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 Peter Baker was online Monday, May 5 at 11 a.m. ET.

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

____________________

Peter Baker: Good morning, everyone. Lots to chew on as always, so let's get started.

_______________________

Seattle: With the next set of Primaries once again being called the "make-or-break" by the pundits, does anyone in the media really think that if Clinton loses in Indiana or Obama loses in NC that that campaign will close shop and go home? For that matter, does anyone think that if Clinton loses the pledged and superdelegates, she will go quietly into that good-night rather than complain all the way to Denver?

Peter Baker: The one thing the past few months have made clear is that we should stay away from predictions. It's easy to play out any number of scenarios in our heads depending on tomorrow's elections in Indiana and North Carolina, but we've been down this road too many times to think we actually have a clue about what will happen.

_______________________

Medford, Ore.: Because of all the whoop-de-doo by Hillary Clinton about the federal gas tax I went back three months and computed my tax. I would have saved about $47, or $16 a month. What does Hillary think I should do with my savings?

washingtonpost.com: Dueling Appeals On Taxes From Obama, Clinton (Post, May 5)

Peter Baker: That certainly has been Sen. Obama's point, that the savings would be rather marginal and that the real point is that it's a political stunt. Sen. Clinton argues that this view is all "elite opinion" showing how out-of-touch he and her other critics are.

_______________________

Hong Kong: In Dan Eggen's piece on the White House on Sunday he said: " 'Don't ever underestimate the leverage of the presidency,' said a senior White House official, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly. 'Many of us here still believe there are a number of things that will get done.' " Why do Post journalists give anonymity for even such motherhood-and-apple-pie sentiments as expressed above?

washingtonpost.com: For Bush in Last Year, It's the Principle (Post, May 3)

Peter Baker: I thought Dan did an excellent job of trying to capture this moment in the presidency. You ask why we "give anonymity," but believe me, it's not our preference. Any White House -- and this one more than most -- is a pretty opaque institution where the people we interview outside of the press office rarely are allowed to speak on the record. We wish that weren't so and push to get as much on the record as possible. It's frustrating that they don't speak on the record more, but we'll keep pushing.

_______________________

Seminole, Fla.: How has the Internet changed American politics, and could Barack Obama have run for president without it?

Peter Baker: The Internet has changed politics in more ways than we reasonably could outline in a single answer -- among other things, we're here right now having this dialogue about politics, something that wasn't really done just a decade ago. It has changed the way we communicate about politics, it has changed the speed of politics, it has changed the economics of politics and it has changed the culture of politics. Could Sen. Obama have run in a pre-Internet age? Interesting question. He certainly has been the first one to really figure out how to tap the Internet for financing that has helped make him so competitive -- and his popularity among young people, in particular, has been spread in part by the Internet. Would he have found another way to do that without it? Hard to say. Maybe, but he does seem in part a product of this new generation.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Hi Peter -- thanks for the chat! Given that you used to be in Russia, do you today see anything with Putin that the U.S. should be aware of?

washingtonpost.com: Questions Consume Kremlin-Watchers As Putin Steps Aside (Post, May 4)

Peter Baker: Love any Russia question. Winston Churchill's old line about Russia being a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma certainly fits the current "transition," where Vladimir Putin steps down this week as president in favor of his hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, who plans to then name Putin as prime minister. Will Putin still be the one really running the show? Is this just a plan to formally abide by the constitutional limit of two consecutive terms while plotting to return to the presidency later? Is it possible that Medvedev actually will wield power and even overrule Putin at times? Hard to know. I think you have to start with the assumption that Putin did not spend the past eight years consolidating power just to give it up entirely -- there's very little precedent for that in Russian history.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Can you guess what did Alec MacGillis and The Post meant yesterday about Obama trying to sell his "brand of" patriotism? Might it be a little like asking a vegetarian how he's going to sell his "brand of" meat, even though he doesn't eat meat? You certainly can be patriotic without wearing a pin, but the only way Obama seems to show pride in his country is in saluting how far the country has let him ascend in the political world. Under those conditions, if Hillary finds a way to beat him, his patriotism will vanish completely.

washingtonpost.com: Obama Faces Test in Asserting His Own Brand of Patriotism (Post, May 5)

Peter Baker: Well, Sen. Obama argues that he's patriotic and loves his country even if he doesn't show it in the conventional ways other politicians do, such as wearing the flag lapel pin. That's the question Alec was trying to explore with his terrific piece yesterday. Does the public buy it? Do voters agree with patriotism as Obama defines it, or do they see it as you seem to -- a convenient crutch for a politician trying to win office? A provocative question, it seems to me.

_______________________

Anonymous: You have an article about the media's love affair with Obama. Now there's a small increase in scrutiny of his background, but it seems to be too little, too late. One of the most important ones -- which the Chicago press had covered but never made it national -- is "Obama's Slums," because it shows Obama's total lack of concern for the poorest of the poor in his district when Obama was in the Illinois Senate.

He always is bragging about being a "community organizer" in the poor parts of Chicago, but when he got elected to the state senate, Rezko got $100 million for slum repairs -- including 11 of the worst which were in Obama's own district -- but the work was never done and Obama did nothing about it, even though it would have been impossible for Obama to not know about it.

This report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100 million of wasted taxpayer money, is from Channel 5, NBC news in Chicago. The original story was in the Chicago Sun Times People went without heat for five weeks during the coldest winter in years; according to the Sun Times the slums were so bad that they were "unlivable"

washingtonpost.com: Why the Press Turned on Obama (Post, May 5)

Peter Baker: Thanks for the note. There doesn't seem to be a question in here, but let's post it for the sake of discussion. For what it's worth, I never bought the idea that the media had a "love affair" with Sen. Obama, nor do I now buy the idea that it has "turned" on him. For one thing, the "media" is too broad a term encompassing a lot of different folks with different journalistic missions -- television, radio, Internet, newspapers, wire services, talk show hosts, etc. The idea that they (or we) all march in lockstep first for a candidate and then against him or her seems simplistic. Do we really equate Dan Balz's smart and thoughtful analyses to the on-air shout-a-thons on cable television?

But there are certainly rhythms to any presidential contest, times when a candidate seems to get "good press" and times when he or she seems to get "bad press." It seems to me these reflect the events on the campaign trail as much as anything else -- a candidate who's winning tends to look better in the headlines than one who's losing, etc. My view is that we should be doing smart scrutiny of all the candidates -- and I think we try, with varying degrees of success, to do just that.

_______________________

Roanoke, Va.:"I would have saved about $47, or $16 a month. What does Hillary think I should do with my savings?" Take it and donate it to your local food bank. What is apparently a minimal amount of money to you can really help some other people out.

Peter Baker: Thanks for the response to our earlier participant. Anyone else want to weigh in?

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Further to the Internet/Obama question, do you think that has played a part in why he doesn't connect as well with low-income and elderly voters? Those are the voters least likely to have computer access.

Peter Baker: Maybe in some way. Certainly he has been embraced more by higher-income, better-educated voters who may identify with him more, which is somewhat ironic given that he does not come originally from a wealthy background. Of course, Sen. Clinton has a pretty sophisticated Internet operation as well, even if she hasn't been as successful at using it to raise money.

_______________________

Baltimore: How many delegates are actually at stake tomorrow, and how do you expect them to be divided?

Peter Baker: North Carolina has 115 pledged delegates and Indiana has 72. As for how they divide, let me refer you back to our earlier answer about not making predictions. Suffice it to say, though, that because of the Democrats' proportional rules, neither candidate is likely to win by a large enough margin to significantly change the overall race in terms of pledged delegates. Instead, what both are looking for are victories that will allow them to claim momentum.

_______________________

Patriotism and Obama: I don't think Barack is using it as a convenient crutch to get elected. He stopped wearing the lapel because of the Sept. 11 fearmongering attached to it. He's in the unusual -- and possibly untenable -- position of being something other than a rich white man running for president. He is going to see the country as something far more flawed than members of the demographic America favors most.

Saying this a white woman who supports Hillary, Obama articulates very reasonable thoughts on why he's not a blind-faith cheerleader for patriotic optimism. His views may be much closer to the truth of our country, but the truth might also be political suicide. If he panders, he's seen as retreating from his platform of integrity. If he speaks his mind, he is seen as being "un-American". It's a tough spot. You can love your country while not liking how it conducts itself, but can you feel that way and get elected?

Peter Baker: Thanks for the thoughts. I'll go ahead and post them to keep the discussion going.

_______________________

I'm actually going to defend Hilary: Ouch! But here goes: You can't look only at the savings from not paying gasoline tax. When people drive more in the summer, they spend more when they're out in their cars, especially if they're tourists. For states like Florida, which are so dependent on tourism for tax revenues, anything that encourages people to get into their cars and drive is good news. So it's not just the $46 that the previous poster mentioned.

Peter Baker: Another interesting comment for the conversation. Thanks for posting.

_______________________

Fairfax County, Va.: You asked, "Anyone else want to weigh in?" Yes. The earlier poster made a mistake. They would not save $47. Right now, the price at the pump, which is awful and really destroying people, is also -- cold-bloodedly -- what the market will bear. If you take the tax away, the price quickly will rise right back to what the market will bear, so you will not save anything.

It is not that the amount is "too small" for some but helpful to others with less money. Instead, there will be no savings for anyone -- not the local food bank, and certainly not the highway trust fund currently funded by the tax. Don't ask me, ask the economists, business leaders and newspapers who that commented on this.

Peter Baker: Here's another thought to chew on. Would the price of gas simply go up to compensate, even if the government suspended the gas tax? Thanks for the note.

_______________________

Washington: Do most politicians wear flag pins? I thought they were sort of a partisan thing on the Hill -- a friend used to call them right-wing fraternity pins.

Peter Baker: A good question. I haven't really surveyed it to give you a smart answer. Certainly a lot of politicians of both parties do, and certainly quite a few don't. Would Republicans be more likely to than Democrats? Maybe. Or maybe it would depend on the individual congressman/congresswoman and his/her district.

_______________________

Boston: Do you personally feel that Chelsea is "out of step" with her generation?

washingtonpost.com: Upcoming Discussion: Chelsea Clinton and Her Generation (washingtonpost.com, noon today)

Peter Baker: I wish I were still part of her generation so that I could say! This question stems from a provocative Outlook article that ran yesterday. Check out the discussion of this coming up in just a few minutes.

_______________________

Washington: Mr. Baker, I just want to drop a note saying that I'm a master's student and I've just read "Kremlin Rising." Congrats on an amazing book -- it has been an invaluable resource for school. Any thoughts on updating it for future issues?

Peter Baker: Flattery will always get your question picked! Thanks for the kind words. Not sure if you read the hardback edition, which came out in 2005, or the updated paperback, which came out last year. There are no plans at the moment for any further updates, but our paperback publisher has talked about that as a possibility at some point down the road.

_______________________

Anonymous: So, Hillary is going to get a federal gas tax hiatus bill through Congress and signed by George Bush before the summer driving season which starts in three weeks? Then she is going to get a windfall profits tax on oil companies through Congress and signed by George Bush within the same timeframe?

Peter Baker: Not likely, obviously. President Bush did say he would consider a gas tax holiday, but seemed quite dubious that it was the right way to go. Sens. Clinton and McCain, who first proposed the suspension of the gas tax really are talking about what they would do if they were president, rather than making any serious play to affect policy right now from their Senate perches. It's their way of showing how they would be reacting to the situation that confronts the sitting president.

_______________________

Winnipeg, Canada: In reading the coverage of the Guam primary on Saturday, I noticed that the original articles talked about "heavy turnout" predicted to reach 3,000. The final count exceeded that projection by more than 50 percent. Guam is small potatoes in the larger electoral picture, but the same increased voter turnout happened in this remote location as has happened across your country. In Pennsylvania, both the leading Democrat nominees gained over a million votes.

I can't help but think that this turnout will have a large effect on the overall political landscape. I also see a danger, because obviously a lot of people are participating at a level unseen in the past. How big a danger do you see of disillusionment, or do you think that these newly energized voters are here for the long haul regardless? If so, how might this affect the political landscape?

washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Obama Wins Guam by Slimmest of Margins (washingtonpost.com, May 3)

Peter Baker: Good questions. Turnout generally has been higher in many of the Democratic primary states, and that has a lot of party officials optimistic about the fall. Eli Saslow had a smart report last week noting that the past seven states to hold primaries registered 1 million new Democratic voters, while Republican numbers were basically flat. How that plays out in the fall we'll have to wait and see. I do wonder if a lot of these new voters eventually will grow disenchanted once their favorite candidate invariably compromises in the ways that politicians tend to. It's pretty rare that a candidate lives up to all our hopes and dreams.

_______________________

Point of Rocks, Md.: On the flag representing "Sept. 11 fearmongering," how much can your knee possibly jerk? The flag represents our country, not "our country right or wrong." It represents our nation, not just whatever president's in power. Obama supporters decry "blind boosterism," but doesn't this sound like a blind anti-boosterism? Would they buy it as a Republican "brand" of patriotism if the GOP stopped wearing flag pins if Obama were president?

Peter Baker: This is why the issue of a pin, simple though it may seem, in fact takes on larger meaning -- it taps into a lot of our emotions in a powerful way. It becomes a way of talking about our country and our values in a way that differences about, say, the gas tax doesn't. Thanks for the post.

_______________________

Boston: Well, your photo that accompanies this chat makes you look young enough to be a Gen X-er, so you're doing well then.

Peter Baker: High school yearbook picture. I'm secretly 80 years old. Don't tell.

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: So by the same token, if the dollar improves against foreign currencies, and the price of oil drops, and gas goes down to say $2.50 per gallon (wishful thinking), the government immediately should raise taxes to jack it up to $3.69, the price the market has been shown to bear now?

Peter Baker: Actually, I guess I should amend my previous answer, because it does look like the gas tax issue stirs a lot of strong thoughts. Thanks for the note.

_______________________

Re: Gas tax savings: Problem with previous poster's equation: If people drive more because of the gas tax savings, gas prices will increase. This is because (at least as claimed by the oil companies) price is set by demand. This is precisely why energy policy experts are opposed to the gas tax holiday. In other words, you give a gas tax break to people that they are likely never to see, but oil company profits will increase.

Peter Baker: And another voice on this. Thanks for participating.

_______________________

Minneapolis: You know, the majority of other countries manage just fine with higher gas taxes. Yes, they have better public transportation -- which is supported by their gas taxes -- but people haven't stopped spending money just because they're not in a car. They might have cut back on some things, but we can't say let's just do away with the gas tax so that people go out and drive frivolously and slap down money on something just for the heck of it. That mentality -- rampant buying is good, show your patriotism by buying! -- is part of why we're in the trouble we have now. Besides, if there's a gas tax holiday, what happens to those pesky little things like bridges and roads that the gas tax pays for?

Peter Baker: And one more. This has been an interesting discussion.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: "Any White House, and this one more than most, is a pretty opaque institution where the people we interview outside of the press office are rarely allowed to speak on the record. We wish that weren't so and push to get as much on the record as possible. It's frustrating that they don't speak on the record more, but we'll keep pushing."

Yes, but the quote was nothing. The line is somewhere between this and, say, Watergate, but there was absolutely nothing special about that quote that warranted anonymous treatment. The reporter could have gotten the same thing out of any number of named sources outside the White House. The problem is that granting anonymity for even the most banal statements has become entirely reflexive. Your answer -- that they won't speak to you on the record -- suggests a complete lack of interest in considering whether you've gotten anything substantive when they do speak. This idea that you need a quote -- any quote -- from an administration official is just lazy "X said, then Y said" journalism.

Peter Baker: I understand your point and appreciate it. I thought the quote gave at least some indication of the way folks inside the White House were thinking about their situation, and in my mind there's value in quoting someone from the inside rather than someone from the outside. But it's a balance. Did the story absolutely need it? Maybe not. But was there any harm in using it? I don't think so. As you say, it was a harmless quote. I'm more concerned about anonymously sourced quotes that attack someone else or make spurious assertions, which this did not do.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: I have been sending several versions of the same question for several weeks now to every Post political analyst, and I notice no one will touch this question. I am giving the question one last shot. Has anyone fully explored the testimony of the Rezko trial and how it implicates Sen. Obama? I ask not to tear Obama apart -- in fact, from my read of what I have read on the trial, he has done nothing wrong.

The questions I have, though, in reading about the trial are the following: How was Obama able to help Rezko cut through the Illinois political machinery if Obama, as he claims, was independent of the machinery? Didn't Obama ever become suspicious as to why Rezko wanted people placed on the boards for which he requested Obama's help? Finally, when Obama's constituents complained to his office about the conditions of Rezko's buildings, did Obama ever ask Rezko or any of the appointees he helped put on oversight boards what was going on?

Peter Baker: Thanks for the post. These certainly are interesting questions. As a White House reporter I haven't covered the Rezko case, but I'll pass these questions along to our political reporters who have.

_______________________

Peter Baker: Thanks everyone for another robust and thought-provoking conversation. You guys make these a lot of fun, and hopefully useful for readers as well. Hope everyone has a good day.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Discussion: Previewing the Indiana Primaries (washingtonpost.com, Live Now)

_______________________

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.