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 White House reporter Michael Abramowitz was online Wednesday, March 26 to discuss the latest news in politics.

A 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

____________________

Richmond, Va.: As a Democrat, I have to agree with the growing cries of primary fatigue and how the anger between Clinton and Obama has turned so counterproductive, in that the real issues that Americans care about are being buried under the passions of personal attacks by each camp. Having said that, do I need to just "chill" because this has got to play out no matter how damaging it is to the party? Or can something be done about it before both camps destroy each other and hand McCain all his talking points for the fall election?

Michael Abramowitz: Good morning everybody. I am filling in on a day I don't normally chat and look forward to your questions.

I am really not sure I agree with your premise that this continued battling is all that bad for the Democrats. It certainly could be, but it's not as if you can sweep everything under the rug until election day. It's probably helpful that the Rev. Wright controversy bubbled out now for Obama, rather than in the fall campaign, so he has an opportunity to deal with it.

Plus I think people are paying close attention to the Democrats, and there's still a good chance the ultimate nominee will come roaring out of the convention this summer with a full head of steam. I have always thought the general election would be close, but I think the Democrats still go in at an advantage.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: How can Obama not want to be called a liberal? He's rated the most liberal senator in the entire Senate. His policies are somewhere to the left of Fidel Castro. (Kidding!) It's not a label he can run away from easily, so why not embrace it? The Republicans have made "liberal" a curse word for years -- here's a chance to recapture the word.

washingtonpost.com: In Obama's New Message, Some Foes See Old Liberalism (Post, March 26)

Michael Abramowitz: It's a good question. There long has been an assumption that the l-word is not a help politically, which is why you often see Democrats and liberal-leaning group describe themselves as "progressive." I have no empirical evidence for this, but I suspect this hasn't changed much, which is why you see Obama talking about wanting to defy easy categories. But if he's the nominee, the Republican battle cry this fall with be "liberal liberal liberal."

_______________________

Washington: Posting early to accommodate a meeting. Could you please explain precisely what the rules are for superdelegates at the Democratic convention? Are there any guidelines or even nonwritten traditions? I'm hearing lots of things about what the superdelegates should do, but I want to know what, if anything, they are required to do by the rules of their party or the convention itself. Thanks.

Michael Abramowitz: The rules are: There are no rules. The superdelegates can vote for whomever they want to. We don't really have a long track record with "superdelegate traditions:" historically they have served to ratify what already has been preordained in the primaries. This year could be different.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: There's been speculation that Barack/Hillary supporters won't support the eventual candidate if it isn't their own. I don't think this makes sense -- I think what is more likely is that those "supporters" who aren't politically aware or active (but declare themselves supporter because race/gender etc.) and only recently have become interested in the situation may become uninterested and return to their political inactive state. But I think those supporters who are politically active and aware will show support for the eventual candidate -- though it may take a week or two to mourn their loss. What are your thoughts on the potential effects on their supporters of Barack/Hillary losing the nomination?

Michael Abramowitz: That is a great question, and one for which I only can guess at the answer. I think that if Obama is the nominee, the Clinton loyalists will fall in line. If it's Clinton, there undoubtedly will be hard hard feelings among Obama-maniacs, and some could well sit out the election. But I think the thirst to recapture the White House is pretty strong among Democrats, so I think I agree with your premise -- that these people eventually will support the nominee.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: When do candidates talk about who might be in their administration? I think it is important to know who the candidate would choose for their cabinet.

Michael Abramowitz: You really haven't heard too much from the candidates on this issue, and I suspect you won't, unless they want to send some signal (like George Bush did in 2000, when he strongly suggested Colin Powell would be in his administration).

_______________________

Henly, Texas (about the same size as Crawford): According to this morning's reports, Baghdad is a virtual ghost town this morning, shells were falling on the Green Zone (where three Americans were seriously wounded), and there is all-out warfare in Basra, where American and British aircraft are bombing and strafing their own occupied territory. All of this is "bad" news following last week's visits of Cheney and McCain to Iraq, where they sought to demonstrate just how well the "surge" was working, and might be causing American voters some doubt.

Of course we already know Cheney's response to public opinion ("So?"), but because McCain needs to be a little more sensitive to voter opinion than Cheney, I suggest that he would be well-advised to hop the next transport back to Iraq. He can walk around some market in his shirt sleeves and buy some pomegranates or something to prove what a great thing the surge is. After all, despite the risks, wouldn't he be safer in Iraq than trying to talk about the economy at home?

Removing tongue from cheek for a moment, how vulnerable do you believe McCain is to serious bad news from Iraq, and isn't Clinton almost as vulnerable?

washingtonpost.com: Intense Fighting Erupts In Iraq (Post, March 26)

Michael Abramowitz: Let me start by stipulating that it's hard to say for sure what's happening in Baghdad from here in Washington. It does seem that in the past six months, even critics of the war say, there's been some improvement in security (though it is still quite violent). Whether the current resurgence in violence is a permanent situation or temporary, one thing seems sure: If the situation in Iraq is really bad come the fall -- "serious bad news," as you say -- McCain is in trouble.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: The "liberal" story really is a big deal. We haven't elected one since Carter -- and for good reason -- Clinton ran away from that label every chance he got. Obama, based on his thin record, looks like an unreconstructed, old-school liberal. Why wouldn't the Republicans (fairly) hammer him for his liberal record?

Michael Abramowitz: I am getting a lot of questions this morning in the wake of Alec's fine story today about Obama and liberalism. If Obama is the nominee, as you suggest, his success will depend on how he can frame the argument. If he is seen as another in a long line of Democratic liberals, he will have a hard time; if he is seen as an unconventional, post-ideological candidate, he probably has a good shot at winning.

_______________________

Tuscaloosa, Ala.: I read online Spanish-language newspapers each day, and often see a huge discrepancy between what is reported in Europe and South America vs. what shows up in U.S. newspapers. For example, yesterday and today, the Madrid newspaper, El Pais, stated that Moqtada al-Sadr has threatened to "set fire to oil wells" in response to the Iraqi government crackdown on Shiite militias. I have not seen or heard anything about this in U.S. news sources. Have I just missed something, or does the U.S. press not consider this as significant?

Michael Abramowitz: I am afraid I don't regularly read Spanish-language papers, but I do read much of the U.S. press on Iraq, and I don't detect in general much effort to soft-pedal al-Sadr's words and actions, which have been regularly chronicled in the U.S. media.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: A friend of mine yesterday speculated that Admiral Fox would make a great vice president for either Clinton or Obama. I know the veepstakes aren't your "area," but I'd like to hear what you think on this. My thought is that the electoral college is more important that appearing strong on defense at this point.

Michael Abramowitz: I think you are referring to Admiral William Fox Fallon, the soon-to-be-departed Centcom commander. I would not be surprised to see Clinton or Obama pick a military person for the veep, someone like Wes Clark or Tony Zinni. Fallon seems like he might be seen as a bit of a "loose cannon" by would-be presidential candidates, but he definitely would be interesting for the press.

_______________________

Williamsburg, Va.: Obama argues that while he lacks any foreign policy experience, what matters in foreign policy is judgment. His close, multidecade relationships with Wright and Rezko indicate that his judgment might not be that great. But McCain can't tell a Sunni from a Shiite, so how does he attack Obama on his foreign policy judgment?

Michael Abramowitz: I think that was a gaffe by McCain that could come back to hurt him, for the reasons you suggest.

_______________________

Hampton, Va.: McCain says Hillary should apologize for her remarks trashing the surge; CBS catches her lying about dodging bullets in Bosnia; Wright and Rezko have disappeared from the papers. Bad week for Hillary while Obama is laying in the sun on vacation, right?

Michael Abramowitz: It has not been a good week for Hillary, I agree.

_______________________

Re: Hillary's remark on Bosnia: Hillary Clinton said yesterday (in reference to what she said about her trip to Bosnia and the reality), "so I misspoke," and I am going to assume she believes that puts an end to the controversy. I was wondering if those three words would work for Rev. Wright (or any other politician, for that matter) for any of his/their controversial comments? In short, while it is an answer, is it a politically rewarding answer?

washingtonpost.com: The Fact-Checker: Clinton Corrects the Record (washingtonpost.com, March 26)

Michael Abramowitz: It really depends on the circumstances. I doubt that would work for Wright, but Clinton really could not say anything else because the facts were so clearly against her. I am not sure how much it will help politically because it will reinforce critics view of her as not upfront.

_______________________

Yorktown, Va.: Wow, the power of video. Last week I read that Hillary had exaggerated her story about ducking snipers in Bosnia to fluff up her foreign policy credentials, but the video of her arriving and listening to a little girl read a poem on the tarmac while Sinbad, Sheryl Crow, and Chelsea wander in the background was really damning. And everyone knew about Wright for years, but the video of his hateful sermons exploded the issue onto the front pages. Given that McCain and Hillary have many more years in front of the cameras, it's likely there's more embarrassing stuff out there than Obama, who's more of a blank slate. Isn't this a big advantage for Obama?

Michael Abramowitz: Well, there's certainly in principle more potential video, because as you say, both Clinton and McCain have been in public life longer than Obama. On the other hand, they both have been subjected to scrutiny longer than Obama -- Clinton, for instance, has had several lengthy investigative books written about her, and the Clintons have been covered with a microscope through the years. So I would guess that the chances are less likely that there is something new out there that we don't know.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Most liberal senator? This is funny, considering you have Bernie Sanders in there, a socialist. Every four years the National Journal does its part for the Republican Party by naming the likely Democratic nominee the "most liberal." Thus, magically John Kerry received this moniker in 2004.

Michael Abramowitz: I have to leave a bit early today, but I thought I would leave you with some of our readers' comments about the liberal question on Obama, here...

_______________________

Portsmouth, N.H.: Disagree with you on this one. I think they can scream "liberal" from the hilltops 24/7 and it will be to no avail. When you're paying $4 a gallon for gas, your health insurance has gone up 12 percent or 15 percent, you haven't had a substantial raise in years, the price of staples is soaring, your 401(k) is tanking and Washington is bailing out its campaign contributors and not your neighbors who are losing their houses, who's a liberal is the least of your worries. The more the politicians focus on the trivial, the more focused the public's anger will be.

Michael Abramowitz: ... and here...

_______________________

Salinas, Calif.: Hi Michael. I read with interest Alec MacGillis's feature today on efforts from both McCain and Clinton camps to label Obama with the dreaded "L" word ("liberal" being the "L" word I'm referring to). Funny that the conservative wing of the Republican Party is saying the same thing (between clenched teeth) about John McCain, and the Clintons are throwing everything at Obama in a desperate effort to see what might stick. My question is: After seven years of disaster under a so-called conservative Republican administration, will voters care about labels come November?

Michael Abramowitz: ... and here. Talk to everybody in a few weeks. Cheers.

_______________________

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.