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 chief political reporter Dan Balz was online Tuesday, March 25 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 the daily Post Politics Podcast.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Dan Balz: Good morning to everyone. Even during a relatively quiet week there is much stirring on the campaign trail. We'll get right to your questions. Thanks for tuning in today.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va. : What impact if any do you think your 8 questions and others pieces like the Politico "Clinton Myth" piece will have once voters start to understand that this race is not close and that Clinton has virtually no chance (because her only hope will be to ask the supers to overturn the will of the people)?

washingtonpost.com: 8 Questions That Will Shape Where the Race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination Goes From Here (Post, March 23) and Story behind the story: The Clinton myth (Politico, March 21)

Dan Balz: There are a lot of questions this morning about the numbers and the math. It is quite right to say that path for Sen. Clinton is extremely difficult, but it's another to suggest that nothing could happen that would result in her becoming the Democratic nominee. Voters constantly have reminded us -- not just this cycle but through the years -- that they are capable of thinking and acting independently.

_______________________

Avon Park, Fla.: Should Hillary Clinton's misstatement about her trip to Bosnia get the same intense media coverage as the Jeremiah Wright controversy? She claimed that she was in more danger than she was, and apparently this wasn't the first time. Why do I get the feeling that this will be a one-day story?

Dan Balz: It already has been more than a one-day story, and my hunch is that it will continue to ripple through the Democratic race. She was caught not just making a misstatement but offering a description that was pretty flagrantly at odds with the facts. The Post's Michael Dobbs called her on it earlier and the CBS report last night juxtaposed her descriptions with video of her arrival that completely undercut what she said.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Dan, I am not sure as a Hillary supporter I am allowed to say this, but why is the media still focusing on elected delegates and popular vote totals? We (the Clintonites) are aware we cannot catch Obama in either of those categories. Obama, however, also cannot reach the necessary number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination.

That being the case, it is entirely legitimate for Clinton supporters to raise serious questions about his electability in the fall and to continue onward in each primary with the goal of strengthening the argument that Hillary will be stronger in the fall and should therefore be awarded the nomination, given that neither candidate can reach the pledged delegate threshold. I recognize Obama supporters feel this unfair ... but it isn't, if they want the nomination guaranteed they should have gotten 2,100 pledged delegates. Your thoughts?

Dan Balz: It's correct that neither candidate can get the nomination on the basis of pledged delegates alone. Obama's argument, of course, is that the superdelegates should ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses, and that if someone is ahead in pledged delegates, popular vote and states won, that person should become the nominee.

That's a pretty powerful argument, frankly, and Clinton's advisers recognize it. But superdelegates have the latitude to decide whether circumstances warrant going against the results of the primaries and caucuses. For that matter, so do the so-called pledged delegates, who are not legally bound to support the candidate to whom they are pledged. The Clinton team will try to make the case between now and June that there are legitimate grounds to nominate her over him. But she's going to have to do really well in the final 10 contests to make that argument compelling.

_______________________

Derby, Conn.: I find this studied "balance" about Clinton's chances ("she still might be able to win") troubling. This was not the narrative about Huckabee, for example, who also could have stayed in the race, hoping McCain might get hit by a scandal or a Mack truck. If Obama were in this position, the headlines would say "it's over," and the media would starve the campaign of attention, as the media always does with campaigns that are dead. What's up with this?

Dan Balz: I think it's more than "studied balance," and I think the analogy to the Huckabee campaign is not quite apt. In showdown contests, when it really counted, McCain beat Huckabee. He beat him in South Carolina; he beat him in Florida (Huckabee wasn't even in the top three there); Huckabee won a number of Southern states on Feb. 5, when there was a multicandidate field, but after that, when the two were in direct competition, McCain generally overwhelmed him. The closest Huckabee came was in Virginia, where he lost 50 percent-41 percent. In Wisconsin, Maryland, Ohio and Texas, he lost by double-digits, and sometimes by 20 or more percentage points. At the same time, because of GOP rules, McCain was rolling up a big lead in delegates.

Compare that with the Democratic race: The two candidates played roughly to a tie on Super Tuesday; Obama went on a winning streak the rest of February, but she came back and soundly defeated Obama in Ohio and won the popular vote in the Texas primary. She may well win Pennsylvania by the same margin she won Ohio. I'm not sure that if the roles were reversed there would be any more calls for Obama to get out of the race. These are two very strong candidates and two strong campaigns and they have coalitions that are almost equal in size and perhaps intensity. She has by far the more difficult road ahead to get the nomination and I think all the coverage reflects that.

_______________________

Taneytown, Md.: "Clinton has virtually no chance (because her only hope will be to ask the supers to overturn the will of the people)." Dan, isn't such a possibility (the supers overturning the results of the voting where Candidate A beat Candidate B because of concerns about electability) the very reason the Democratic National Committee created the superdelegates? If so, isn't such a possible result perfectly legitimate (if not truly fair)? If you are a Democratic candidate, you play the game, you take your chances...

Dan Balz: Superdelegates were created to provide an opportunity for party leaders and elected officials, who after all are directly affected by the strength of their presidential nominee, to make a considered judgment as to who would be the strongest general election nominee. They don't make that decision without paying considerable attention to what voters have done, both in their states or districts, but nationally. But they don't make the decision on that basis alone. Many of them would like to see this race decided before they have to declare their preferences, and many are likely to follow the will of primary and caucus voters -- but not everyone will do that, and they are within their rights.

_______________________

Why the Politico story was right: Dan, your own response to a query here validated the claims made in the Politico story: "But it's another to suggest that nothing could happen that would result in her becoming the Democratic nominee."

The article and the chatter didn't say "nothing could happen" to keep Obama from winning. They said Clinton has virtually no chance of winning. There's a difference between those two statements -- a slim one, but it's there. Nobody's asking the media to say Clinton has no chance or that she should drop out. They're saying you should report the obvious facts -- that unless the voters vote in patterns they haven't shown at any point in this campaign, she can't win. What's wrong with saying that?

Dan Balz: I think the coverage has been quite clear about the paths ahead for the two candidates, and that hers is far harder than his -- that point has been made repeatedly. Having said that, I don't think every article written about this race or every television report or every cable program ought to impose that narrative on the competition between them. There are a host of questions about both of them that, regardless of who is ahead or who has an uphill climb to the nomination, ought to be aired out. We all get obsessed with the process, to the detriment of other factors that the majority of voters may care about.

_______________________

Traverse City, Mich.: Dan, thank you for your insightful work. I am trying to understand my own psyche. Through the course of eight years I was an ardent Clinton supporter, of both Bill and Hillary. In his post-presidential years, I admired his work around the world, as well as her understated, competent performance in the Senate.

Today it is a totally different story. I resent his South Carolina politics, what I see as veiled racism (coming from our first black President), and her fiction-telling, with the facial expressions to go along with the stories. This year they and their scorched-earth policy have been repulsive.

What do you think is happening? Am I changing, or have they in this election cycle?

Dan Balz: I'm posting this not because I have a particularly good answer but because your views are revealing and, I suspect, not unique. This is one of the factors that has made what once was seen as nearly inevitable now a struggle. I'd be interested to hear from others on both sides of this point.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: I'm a middle-aged white woman with a professional degree who supports Hillary Clinton. I'm tired of hearing pundits say that I will, of course, come back to the Democratic fold and support Obama, and that the Democratic Party should worry about alienating young people and African Americans. I am so disgusted with Obama's supporters and the way the media have tended to lionize him and pounce on Clinton's every statement that I will not vote for him if he is the nominee. Why do the media dismiss people like me?

Dan Balz: I hope the media are not dismissing people like you. I actually think one thing we in the media probably have underplayed is the passion for Sen. Clinton among many women. She's obviously a divisive figure, and Obama's ability to draw these huge crowds since the start of the campaign has focused attention on the intensity of his support. But it's clear from your comments that, if she loses this fight, there will be many of her supporters who will be extremely disappointed.

_______________________

Washington: Dan, any thoughts on whether or not this protracted Democratic nomination fight might end up benefiting either the ultimate nominee or the party in some of the red and purple states? After reading about Indiana being a toss-up between Hillary and Obama and all the campaigning they are doing there, it seems that increased visibility for the Democrats in such a red state might help them in November. Indiana may be too red to switch, but is there any other state where you think it could be the case?

washingtonpost.com: Indiana Shapes Up as a State of Parity for Democrats ( Post, March 25)

Dan Balz: This is a good point, and it's one I'll have more to say about later today when I write by daily take for The Trail on our Web site.

_______________________

Stalemate in Reston, Va.?: Like the earlier poster, I'm a female with a professional degree who happens to live in Reston. Unlike her, I'm African American, 32, and strongly opposed to Hillary Clinton. Clinton's ability to stretch the truth, and her sense of entitlement to the White House, have ensured that I will not vote for her if she wins the Democratic nomination. I'm hearing similar sentiments from my peers. So it looks like the Democrats might have a bit of a stalemate come convention time!

Dan Balz: Thanks for your comments.

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: Why do the candidates themselves and the media (especially during debates) dissect and debate the details of policy plans when neither of them actually has the job yet, and don't have a cabinet or a full compliment of advisers/experts to round out their administrations? In no other job in America would a candidate for the top job be expected to have detailed strategic plans already figured out before they actually got hired! I understand the value of knowing what their priorities and general philosophies are, but please, enough debate about her health care plan versus his and so on.

Dan Balz: Oh, I think it's entirely appropriate for everyone to dissect these policy proposals. For starters, they often form the basis for policy once a person becomes president. I long have thought we often pay too little attention to some of these policy speeches for that reason alone. These speeches and proposals reflect the candidate's thinking, and while events have a way of altering a candidate's plans, they tell you a lot about how somethone thinks about issues, about the team of advisers surrounding a candidate and often the level of comfort a candidate has with vital issues.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Does Hillary employ the same advisers that Al Gore used in 2000? Al Gore lost (although he really won, but whatever) because he had multiple personality disorder on the trail and in the debates. Voters were confused as to who he really was. I notice this same trend from Hillary, in terms of her "praising" Obama one minute and attacking him the next.

I lost respect for Al Gore and Hillary both because of the way they ran their campaigns. It seems to me this blame should lay squarely on the shoulders of their advisers, who are not marketing their "product" effectively.

Dan Balz: They do not use the same advisers.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: What's your take on the comments by Gordon Fischer, the former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, with regard to the "blue dress." It seems like he said what a lot of people are thinking but unwilling to say: That for all of his strengths and capabilities, that Bill Clinton was an embarrassment to the nation. Maybe Fischer could have said it a different way, but can't we anticipate the Clintons' ethical and other difficulties during the '90s to be part of a Republican Swift Boat attack in the fall?

Dan Balz: I know Gordon Fischer pretty well and was shocked at the way he tried to make his point. It seemed out of character for him, and I and suspect he is most chagrined by having done so. He was right to apologize and quickly take down the posting.

_______________________

Palo Alto, Calif.: What are the chances for a compromise candidate, like Al Gore?

Dan Balz: We'll end with this one today. We'll probably be hearing about a Gore scenario until the very end, but I still put the odds as remote. While it would be in keeping with this amazing race for yet another strange twist to occurm, don't' bet on it.

Thanks again to everyone. Lots of good questions and some real passion among the Democrats. Have a great week.

_______________________

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.