Post Politics Hour

washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

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 10 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, Oct. 8 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news.

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

____________________

Tucson, Ariz.: Watching the CEO of Lehmann Brothers interrogated by the House members today made me wonder why we don't put our presidential candidates through such a process. Instead we end up with game-show-like debates that allow the candidates to make up and twist the facts to their liking; often they simply don't answer the questions, and the moderators allow them to do so! Wouldn't the public be better served with sessions run by Congress, which can ask the hard and educated questions we seem to only engage in after the fact, once a crisis is upon us?

Michael Abramowitz: Good morning everybody. I am afraid I was out on the road yesterday and missed this testimony, but I would only add to your observation that Congress can be pretty uneven in the sharpness of their questions and often let witnesses get away with "twisting facts to their liking," as you say, so the public may or may not be better served.

_______________________

McCain's albatross: When the history of this incredible election campaign is written, who will be viewed as having caused the most damage to Sen. McCain's election efforts: George W. Bush or Sarah Palin?

Michael Abramowitz: I certainly think Bush has been the far bigger albatross for McCain. The country's dislike for Bush has just been a fundamental fact that McCain has not been able to escape. He picked Palin because he thought she may be a potential game changer, but in the end I don't think that matters as much as the fundamentals here, like the bad economy and the fact that most people think we're on the wrong track as a country.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: It seems that even the right -ing blogs are resigned to an Obama win. A 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate seems to be in sight. However, that would have to include Lieberman. Do you see him either vountarily leaving the Democratic Caucus or getting thown out by his fellow members? I assume that there has to be some sort of payback for the visible role Lieberman has played in the McCain campaign.

Michael Abramowitz: That's a good question. It's very possible he could get thrown out by the caucus, but senators tend to be pretty hard-nosed about these kinds of calculations--and it it appears he is the 60th vote against filibusters, I suspect Democrats would be cautious about alienating him.

_______________________

Montreal: I see McCain and Palin are campaigning together again today. Is this to be the norm for the remainder of the race?

Michael Abramowitz: They are, and I suspect they will from time to time be out together. But I would anticipate most of their appearances will still be separate.

_______________________

Fairfax County, Va.: I really appreciate the media's respect for Joe Biden's privacy during his mother-in-law's passing and funeral -- as well the respect and silence re: Biden, by and large, from the McCain-Palin ticket. A rare moment of grace. Now on to a new Joe Biden question (which I think is fair game as I believe he is scheduled to be back on the trail today). What was Barack Obama doing attacking Delaware of all states during the debate? I mean, I love Barack Obama dearly, but where the heck did that come from? Delaware may be of modest size, but Biden clearly is proud of it -- and he's running for re-election to the Senate there, too.

washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Biden Steps off Trail for Mother-in-Law's Funeral (washingtonpost.com, Oct. 5)

Michael Abramowitz: Thanks for pointing that put--I didn't notice that initially. It was a relatively low-key attack as attacks go--pointing out that Delaware has some "loose" business laws. I guess Obama, if asked, would probably say Biden doesn't have much to do with those laws.

_______________________

Ohio: It would be much more prudent for each candidate of speak on what they intend to do for the country if elected. This business of mud-slinging and accusations gets very wearing; we just want to know the facts of their intentions. Also, it should be placed into whatever election laws there are that candidates can declare their intention to run on Jan. 1 of the election year and campaign to their hearts content during that 10 or 11 months. We are all ear-sore and sour-stomached after two years of this stuff. It really hasn't made the American public more enthusiastic about the candidates.

Michael Abramowitz: I am sympathetic to your general point that there can be too much mudslinging. But I do think its fair game, in principle, to see how someone's record comports with their promises.

_______________________

Boston: A little premature to be counting the 60-senator Democratic majority with or without Lieberman, but it seems what really matters is the 60 votes, not which party senators are in. Lieberman's only value to the Democrats now is that he makes them the majority party in the Senate.

Michael Abramowitz: You know, you are right here. But I stil think in the end that Democrats will be cautious about going after Lieberman.

_______________________

New York: So, Michael. Why do you think McCain chose not to "take the gloves off," as was anticipated prior to the debate. No personal attacks using faded Weathermen and former pastors? What gives?

Michael Abramowitz: Well, I never thought it was likely that McCain himself would go after Obama for Wright and Ayers in the debate--he's leaving that to Palin and others. Too dangerous in the kind of setting they had last night, I think.

_______________________

Washington: Why in the world don't they do a better job screening audience questions? Does anyone honestly think Iran is going to outright attack Israel all by themselves? Why don't they just commit suicide en masse and get it over with? What's more likely is that they'll keep doing what they're already doing -- providing support to terrorists -- not that they'll start a new war. Hypothetical questions should reach a certain level of possibility before they're asked in a debate.

Michael Abramowitz: I actually thought that question produced an interesting result--both candidates essentially punted on whether they would send U.S. troops to defend Israel. Bush has said he would defend Israel if it is attacked, by contrast.

_______________________

Say it ain't so, Carville: The pundits claimed that McCain needed a game changer during last night's debate. What kind of game changer could really happen at a debate? Was McCain supposed to promise free health care for all? Were they expecting McCain to punch Obama? That certainly would change the game. Has there really ever been a game-changing event in past presidential debates? Also, I understand that McCain is behind, but I hardly think that Obama's four-point leads in the battleground states -- aside from Pennsylvania and Michigan -- means that Michelle Obama should pick out White House china. Is it, as James Carville said, really over for McCain?

Michael Abramowitz: I certainly don't think it is over, though it is looking better for Obama than it did a few weeks ago.

I think Ronald Reagan's performance in 1980 debate was widely considered a game changer and helped propel him into the White House. Gerald Ford's 1976 gaffe about Soviet non-domination of Eastern Europe certainly did not help his cause.

I don't think there has been any comparable game changer this year. I think both candidates have been pretty good at the two debates so far. If Obama wins the election in the end, I do think the debates will be seen as critical because he will have been seen to have done a good job making people comfortable with the idea of him being president. (Just like Reagan in 1980.)

_______________________

Chicago: I have to disagree with your answer about McCain's albatross. Bush has been unpopular for years, yet McCain was right in this thing all summer, and got a huge bounce after the convention. In these trying times, I think a lot of Americans happily would have voted for the safe bet in McCain if -- and here's the if -- he'd shown that he was that safe bet.

Palin throws all that out the window. Not only is she scarily unqualified, but McCain's had to waste all his credibility trying to shore her up. It makes him look more and more unreliable as a result. It would be like if Obama suddenly went around asking everyone what their shoe size was or something, or made canal redevelopment a central part of every stump speech. People would think he was crazy.

Michael Abramowitz: Thanks for the thought. I am not saying Palin has not been a factor. But I do think if you step back, Bush is the bigger problem for McCain.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Assuming that Obama wins the election, will McCain go back to the Senate? As I recall, Bob Dole resigned to campaign, but I believe McCain did not (as his disasterous "return" to Washington made clear). It is apparent that he is losing a lot of public repsect -- not only because of his overall tone but also his running mate nearly inciting a riot in a Florida rally. Is he also losing face with his colleagues?

Michael Abramowitz: I think McCain will go back to the Senate if he loses. With John Warner's retirement, he would be the senior Republican on Armed Services, and that's something he probably wanted before he had presidential ambitions. I suspect he will be greeted warmly by many of his colleagues, because in the end the Senate is a club.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I don't really think either candidate answered many of the questions that were actually posed to them. It struck me that they would both hear the catch word (Iran, energy, Iraq, taxes) and then proceed in bringing up whatever talking points they wanted. One woman asked about moving things through Congress quickly (along with an energy item regarding green jobs) and both candidates completely ignored the main question. I was completely disgusted with both candidates' performances -- they didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know. Thoughts?

Michael Abramowitz: I would have to go back and study the answers more carefully, but my gut feeling is that you are right--that the candidates did not directly answer many of the questions as posed. That's a standard politician trick, and I can understand your frustration!

_______________________

Re: Delaware: Was that really an attack? Everybody knows that Delaware has laws very favorable to corporate formation and corporate lawsuits, and that most corporations are incorporated in Delaware for that reason. People in Delaware are proud of that -- it makes their state a lot of money.

Michael Abramowitz: It wasn't much of an attack, I agree.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I was surprised the issue of education did not come up last night, especially in the town hall format. Will the economy trump all for the next four weeks?

Michael Abramowitz: Good point--I recall Obama touched on it briefly in the Brokaw question about priorities for the next administration, but it was not much of an issue last night. I am sure it will come up in the final debate, which is supposed to be all about domestic issues.

_______________________

Washington, DC: I know understand that both candidates are happy to spend my tax dollars to bail out the deadbeats who over-extended themselves on mortgages they couldn't afford. My question is whether either candidate will help out those of us who lived within our means and SAVED our money and are now watching as 20 years of budgeting, scrimping, and saving is doing down the proverbial flusher. Has either candidate addressed the plight of the prudent? (If so, he's getting my vote.)

Michael Abramowitz: I think you raise a good political point. I am sure there will be some resentment from many who have paid their mortgages on time to McCain now proposing giving new terms to millions of people having difficulty making their payments. (Democrats have proposed the same thing.)

_______________________

Maryland: I was surprised that there was so little emphasis on experience/inexperience in last night's debate. Where has this theme gone? (The lack of emphasis certainly works to Obama's benefit. He comes off as downright presidential whenever he can sail over the problem instead of having to resort to defensive lines like "judgment not experience.")

Michael Abramowitz: I actually thought that was a major sub-theme for McCain, especially in the third of the debate that focused on foreign policy. I also thought Obama had an effective response when McCain tried to suggest he was callow on Pakistan.

_______________________

Richmond, Ind.: Will McCain still be the titular head of Republican Party if he loses, or will the Republican Party have several leaders competing? The GOP always has seemed to need a leader so everyone can be on same page -- they have a hierarchy and like it. What happens to GOP if McCain loses?

Michael Abramowitz: There will be a wide-open political free-for-all for the leadership and direction of the party.

_______________________

Washington: Who do you think is the more effective Vice Presidential candidate when it comes to ripping apart the other party's nominee? Biden attacked McCain relentlessly during the debate, but Palin is doing her job too with the Ayers connection to Obama. Which one is more effective?

Michael Abramowitz: I think they both have taken on the traditional vice presidential role of attack dog with relish. I thought Biden was pretty effective on this score in the debate last week. I am somewhat skeptical that the Ayers attacks will have lasting resonance when most people are worried about their 401Ks and their jobs like never before in the last 30 years.

_______________________

Tampa, Fla.: Do you think the Obama camp has run a better campaign than Kerry did in 2004? If so, how?

Michael Abramowitz: Yes, I do. I think they have been quite disciplined, focused on their message and effective in responding to attacks. The party is also quite unified, despite the bitter primary. It helps when you have been out of power for eight years--and want desperately to get back in.

_______________________

Cabinet positions: Both candidates ducked the question on who they would appoint as Secretary of the Treasury. McCain mentioned Meg Whitman of eBay and Obama said something about Warren Buffett, but neither really answered. Have they really not started thinking about who they would appoint to the Cabinet? And if they have, why not talk about it -- it might sway some of the uncommitteds to know who will be acting in those positions.

Michael Abramowitz: It was somewhat of a duck, but I was actually surprised that both candidates actually threw out some specific names. It's pretty rare (I can't think of one off the top of my head) that presidents will commit to naming their cabinet before the election, though as you suggest it might be a good idea for voters to know. George Bush kind of telegraphed he would apppoint Colin Powell as secretary of state but never came out and said it oughtright.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Until last night's town hall format debate where the camera shows the full body of the candidates, I really had not noticed that John McCain's mobility seems very stiff and difficult. My 7-year-old daughter mentioned that he moves like the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz. Is this stiff, sort of robotic movement related to his war injuries, or is just his age?

Michael Abramowitz: It's related to war injuries, which have limited the movement of his arms.

I have run out of time. Lots of great questions--see you in two weeks.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Discussion: Presidential Debate Analysis from The Root's Terence Samuel (washingtonpost.com, Live NOW)

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Upcoming Discussion: Tucker Carlson and Ana Marie Cox Debate the Latest Election Developments (washingtonpost.com, 2:15 p.m. ET)

_______________________

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.