week. Happy Thanksgiving, all!

_______________________

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.