Washington Post National Politics Reporter Anne E. Kornblut. (washingtonpost.com - washingtonpost.com)

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 national political reporter Anne E. Kornblut was online Wednesday, Nov. 21 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.

The transcript follows.

Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to a podcast of the show.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Anne E. Kornblut: Hi everyone. Welcome to the Thanksgiving edition of Post Politics chat! Let's go ahead and get started.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: It seems like the Presidential candidates and the press like to use the word "attack" anytime someone says something about another candidate. Why doesn't anyone make the distinction between an attack and a legitimate point? And the press seems to always think it's an attack. Thoughts?

Anne E. Kornblut: I love this question -- and although I am probably as guilty of it as anyone else, I also happen to agree with you. There is, and I suspect will be, plenty of negativity out there to report on, but drawing a substantive distinction shouldn't be included in that category, and we fall prey, probably too often, to letting the campaigns complain they are being attacked when it's actually a fairly mild discussion. I hope we can save the word "negative" for when the rough ride really begins.

_______________________

Washington: Why did The Washington Post (and The New York Times) bury the story on Scott McClellan's confession regarding President Bush?

washingtonpost.com: Former Aide Blames Bush for Leak Deceit (Post, Nov. 21)

Anne E. Kornblut: I guess I would disagree that we "buried" it, though it's true it wasn't on the front page. So far, we have only a very brief excerpt from McClellan's book to work with, and some of the context surrounding the incident (about his conveying false information to the public, for those of you who haven't read it) has not yet been disclosed, but hopefully will be when the book is published.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: How big a story will Scott McClellan saying that the President and Vice President misled him and he in turn misled the public be? Does it have legs, or is it old news?

Anne E. Kornblut: Another question on this subject ... I think we have to wait until the book is published to see what Scott is really saying about who misled him and when. But one way or another the story isn't going away quietly, I think you're right about that.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: How effective do you think Sen. Clinton's experience argument is against Sen. Obama? How much help does Obama get from his retort that judgment (especially considering her vote for war) is what really counts? And by Sen. Clinton's argument, shouldn't we all be voting for Mr. "35 Years in the Senate," Joe Biden? All the Democrats seem to agree that he's right!

washingtonpost.com: The Trail: 'Joe is Right' (washingtonpost.com, Nov. 16)

Anne E. Kornblut: You've just nailed the $64,000 question of the Democratic campaign (or one of them, anyway). If the shorthand for this race is strength/experience vs. change, then we'll have to see whether each candidate can try to encompass both. On Obama's side, that involves saying he represents change, but also has judgment (which, he says, is better than experience). On the Clinton side, as well as on Biden's and Dodd's, the argument is that they represent experience, but also change from the current administration (in the form of a woman, someone competent, etc.). At least in our most recent Iowa poll, people there seem to be leaning toward new ideas as the most important quality in a candidate -- 55 percent said that was what they wanted, compared with 33 percent who said they wanted strength and experience -- and Obama is leading in that change category. So look for this question to play out over the next seven-twelve weeks.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Anne -- Happy Thanksgiving! Just saw you on MSNBC talking about Iowa, but my question is about something else. Does the McClellan story that everyone is talking about have "legs"? What can we expect to hear from the White House other than denials? Has McClellan just opened himself to some possible swift-boating?

Anne E. Kornblut: Here's another question on this subject. ... Again, I'd say we will have to wait and see the entire McClellan book when it's out. A little light holiday reading, anyone?

_______________________

Re: Scott McClellan: Although I'm no Bush apologist; McClellan's charges are really no more than an attempt to sell books. If he was so torn at the time, why didn't he resign?

Anne E. Kornblut: This is a good question for a number of people who have left the administration and later expressed regrets and past doubts. That said, McClellan did leave fairly shortly after this, if I'm not mistaken.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I love this line from the McClellan story: "Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on." He refused to talk about it when it was ongoing and then said it was time to move on when it was over. That is almost funny. Joke is on us.

Anne E. Kornblut: A very good point on this subject...

_______________________

Apres "La Surge," Les Fleurs?: I'm hearing from a lot of the TV pundits that we are finally "winning" in Iraq (whatever that means ... heck, I'm for it!). I've also heard that after the surge, all the good Iraqi people will come out from their hiding places and greet our troops with flowers and sweets. Have you heard this also? But here's my question: Doesn't the president have to land a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier to announce our victory first? How else will we know for sure that the Mission is indeed Accomplished?

Anne E. Kornblut: Another good question. Up front confession: I'm a political reporter, not a war correspondent, and have no idea what is happening in Iraq beyond the same stories you read and hear yourselves. A lot of attention has been paid to recent success stories in Iraq, including Jon Lee Anderson's piece in the New Yorker about the surge, and yesterday's front-page story in the New York Times about "Baghdad starting to exhale," featuring a large, above-the-fold photograph of a bride in her wedding gown. Still, almost every story has been full of caveats about what this will mean for future political progress. As for how Bush will "announce" the "victory" --- I am not holding my breath for another aircraft carrier event.

_______________________

Valparaiso, Ind.: How important are endorsements for the presidential candidates? I'm hearing about Chuck Norris supporting Huckabee, there's obviously the Pat Roberts hoopla with Giuliani, etc, etc, etc. Does the electorate really put its stake in who's backing who? Will the bulk of Americans support a candidate just because of who else is behind them?

Anne E. Kornblut: I'm not one to put a whole lot of stock in endorsements -- would you vote for someone just because someone famous told you to? -- but there are some exceptions in this cycle, in the form of endorsements that draw a lot of attention. Chuck Norris, as you mention, is one. Not because he brings with him some massive organizing operation, but because he gets Huckabee attention (and is a part of Huckabee's amusing television ad). Oprah, for Obama, is another example, particularly if she goes out and campaigns for him in the early states. Of course, labor union endorsements have traditionally mattered because of the manpower they provide on election day, and that remains true. Even there, though, the results have appeared to diminish in past presidential elections; we'll see if they make a comeback this year.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Happy Thanksgiving. And speaking of Thanksgiving, should Sen. Clinton be thankful or not that Bush and the GOP operatives increasingly are touting her credentials for being president. Just the other day for example, Bush, in an interview with Charles Gibson, said "her experience as first lady has prepared her to handle the 'pressure' of a presidential race and the White House." So, do they want her to win the nomination because they are sure she can be beaten -- or can you see any other reasons for such support?

Anne E. Kornblut: Having watched that interview (which was really compelling, for anyone who didn't see it), I'm not sure I'd characterize Bush as "supporting" Clinton, but rather empathizing with what she is going through. As a former First Lady, she's part of a very small group that has been through the ringer that way (under the klieg lights, as Bush put it in the interview) and I think there is probably something to his and Laura Bush's comments that she knows about the unique pressures of the job. All that said, it's also not a bad idea, strategically, for the leader of the Republican party to be talking up the credentials of the candidate they would most like to run against. While many Republicans view her as a formidable campaigner, they also feel they know how to beat her, and are heartened by her high negative ratings.

_______________________

Washington: Do you expect any of the presidential candidates to drop out of the the race before Super Duper Tuesday, on Feb. 5?

Anne E. Kornblut: Funny, I was just wondering about this the other day. I guess I would expect someone to -- there are, after all, what, more than a dozen contenders out there? -- but on the other hand, once you've gotten as far as Jan. 3, what's another month? It often takes the losing parties a little while longer to accept defeat, even once it's obvious to others that they have lost.

_______________________

Maryland: Anne, yesterday I asked your colleague Lois why none of the "debates" among the primary candidates involve head-to-head discussions -- particularly between the top two Democratic candidates, Hillary and Obama. Her reasonable answer was that it would be considered bad form to exclude others from a two-candidate debate. But what if, for the sake of good form, either party avoids encouraging real (i.e. head-to-head) debate before early states vote -- and then it turns out the primary winner(s) can't debate worth beans in the general? Isn't the concept of "good form" counterproductive if it forces citizens in early states to vote before any real debates have taken place?

Anne E. Kornblut: There was some discussion earlier in the year about holding smaller debates -- say, among three Democrats at a time, rotating the groups -- for exactly that reason, and to give candidates more time to explain their answers. But the logistics of these things are complicated, and for whatever reason it never happened. I'd say this, along with the chaotic primary schedule overall, are good topics for the next DNC chair to address once this election cycle is complete.

_______________________

Romney on Obama: I saw this quote: "It's just not a good idea for people running for president of the United States who potentially could be the role model for a lot of people to talk about their personal failings while they were kids, because it opens the doorway to other kids thinking, 'well I can do that too and become president of the United States,' " and thought, "what a pompous jerk." It's one thing to look perfect, it's another to think you are.

Anne E. Kornblut: Thank you for this very witty comment...

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Why is it that Gov. Romney is getting so little bang for his buck among the voters? Sure, he has leads in the early primary states, but he has had to vastly outspend his opponents to do so. I can understand it with Giuliani, because he has near total name recognition and most people know him as "America's Mayor" -- that is usually a pretty positive perception. But Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee have done well, in the national and Iowa polls respectively, despite not spending much money.

Anne E. Kornblut: I'm not sure I fully agree with the premise; while Romney has spent gobs of money, he is also doing quite well in Iowa, and even better in New Hampshire, and if he wins in the two early states could well gain momentum in the ones that follow. Now, you're right, Giuliani has name recognition and fame that are hard for the others to match, and Huckabee has taken off without spending similar resources. But I don't think we'll really know the payoff, or at least start to, until Jan. 3...

_______________________

Burke, Va.: My apologies if this question has already been answered. Is the civilian payroll for the Department of Defense actually being paid out of the supplemental these days? My understanding is that civilian pay always had to be budgeted (I would presume out of the $471 billion budget that just passed) -- or is civilian pay now eligible for raiding as military pay has been in the past when the supplemental is delayed?

Anne E. Kornblut: A good question, and one I don't know the answer to; I will try to check. Anyone?

_______________________

Seconds, Anyone?: What's your expert opinion Anne -- do the so called second-tier Democratic candidates stand a chance against the Clinton Machine or Obama-Mania? Last election, Kerry capitalized on Dean's fall from heaven and came out of the shadows. What would someone like Biden or Richardson need to do to pull an upset? Would the other candidates have to mess up somehow, or is there something they actually can do to pull off the win? And what chances do you think there are that someone like Biden might actually come out on top? (Happy Thanksgiving!)

Anne E. Kornblut: A good question! I was just speaking to a Biden person out in Iowa before this chat began, and we were remembering where we were at this exact moment four years ago -- watching the Dean machine take off "inevitably" and declaring Kerry dead. So the short answer is: of course. Anything could happen. And there is no question that Biden and Richardson, and, I would say, Dodd, all have experience and are very respectable candidates who could potentially benefit from stumbles in the top tier. All that said, there has been little movement in the second tier so far; unlike Kerry, who started out on top, fell and then revived, Biden and Dodd have remained relatively static, and would need a lot of stars to align for that to change. Richardson has seen some movement, but would also need to see a fundamental shift at the top that we so far haven't seen signs of. But again, let me be clear: I have no crystal ball! And I can't wait to see the actual results, just like everyone else.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: There has been a bunch of new chatter about the Social Security "crisis," most of which comes down to pointing out the fact that money paid in has been spent already and isn't in a "lock box." (Remember when some doofus suggested put that money away? Ha, Ha! What ever happened to that guy?) Therefore we will have to raise taxes to pay those who already have paid in to the Social Security fund. Doesn't this bring up an uncomfortable fact that those of us making less than $100,000 or so (because this is the income cut-off for Social Security taxes) were back-doored into paying a regressive tax that funded the general budget? I just want someone, somewhere, discussing Social Security to point this out sometime.

Anne E. Kornblut: A great point. I'm going to pass this thought along to Jonathan Weisman, my colleague and super financial-political reporter and also incorporate it into my questions on the campaign trail as well. Social Security is most certainly on the Democrats' agenda, though on some more than others' (Clinton has said it would not be one of her top priorities if she were to take office)

_______________________

Dallas: What do you think is stopping third-party candidates from becoming viable presidential hopefuls?

Anne E. Kornblut: A lot of things --- probably far too many for me to mention here -- but primarily the logistics of existing system, which is geared toward easing the path for the two parties as they are, and money.

_______________________

Salinas, Calif.: Hi Anne. I know that we'll all have to wait for the book to come out, but can't we all agree that at times it was downright painful to watch Scott McClellan before the White House press corps? Compared to Ari Fleischer, Tony Snow and Dana Perino, Scott has been perhaps the most unartful of administration conveyers of misinformation and obfuscation -- all to his credit, in my view.

Anne E. Kornblut: You do have a point. Scott -- who in my limited experience was always a very kind person and tried to tell the truth, and be helpful, when he could -- did not do his best work in front of the television cameras. Whether that was because of his speaking style or his discomfort in that role is something we may learn more about in his book. But I can tell you that, as a person, he was very decent, at least to me, when the cameras weren't on.

_______________________

Seaford, N.Y.: Do you think that the special prosecutor who sentenced Scooter Libby will have to wait for the publication of McClellan's book, or is it possible that -- based on this excerpt from the book -- he might reopen and investigate the revelation of Valerie Plame's identity?

Anne E. Kornblut: Another good question on this subject, for which I have no answer. Any thoughts out there?

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: Vice President Cheney seems to have slipped off the radar completely -- what if anything is he up to? He's been very silent for these past six months or so.

Anne E. Kornblut: Ah, a perennial favorite story. I will check and see if there is a "where's Cheney" story in the works, but believe me, the White House reporters here never forget to keep an eye on what he is up to.

_______________________

Anonymous: Fitzgerald talked to Bush and Cheney regarding the Plame leak. I don't know if he talked to McClellan. Assuming that Bush/Cheney told Fitzgerald the same things they told McClellan, can Fitzgerald investigate Bush,Cheney and McClellan further?

Anne E. Kornblut: And another on this subject....

_______________________

Where's the middle?: Happy T-day, Anne! Given Rudy Giuliani's positions on the issues -- including the fact that he has stated he would install judges like Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, and his support for the use of torture and pre-emptive war -- can he honestly be described (as the media continues to describe him) as a "moderate"? Has the middle slipped that far right nowadays?

Anne E. Kornblut: Love this question. Great point; I think he's gotten that label based on his past record on abortion and gay rights, not on his promises of how he would behave going forward. But you're right, in a campaign where everyone has changed their minds, who's to say what they really are? While we're at it: What makes a frontrunner? Being ahead in an early state, or at the national level? Having the most money?

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Biden is the Stevenson of our age -- perhaps the best mind in the Senate. But who appreciates it?

Anne E. Kornblut: No doubt he is a great mind, and a great speaker. If you ask around the Senate (not to mention foreign policy circles, and his home state), he is most certainly appreciated. That doesn't necessarily mean he is the one most people want to see as president. Maybe this is a good question to keep re-asking going forward, whether he wins or not?

_______________________

If he was so torn at the time, why didn't he resign?: How could he be torn if he didn't know he was being lied to? Then he did resign, presumably upon finding out the truth. This story better not die ... keep it alive, Kornblut!

Anne E. Kornblut: If the questions here are any indication, no one is going to let this story die...certainly not all of you. Thank you for keeping up the level of interest, very appreciated.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: For Burke, Va. -- you're correct this already is budgeted, but the Department of Defense has been reprogramming funds away from salaries and into paying for the war. Hence the need to backfill. From the Washington Post article: "The Pentagon yesterday proposed shifting $3.7 billion from Navy and Air Force payrolls and $800 million from capital funds to bolster depleted Army and Marine Corps budgets and sustain roadside-bomb defense operations. But that sum would keep the Army afloat only through mid-February and the Marines through mid-March, Morrell said."

washingtonpost.com: Pentagon Warns of Civilian Layoffs If Congress Delays War Funding (Post, Nov. 21)

Anne E. Kornblut: From another reader: Thank you for this!

_______________________

Anonymous: In light of the recent polling you all published, if Huckabee actually won Iowa with Romney as a close second, could he recover from such a loss?

washingtonpost.com: Huckabee Gaining Ground in Iowa (Post, Nov. 21)

Anne E. Kornblut: Great question. At this point, I'd say almost anything is (almost) possible on the Republican side, given how volatile it's been so far. Romney does seem to have built enough of an infrastructure to manage a loss in Iowa -- the most recent NH poll has him widening his lead there, in the state where the next contest will be held after Iowa -- but obviously any loss will have the potential side effect of shifting the race in unforeseen ways.

_______________________

Seattle: What's the history on endorsements changing in mid-stream? The situation I'm imaging is that Huckabee somehow wins Iowa, proving his "electability," which is the main reason evangelicals haven't supported him.

Anne E. Kornblut: That's a good question; I don't know about endorsements, but I do know that a win in Iowa can change perceptions, which can change the race. Thoughts, others?

_______________________

Minneapolis: Comment and question re: McClellan. First, a tip: At Libby's trial (January 31, in the afternoon session), Libby's defense suggested -- seemingly to Fitzgerald's surprise -- that Bush himself was directly involved in the controversial decision within the White House to clear Libby publicly in October 2003. Card and McClellan had rebuffed Libby; Cheney agreed to throw his weight around, though we don't know just how. But Libby's lawyer said that Bush himself was in the chain of decision-makers. Second, a question given the renewed salience of the CIA leak investigation today: Did you ever track down whether or not Robert Novak testified again some time after Rove did in October 2005 or so? Novak does not mention it in his book at all, but there's a lot he leaves out.

Anne E. Kornblut: Another good comment on this subject... re: the answer, I do not know, but I will ask.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Anne, not so much a question as an expression of fury and despair. It seems clear that Congress is hopelessly paralyzed by political posturing -- the party first, the state or district second and the fate of the country be damned. President Bush preaches "fiscal responsibility" and his conservative base nods as though the Republican Party didn't have six years of being in control of the Oval Office and both houses of Congress. On the left, Democratic leaders make absurd pronouncements about immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq even though everyone knows that's not going to happen -- and may not even be a particularly smart thing to do.

Meanwhile, the dollar is weakening, our economy appears to be very shaky and the futures of Social Security and Medicare are essentially ignored. And on and on. Is there any reason at all to hope that the post-2008 government (Congress and White House) will act more responsibly than the past few have?

Anne E. Kornblut: I can't see that far into the future...but I want to post this very thoughtful expression. Thank you.

_______________________

Chuck Norris and Huckabee: Why was it a big deal? Because Norris endorsed what some saw as a second-tier candidate? Cannot imagine Norris was widely sought for endorsements. Has he been in a film or TV show (other than informercials for exercise equipment) in the past several years? Was Huckabee looking for macho credentials?

Anne E. Kornblut: I'm not sure it really qualifies as a Big Deal, but it was an amusing moment for someone who to date hadn't gotten a great deal of attention. And the ad he made was very clever. (And if Chuck Norris doesn't give one macho credentials, who does??)

_______________________

Re: Third Parties: I think the bigger two besides money and the law are organization and multiple candidates. Every third party in the past century was centered around one person or one idea, and only had that one person on multiple ballots (Wallace, Thurmond, Perot, etc.).

Anne E. Kornblut: A good comment...

_______________________

"Did not do his best work in front of the television cameras. Whether that was because of his speaking style or his discomfort in that role.": Scottie was too emotional for that job. I loved seeing Helen Thomas turning his face beet red. I bet he's a terrible poker player.

Anne E. Kornblut: Are you inviting him to a game?

_______________________

Washington: Hi there. Hope you are enjoying Iowa, it seems like it would be really fun to cover these Dems. My question is about Edwards and Obama. I have to say, I sense that Edwards is doing Obama a lot of favors with his recent remarks/approach. This includes even favorable comments about Obama on social security (despite identifying some areas of disagreement). It just seems to me that these "favors" are not accidental. Your thoughts?

Anne E. Kornblut: Are you asking if Obama and Edwards are in cahoots? I don't think they are (and you are not the first to ask) but they do share similar goals in this race, and I think you're right that Edwards is helping Obama, and vice versa.

_______________________

Los Gatos, Calif.: Good morning: What will happen to the GOP race is Gov. Huckabee wins in Iowa. It clearly hurts Romney, but who -- besides Huckabee -- does it help?

Anne E. Kornblut: That's a good question. Could it help Giuliani and McCain, de-emphasizing the importance of Iowa on the Republican side? Or, just the opposite, completely mix up the field? I will ask Mike Shear, my colleague here who reports on the Republicans, what he thinks and see if we can't figure out a way to convey an answer soon.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Why is Kucinich typically considered as a fringe presidential candidate despite the fact that most Americans agree with his positions (if you look at opinion polls)?

Anne E. Kornblut: I don't now about "fringe," but it is true that he is quite far down in the surveys of voters about which candidate they plan to support, and hasn't raised the kind of money usually associated with top-tier candidates. That does not mean, though, that he isn't in synch with how many voters feel; it may just be they are worried he cannot win. I have a feeling he will be remembered, at a minimum, as having helped shape the debate on the Democratic side.

_______________________

Metairie, La.: Why was New Orleans not selected to host a 2008 presidential debate? New Orleans satisfied the logistics, finance, and education requirements, including adequate numbers of available hotel rooms, press facilities, and four university settings. Other winning cities did not meet all of these requirements. The claim that New Orleans is not ready to host such an event is contrary to the fact that New Orleans has hosted larger events since Katrina, e.g. Mardi Gras, Sugar Bowls, large conventions -- and future events include the 2008 BCS championship game and the 2008 NBA All-Star game. Furthermore, seven presidential candidates (five Democrats, two Republicans) signed letters expressing interest in a New Orleans debate. The reasons cited by the presidential debate commission do not adequately explain why New Orleans was not selected.

washingtonpost.com: The Trail: '08 Debate Sites Set (washingtonpost.com, Nov. 19)

Anne E. Kornblut: I don't have an answer, but I'd like to post this comment for all to see. Thank you for it.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: Good morning Anne, and thanks for taking my question. It look like Mike Huckabee finally is pulling out in front of the pack, thanks to religious conservatives. Does this translate in a decisive shift among the religious right: i.e. they now do believe Huckabee is electable? Is so, his vulnerabilities will now become more apparent. From your perspective, what are his vulnerabilities, and how might Romney and others leverage them to deflate Huckabee's momentum?

Anne E. Kornblut: Another good question on Huckabee. Our poll in Iowa showed that he is strong among evangelicals but that he hasn't broadened his appeal, which probably qualifies as a vulnerability (though all of it is good news for Huckabee, given how much better he is doing now than he was before). Thank you for this.

_______________________

Stem cells?: Do you think that because allowable embryonic stem cells were used as comparisons to refine the foreskin stem cells, that the most militant pro-lifers will oppose the new breakthrough reported on the stem cell research front? Do you think this president will be willing to sign appropriations for this kind of stem cell research, or that he'll find another excuse not to?

washingtonpost.com: Advance May End Stem Cell Debate (Post, Nov. 21)

Anne E. Kornblut: At the risk of looking really ditzy today, I am going to post yet another question that I don't know the answer to but like and want to share.

_______________________

Caucus question: For those of us who don't live in caucus states so (like Will Rogers) only know what we read in the papers, how susceptible are caucuses to unfair pressures in political campaigning? I mean this in the sense that they don't reflect the true will of the all the voters of the state (I'm thinking of Iowa especially), but rather a small minority of insiders.

Anne E. Kornblut: That's a legitimate question, and probably a legitimate fear. I will say, though, as a skeptic at the outset -- I first covered an I

Anne E. Kornblut: Oops... Published too quickly. Was going to say, that as one who covered a caucus first in 2000, I have grown more and more impressed over time with how educated and open-minded the activist/voters there are. Even if they aren't demographically representative of the entire country, I can assure you they understand issues better than most, and take their responsibilities as voters -- not just for their own special interests, ethanol, etc. but for the entire country -- extremely seriously.

_______________________

Minneapolis:"Any thoughts out there?" In general, one would think that Fitzgerald had all the information McClellan would give us in his book on the subject. However, it is the case that during Libby's trial -- on Jan. 31, to be exact -- during some legal wrangling, Libby's lawyer suggested that after Libby tried and failed to get Andy Card and McClellan to clear him publicly, as they had cleared Rove -- and after Cheney agreed to intervene -- the president himself played a role in deciding to have the White House publicly clear Libby. This appeared to come as a surprise to Fitzgerald. So perhaps there remains something he doesn't know. That said, Fitzgerald himself provided compelling evidence that Cheney and Libby coordinated their stories before Libby talked with investigators, and Fitzgerald obviously didn't go after Cheney. So I seriously doubt he's interested in going after Bush.

Anne E. Kornblut: Another great thought...

_______________________

Washington: The Big Three among the Democrats have come out with health care proposals; they're fancy, expensive, cover a lot of people, and fundamentally alter the current system. Yet, our dollar is weak, we currently have a $9 trillion debt with no signs of slowing, and lots of Baby Boomers are ready to collect their Social Security checks and Medicare. Not to mention that we have to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, reinvest in our infrastructure and continue the fight against terrorists. Oh, yeah -- global warming. Can't forget that. How do they plan to pay for any of this? Repealing the Bush tax cuts on salaries over $200,000 only goes so far!

Anne E. Kornblut: A very good question, and I'd expect to hear it repeated at future debates, especially once we get to the general election. In addition to letting parts of the Bush tax cuts expire, Democrats have also talked about using funds now spent on the war in Iraq for other purposes. But you're right; that's a lot of money. Stay tuned.

_______________________

Anne E. Kornblut: Thank you, all of you, for such good questions -- and on a near-holiday, no less. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, and look forward to hearing from everyone as the campaign kicks into super high gear in the weeks ahead....

_______________________

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.