PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

MICHAEL MOORE, author, February 25, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: I understand your statement that we should have more than two political choices. Yet, hasn’t further choices been manipulated to serve the needs of the “stupid white men” (Moore’s book title) of when you speak against? Despite all the admirable qualities of Ralph Nader, the political reality is he helped get George Bush elected. If I were a “stupid white man” in 2000, I would have given the Nader campaign lots of money in key states like Florida.
MOORE: 1. Gore won. He got the most votes. He won Florida.
2. Gore couldn’t win his own state.
3. Gore wouldn’t let Clinton campaign in Arkansas.
4. Gore couldn’t win any of the three debates with the dumbest man ever to run for President.
I admire Gore for blaming himself and Clinton and not Nader.

LARRY SABATO, University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies Director, March 5, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What candidate did the voters of Florida, overall, intend to vote for President in 2000? How concerned should we be when the intended winner differs from the legal winner? How much effort should be put to see to it that an election system accurate records and reports how a voter intends to vote?
SABATO: As my book “OVERTIME! The Election 2000 Thriller” clearly shows, a clear majority of those who went to the polls in November 2000 in Florida chose Al Gore to be President. However, because of some mechanical failures, but mainly embarrassing human errors by voters who could not fill out a simple ballot, George W. Bush emerged as the legal winner of the plurality of voters cast. Obviously, we ought to be concerned when many thousands of people have their votes nullified.
But, let us remember to place blame where it belongs---mainly on the individual citizen who could not be bothered to play by the established rules of elections. The real lesson of 2000 is that we must do a much better job of providing civic training and education to young people coming up through our schools.
This is precisely why I founded the Center for Governmental Studies at the University of Virginia. Please take a look at our Youth Leadership Initiative, which is providing this desperately needed civic training to hundreds of thousands of your people throughout the nation.

RICK PERLSTEIN, author, May 20, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: I wish to know your thoughts about Governor Bill Scranton’s role in the 1964 elections. There have been some recent claims that Governor Scranton admired Senator Goldwater more than his public position allowed and that it was his aides who created the divisions between the two candidates. Have you come across any research on how the Scranton for President campaign affected the 1964 race?
PERLSTEIN: William Warren Scranton, who became the liberal Republican to challenger Goldwater’s Republican nomination in 1964, is a major character in my book (“Before the Storm”). They called him the “Hamlet of Harrisburg” for his indecisiveness in meeting the challenge. The story of how he came to the fore is by turns fascinating and hilarious. It involves a sex scandal by Nelson Rockefeller! Real Oprah stuff. Read the book, and you won’t be disappointed.
A fascinating character, not well remember in the annals of history.

BOB BENESON, Managing Editor, Congressional Quarterly, January 6, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: It has been stated it is hard to be both a Presidential candidate and a party leader. Sometimes Presidential candidates need greater independence in their ability to state how they feel as opposed to party leaders who may feel restrained in what they say as they need to maintain peace within a political coalition. Thus, Bob Dole resigned as Senate Leader to run for President and Dick Gephardt stepped down as House Leader. Tom Daschle, though, chose not to step down as Senate Leader. If Daschle runs against Gephardt, how much disadvantage will Mr. Daschle have if he remains as Senate Leader?
BENENSON: It’s no sure thing that Daschle won’t give up his position as Senate Democratic Leader if he enters the race. There’s plenty of speculation to that effect, and the current number two Senate Democratic, Minority Whip Harry Reid of Nevada, is already trying to discourage potential challengers for the top spot (should Daschle step down) by claiming to have enough votes to win.
One difference between Gephardt and Daschle has to do with the difference between the Senate and the House. Though the Rpublicans’ margin over Democrats in the House isn’t huge, the fact that they hold the majority enables them to set the legislative agenda with little input, if they so choose, from the Democrats. As a result, hanging in as Minority Leader could have made Gephardt look less influential. In the Senate, though, the Republicans’ 51-459 majority is not enough to deprive the Democrats of any say in setting the agenda; this is because of the filibuster rules that enable the minority party to block most legislation unless it is supported by 60 or more Senators. As a result, Daschle could remain front and center pushing a Democratic agenda while edging towards his transition as a Presidential candidate.

DONNA BRAZILE, Chair, Voting Rights Institute, February 24, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: It is obviously way too early to being considering Vice Presidential candidates. Yet, isn’t it safe to say that one of the most experienced and deserving people to be elected Vice President in 2004 is Al Gore? Would Al Gore be willing to run for Vice President?
BRAZILE: As former Vice President Al Gore’s campaign manager, I know him to be very well qualified and a tremendous asset to the Democratic Party and nation. I do not believe he is interested in pursuing the White House on either end of the ticket this cycle.

GREG PALAST, author, March 6, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: One of the biggest changes I have seen in my lifetime is the amount of money it takes to run for office. In 1968, if I recall this correctly, Eugene McCarthy spent $500 to run in the New Hampshire Primary, and the press attacked the fact that $250 of that came from the heir to General Motors. In 2000, business leaders raised $50 million just to get George Bush to enter the race for President. Hasn’t the exponential growth in campaign spending had a major effect on campaigns?
PALAST: Yep—we aren’t holding elections, we’re holding AUCTIONS.
It was the money-poisoning of campaigns that gave me the idea for the title “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”.

JOHN ZOGBY, President, Zogby International, April 10, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: As a political opinion expert, you must recall when President George H.W. Bush enjoyed immense popularity only to lose reelection, probably due to a weakened economy. There are signs of a weak economy along with a budget deficit. How much of a warning sign should the Bush Reelection people take from this, and how solid is Bush’s base support?
ZOGBY: I recall it well. This Administration also is very aware of it. Thus, you will see this President traveling and talking about the economy because his father was seen as aloof about the economy. Remember his looking at his watch when a Virginian asked him a question in the debate in 1992? The President is fashioning himself as a compassionate conservative to remind people hard hit that he cares about them.

LISA DE MORAES, Washington Post TV columnist, May 8, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Let me get this straight: a planned reality show based on people pretending to be Presidential candidates has been cancelled because it cost too much. Why don’t they take the current nine actual Presidential candidates, film them, and call it a reality show? Maybe then the public will watch something we used to call the news. Just an idea.
DE MORAES: I think probably because none of the actual candidates are hunks under the age of 49, which presumably Fox was hoping to find for its faux Presidential candidate show. Plus there’s that pesky equal-time rule…

LLOYD GROVE, Washington Post Staff Writer, May 30, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I am announcing my candidacy for President of the United States. I plan to have two friends present at my announcement: therefore, I may claim to have twice the strength of Carol Mosley Braun in this race (who had just one person at her announcement). What is the story with her running? Can she at least pretend to be running? I am sure she appreciates being invited to the debates, but certainly she is aware she should at least make the pretense of creating a campaign.
GROVE: Well, she is obviously getting the kind of attention she craves, so it might simply be that.

TERRY NEAL, Washingtonpost.com Chief Political Correspondent, July 3, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: The problem with political primaries is the press sets a level of expectation, and the voting determines whether or not candidates met that set level. Does Howard Dean’s fundraising successes now set that expectation level higher for him? If so, isn’t it ironic that, without so much money, he might have been able to be “the winner” of the New Hampshire Primary for finishing second. Now that he leads in fundraising, isn’t it almost essential he comes in first in New Hampshire?
NEAL: Hmmm. Interesting question. Yes, a lot of this is an expectations game. But first off, we’ve still got six months—two quarters—before the New Hampshire Primary and who knows what the money situation will be at that point. In either case, I think the most important reason for Dear to win NH is geography, rather than money. If he can beat Kerry in NH, that sends a very strong signal to the rest of the country about Kerry’s strength, or lack thereof. Frankly, people are so focused on the money issue now because there’s not a lot else to focus on. But by the time the primary season begins, there will be a lot of other things that will set the bar for expectations other than loot.

DAVID VON DREHLE, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 10, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: There is an observation that Kerry is a liberal running as a centrist and Dean is a centrist running as a liberal. What do you think of such an assessment?
VON DREHLE: Wow. Very trenchant.

BERNARD SANDERS, Member of Congress, July 15, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: You have had many dealing with Howard Dean, the former Governor of your state. From my perspective, he is a centrist running as a liberal. What is your analysis of how Howard Dean is politically and how he would be as President?
SANDERS: I consider the administration of George Bush to be the most right wing and dangerous administration in the modern history of this country. And I intend to support any candidate who is able to dislodge Mr. Bush from the Presidency.

JAMES W. PINDELL, Managing Editor, PoliticsNH.com, July 17, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Would you please inform us about the demographics of who votes in the New Hampshire Primary and how that compares to the national averages? What type of politicians appeal to voters in New Hampshire?
PINDELL: This is an extremely important question. On the demographic side we know this: About all of the state is white. It ranks sixth in per capita income. It has the lowest poverty rate. And, not surprisingly, the unemployment rates are lower here than they are in other states.
But New Hampshire is a state of dramatic changes and a different voting population than voted in the 1972, 1992, and even the 2000 New Hampshire primaries. The population increased about 12 percent in the last decade. Many of these people located in what is referred to as the state’s Southern Tier along the border with Massachusetts. These people tend to register as Independents, work in Boston, and watch Boston television. Here Kerry has an advantage.
As voter registration goes, Independents out number any voting class and they are the big X factor. Independents, or technically undeclareds, make up 37 percent of registered voters, Republicans 36 percent, and Democrats 26 percent.
As you can tell the candidate that appeals most to the Independents is helped. Just as John McCain who soundly beat Bush here in the 2000 New Hampshire Republican Primary with the help of Independents.
CZIKOWSKY: My recollection is there were a lot of fringe candidates running in past New Hampshire Presidential and Vice Presidential primaries. What are the requirements to get on the ballot?
PINDELL: Many lesser known candidates do officially file to run in the New Hampshire Primary. All you need is a pen, a ride to the State House in Concord, and $1,000.

AL FRANKEN, author, August 28, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Would you vote for Joe Lieberman over George Bush?
FRANKEN: Yeah. Are you kidding?

JOHN HLINKO and JOSH MARGULIES, Co-Founders, DraftWesleyClark.com, September 17, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: May I offer some critical but I hope useful advice? I am one who is very interested in Wesley Clark and am considering voting for him. Yet, when I saw him being interviewed, he ducked questions like a skilled politician. To me, this is the wrong image. If he doesn’t have an answer, just admit it. We understand it is early in the race for him to have all his policies set. My question: how does he expect to show he is a different type of politician when he comes across like another politician?
HLINKO and MARGULIES: I’d say, keep an eye on him. He is a straight shooter, big time. Keep watching, and you’ll see this quality come out, I promise.

E.J. DIONNE, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 22, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: John McCain is proud that he graduated fifth from the bottom of his class. Wesley Clark is proud he graduated first in his class. Is it the experience that counts, or how well they spin it in selling it to the voters?
DIONNE: Nice comparison (or, actually, contrast) between McCain and Clark. To be contrarian, I think selling is overacted, especially in Presidential elections. Voters have a pretty good sense of who someone is by the time election day rolls around. You can’t sell a numbskull as a genius—but voters may, in certain circumstances and depending on the issues, decide to vote for the less intelligent or qualified candidate for other reasons.
Thanks for your thoughts.
CZIKOWSKY: As General Custer discovered, there are drawbacks to being too reckless when attempting to transform a military career into a political career. Further, being reckless in the entertainment fields without considering a future shift to the political fields can be dangerous. Maybe the ultimate test is not what career path one takes before entering politics, but what one did along that path is what matters.
DIONNE: Thanks.

DAVID CORN, “The Nation” Editor, October 27, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Neither Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton entered their Presidential races as first tier candidates. Even unsuccessful second tier candidates, such as Pat Buchanan and Jesse Jackson, have shook things up by winning primaries. Which, if any of the second tier candidates-Kucinich, Moseley Braun, or Sharpton, have any chance of surprising us by at least shaking things up a little?
CORN: I know Kucinich and like him. (His daughter worked for me.) But I am afraid I have to say that I don’t see a clear potential opportunity for him. It’s a big field. Buchanan shook things up a bit by taking on an incumbent President who had no other challengers in 1992, and then he snuck past Dole, a sleepwalking candidate, in (New Hampshire) in 1996. The Dem.field at the top has several candidates that all have good cases to make. There’s less room for shaking. The only place where (Moseley Braun) and (Kucinich) can shake things up is in the debates, at this point. As for Sharpton—I wonder if he manages to do well with African-American voters (a big if), will he be able to pull some of the candidates in his direction issue-wise. That’s a possibility.

GORDON FISCHER, Iowa Democratic Party Chair, October 29, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Is there any chance that, since Lieberman and Clark have decided not to campaign in Iowa, they are still hoping to make a surprisingly good showing without campaigning? Could that possible happen in Iowa?
FISCHER: Any nominating event is difficult to win without campaigning. I suppose it’s possible for them to do well, but it is unlikely. The Iowa Caucuses rely heavily upon grassroots organization. If the grassroots are no longer in place, it will be difficult to get supporters to show up on caucus night.
CZIKOWSKY: What are the key issues that most concern Iowa Democrats?
FISCHER: As all other Americans, Iowa voters are very concerned about the economy, the situation in Iraq, health care, and education. Job loss is something that is on the minds of all Iowans, Democrat or Republican. Three million jobs have been lost nationally since Bush took office. We need to get the economy back on track.

RICHARD GEPHARDT, Presidential Candidate, November 3, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Who would you consider to be your top choice for a running mate?
GEPHARDT: I haven’t spent time on that. I would look for someone who could help us win the Presidency and someone who would be a good President.

JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, Presidential Candidate, November 3, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: You were Robert Kennedy’s Connecticut coordinator in his 1968 Presidential campaign. Do you believe the Democratic Party still follows many of the ideals that Bobby Kennedy presented?
LIEBERMAN: First, I am impressed that you knew I was active in the Kennedy campaign in 1968. Second, my campaign for President is all about making sure that the Democratic Party is true to the ideals of Bobby Kennedy.
That means fighting for social justice and social progress, being able to unite Americans across possible dividing lines like race and nationality and to unite us around the values that we share and the dreams for a better, safer life we all have. That particularly means making improvements to our public schools and our healthcare system.

WILLIAM SALETA, Slate Chief Political Correspondent, December 5, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Understanding the health care system is hard enough, yet understanding the candidates’ positions on health care gets more difficult. As I read it, Dean would increase CHIP eligibility to younger people for more years and Kerry would keep the ages the same but would extend CHIP eligibility to more children of low income families by raising the income limits. Kucinick at least is the easiest to follow: he’d insure everyone.
How would you describe the candidates’ positions on health care?
SALETA: I think the nuances of all these health care plans are one of the most overrated criteria for choosing among the candidates. Unless you think one of these folks is going to get elected and sweep a Congress of lockstep supporters into office with him, here’s what going to happen: The new President puts his or her health care plan on the table, and Congress pounces on it like a pack of wild dogs, and deals are cut behind the scenes, and what comes out the other end, if at all, looks nothing like what the President promised during the campaign.
That’s what happened with the Medicare bill, and I don’t see why the same thing won’t happen again.
I like what Howard Dean said about his health care plan when critics pointed out that it was an incoherent hodgepodge of existing programs. He basically said, yeah, it is, but I did that so that I can get it passed, and then (after everybody realizes it’s incoherent and has to be fixed) we’ll come back and fix it later.

DENNIS GOLDFORD, Chairman, Political Science Department, Drake University
CZIKOWSKY: By the time the primary reaches Pennsylvania, political pundits are telling us we will be left with two major candidates: Dean and the anti-Dean, which could be either Lieberman, Clark, Edwards, Gephardt, or Kerry. Yet, if Gephardt loses in Iowa, and Clark and Lieberman are skipping Iowa, and Dean crushes his opponents in New Hampshire and Iowa, might the nomination be over? It would take victories in some of the Southern primaries to install one of the other candidates as the “anti-Dean”. Now, this scenario is reversed if Dean loses Iowa. What are polls stating how far behind Gephardt is, and, even in Gephardt wins, will his victory be considered a real win since it originally was his caucus to win?
GOLDFORD: Ah, strategy, the great fun thing about this! Everyone has his own view, but my sense at this point (and a campaign season can be quite volatile) is that if Dean wins Iowa and New Hampshire, does respectably well in South Carolina and maybe even wins in Missouri and Michigan, then he’ll have won IA and NH, a southern state, a swing state, and an industrial state, and will be in an extremely strong position. The front-loading of the primary schedule and the spending restrictions make it nearly impossible for anyone to mount a late challenge to a frontrunner. On the other hand, if anti-Dean forces coalesce around a single candidate, perhaps there could be a one-on-one slugfest extending from mid-February to the end of March.
As to Gephardt, initially the caucus was conceded to him as his to win, with everyone else really (if not admittedly) fighting for second place. A Gephardt victory would have been discounted for that reason, and a loss would have been magnified. However, if Gephardt now ties or beats Dean, he’ll owe Dean a huge debt, because Dean’s frontrunner status will have made the caucuses more of a real battle. And of course the other question is whether Edwards, who’s campaigned heavily, is the tortoise to all these other hares.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, author, January 9, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: John Kerry may be in an excellent political position. Often, front runners are battered by the press and their opponents and they fizzle out with the voters by the time the primaries and caucuses emerge. Dean may have taken the arrows that might have been aimed at Kerry had he remained the front runner. My question: There was criticism from veterans of John Kerry for discarding his war medals in a public ceremony in protest against the Viet Nam War, and then further criticism that he discarded fake medals and not his actual medals. To me, it was the symbolism that mattered, and not that he was protesting our troops but he was protesting our policies in Viet Nam. Do you have further information regarding this controversial part of his life, and what is your take on what happened?
BRINKLEY: First off Kerry actually returned his ribbons not his medals on the steps of the Capital. Other veterans who could make it to the D.C. march gave Kerry their medals to toss away. There has been a great deal of confusion about all of this and I explain it with great clarity in “Tour of Duty”.
The Nixon White House was desperate to destroy John Kerry. He was too tall, too articulate, too handsome, and too decorated a soldier to be denouncing their Vietnam policies. You couldn’t write him off as an LSD crazed anarchist hippy. The FBI started harassing Kerry and infiltrated Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
CZIKOWSKY: Why do you believe John Kerry wants to be President? Did he ever discuss what he wishes to achieve as President?
BRINKLEY: In “Tour of Duty” you learn about John Kerry’s sense of public obligation. His father was a U.S. Foreign Service officer. He had met such well known figures as Dean Acheson, George Kennan, and John F. Kennedy while still in his teens. I think his ambition was to be a U.S. Senator.

GORDON FISCHER, Iowa Democratic Party Chairman, January 13, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Iowa has an interesting caucus system. If a candidate at a polling location has fewer than 15 percent of the votes, supporters of that candidate recast their votes. I presume someone tabulates the initial votes to determine who met the threshold. Are these numbers publicly reported? Or, are the only vote totals reported the final tallies from each polling place?
FISCHER: Only the final tally of delegates is reported. The “recast” you mention, called the realignment process, is a key portion to the caucus process.
CZIKOWSKY: Over the years, I’ve seen political parties, mostly state Democratic Parties, in debt. If the party can’t pay for a caucus, what would happen then?
FISCHER: I can’t speak for other state parties, but we are ok. Since we are accustomed to putting on the caucuses, we focus our fundraising efforts to this and are prepared to deal with it in caucus years. In November, we had one of our annual fundraisers, which will fund a good portion of the caucuses.

STEFFER SCHMIDT, Iowa State Political Science Professor, January 14, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: The Iowa caucus should make for fascinating political science studies. Are records kept of the vote totals before and after the realignments? For instance, Dean could be ahead in the first vote tally. Yet, should there be a unified anti-Dean backlash, supporters of candidates who don’t qualify for delegates could easily put another candidate ahead of Dean. Or, if Dean is a solid second choice of voters, or if the anti-Dean opposition is fiercely divided between Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards, Dean could emerge further ahead of the others than expected. Have there been incidences where the realignment seriously changed the outcome of the Iowa caucus, and, if so, would you please tell us about them?
SCHMIDT: The records should be available but it’s hard to get them and there is no real good research on “game theory” playing inside each precinct. One of my students is actually doing a survey of two representative caucuses inside the caucuses and we may get some interesting info from that!

TOM VILSACK, Iowa Governor, January 19, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Howard Dean has been built and then torn down by the press. Hasn’t this actually deflected criticism for whoever wins today’s Iowa caucuses, and thus allowed for today’s upset winner to catapult towards the Presidency?
VILSACK: Frankly all the candidates during the last year have been subjected to their fair share of critique and criticism. The winner or winners of the Iowa caucus will be better prepared for the very tough campaign because of their experience in Iowa.
CZIKOWSKY: It is my understanding no one keeps the records of the votes before and after the realignments. To me, this would be of great use to political scientists and journalists. Why aren’t these vote tallies kept?
VILSACK: Time and the desire on the part of others to know as quickly as possible who wins and who loses.

PHILIP KENNICOTT, Washington Post Culture Critic, January 23, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Is it true voters better trust taller candidates? If so, does that give Kerry an advantage over Dean?
KENNICOTT: I’ll leave that to sociologists. But I noticed something interesting watching Kerry in a crowd. Because he’s tall, and because he likes to get in close to people, he communicates on a vertical axis with most voters. They look up at him, and he looks down at them. Certainly there’s a power issue in that. But more interesting to me, that vertical axis acts to cut out the crowd. All the milling around is on the horizontal axis, but by taling up and down at each other, Kerry and his voter are in a separate, more quiet space.

RHODES COOK, author, January 26, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What are the possibilities that the Democratic Party will changes its rules giving first caucus and first primary privileges to Iowa and New Hampshire? Also, what do leading Republican Party officials think of making such changes?
COOK: I believe the Democrats are committed to a post-1004 review of the place of Iowa and New Hampshire in the nominating process, and I’m not sure how a final vote would go within the Democratic National Committee on allowing them to maintain their present leadoff status. I do know that the debate would be heated. As for the Republicans, they do not protect Iowa or New Hampshire in their rules.
CZIKOWSKY: Have you looked at the rules many state parties have to become a delegate? Part of the reason I believe parties keep the delegate system such a mystery is one has to be a party insider to become involved in the delegate selection process. The previous non-political, sudden fired-up citizen who wants to help elect someone President rarely has a chance to become involved in a Presidential campaign. Haven’t we kept the process closer to the politicians while giving it the appearance of being more open to the public?
COOK: Good point. In many states, delegates are elect to reflect primary results but the actual “bodies” that go to the convention are party leaders and activists, often selected before or after the primary in lightly attended caucuses. Candidates, too, tend to back loyal supporters as delegates. In short, you’re right that it is tough for an average voter to become a delegate.
CZIKOWSKY: I am from a “rubber stamp” state, Pennsylvania, that has its primary late in the process. When it is suggested the primary be moved to an earlier date, several legislators responded by stating that would move the whole process up, such as getting delegate candidates selected and then allowing them three weeks to get 250 valid signatures. They state if the process is moved to an earlier date, the delegate candidacy process would begin in December and would interfere with holidays. They point out that many candidates already have problems filing a full slate of delegates in Pennsylvania. Yet, I wonder: other states manage. Plus, if a process is so difficult, such as getting 250 valid signatures, maybe it is the process that needs to be redesigned along with moving the date up. My question: how do other states find delegate candidates and get people on the ballot when it is claimed it would be such a burden for Pennsylvanians to do the same?
COOK: That sounds like a cop out by the state legislators in question. Many states have moved away from listing delegates on the primary ballot, and select them separately before or after the primary in open caucuses. That means that only the candidate’s name is on the ballot, which is a simpler process for both filing and voting anyway. The “virtue” of having delegates listed on the ballot is that voters tend to select the better-known names, often state legislators. It is an antiquated system. But as a native of Pennsylvania, I am not surprised that it continues and even blocks meaningful primary reform.

HOWARD KURTZ, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 26, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: If a guy from Massachusetts puts on a uniform and drives a tank, he’s a geek. If a guy from Texas puts on a uniform and pilots a plane, he’s macho. If a guy from Vermont goes “yeaahh”, he’s a psycho. If a guy from Texas goes “yeeah” he’s cool. Did I get this correct?
KURTZ: I don’t think it would be the finest hour for any candidate, from any state, to engage in what Dean himself has called a “crazy, red-faced rant.” But the issue is not so much geography as the narrative the media create for each candidate. Dean has been painted as the angry candidate, and his whooping reinforced that image. The tank ride wounded Dukakis, in a way it might not have, say, John McCain, because he was seen as weak on defense. These images are oversimplified, of course, but they tend to drive the coverage.

KATHY SULLIVAN, New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair, January 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Some in the Democratic Party has moving to take away New Hampshire’s first primary status. What are your arguments for keeping New Hampshire as the state with the first primary?
SULLIVAN: It is an important process because it gives regular ordinary Americans a chance to interact with Presidential candidates. These are people who work for a living, make a mortgage payment every month, worry about paying for college tuition and worry about the failing health of their parents. We are just very ordinary Americans. New Hampshire, like Iowa, gives ordinary Americans a chance to help nominate a President. You can’t do that in a large state because the very nature of a large state election is based on big media and not on person to person contact the way that New Hampshire is.
CZIKOWSKY: Some political pundits claim that if Dean and/or Edwards finish third and/or fourth and if Clark finishes fifth, their candidacies may effectively end with the New Hampshire Primary. Is it fair to the rest of the nation to potentially allow the last minute decisions of a few hundred New Hampshire voters to deprive the rest of the nation from considering potential candidates for the Presidency?
SULLIVAN: I think the pundits are wrong. I think that almost every one of the candidates are going to go on from New Hampshire to the February 3rd primaries. New Hampshire has never been last in the nation, we are just first in the nation. Millions of Democrats are going to have their say next week ranging from South Carolina next Tuesday to Michigan a week from Sunday.
One last point, a candidate should be able to introduce him or herself on a person to person level in a small state. If they can’t do that then there is something wrong with either the candidate or that candidate’s campaign.

JAYNE MILLERICK, New Hampshire Republican Party State Chair, January 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Other than tradition, why should New Hampshire always be the site of the nation’s first primary?
MILLERICK: Hello. Thank you for the question.
We are very proud and honored to be the host of the First in the Nation Primary. There are several reasons why I believe our place in the nominating process actually provides a service to the rest of the nation, but here are just a few…
New Hampshire has a long history since the mid ‘50s of hosting the First Primary. This is important because over the years, our voters have grown to take their job very seriously. We study the candidates intensely, go out on cold nights to meet them personally, and many try to meet each one before deciding who will receive their support.
This is important to the process because New Hampshire voters tend to challenge candidates and ask them tough questions. This not only makes the candidates more capable, but the nation can be assured that the winner here is someone successful at winning votes on a personal level. After New Hampshire, there really isn’t any other state where this type of campaigning would be possible.
In addition, our state has a history of having the largest voter turnout on Primary day then any other state. This participation is important because the nation can be assued that the results are sound and represent our state well.
Great question.

LINDA FOWLER, Dartmouth College Political Science Professor, January 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Doesn’t New Hampshire also have a Vice Presidential primary? If so, has this primary ever been viewed seriously by the press or politicians?
FOWLER: There was a line on the ballot today to vote for a Vice President, but there were no candidates listed. I could have written in a name, but I didn’t bother. In my memory of three primaries, I don’t recall hearing someone campaign for Vice President, although that is clearly going on at a subliminal level for some of the candidates.

PETER CANELLOS, Boston Globe reporter, January 28, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Why do you think Joe Lieberman failed to connect with New Hampshire voters? Or, do you think perhaps he connected, but could never really convince them that he was their first choice?
CANELLOS: No one really knows why someone connects or doesn’t. But Lieberman is running to the right of the other candidates, and his strong support for the Iraq War may be a problem. Polls show a clear majority of Democrats are against the war. Still, Lieberman was banking on a strong showing among Independents, who are half the primary electorate, but he didn’t get it.

ADAM CLYMER, National Annenberg Election Survey Political Director, January 29, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I heard Ed Goeas once proclaim that the voters will not want to change Presidents in the middle of a war against terrorism. Is there any sign that voters are beginning to question whether the war is being fought properly, especially as it becomes more apparent Iraq was not the threat the White House earlier tried to portray it as?
CLYMER: Actually our data shows that a majority of people think that the war was worthwhile. That was down to about an even split in November after the helicopters were shot down, but since Bush’s visit to Baghdad and the capture of Saddam Hussein there is not a huge, but a solid majority, saying that the war in Iraq was worthwhile. That is different though from the War on Terrorism. I am not sure the standard rules about not changing a President in the midst of a war, factors which helped FDR in 1944 and Nixon in 1972, apply to a very serious problem with terrorism but one that does not seem to call for the same sacrifice that that World War II or the Vietnam War required of Americans. So I am not sure that Ed is right, but we will see next November.

LARRY J. SABATO, University of Virginia Political Science Professor, January 30, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Let us assume John Kerry wins the Democratic nomination. What does he need to do to win the November election? Would his chances be better running a ticket targeted to a national audience, as Clinton-Gore and Bush-Cheney did by going for a Kerry-Clark or Kerry-Lieberman ticket, or would it be wiser to select someone like Bob Graham who puts a critical state into play? Next, might both objectives be met with a Kerry-Edwards ticket, or does Edwards lack the pull to bring in Southern states to the ticket?
SABATO: Great question, and the answer will change between now and the Democratic National Convention in Boston in July. You might want to take a look at the Center for Politics Crystal Ball site rating Vice Presidential possibilities. Personally, I believe that the Democratic nominee, especially Kerry, should try for a VP candidate who can actually carry an important state or ethnic group. Real electoral votes are what the Democrat will need to have any chance of beating President Bush. Unfortunately, candidates are often taken in by the grand theorizing by their consultants and swamis. These individuals almost always make the case for a symbolic VP choice. On election night, the candidate usually regrets it.

WESLEY CLARK, JR., son of Presidential Candidate, Febuary 10, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I have an amusing story about your father. I have a Slavic last name yet am from Pennsylvania. I was wearing a pin that crosses the American flag with the Pennsylvania flag. I was introduced to your father and I could tell he was trying to make out my flag pin. At the end of our conversation, he mentioned that I speak English very well. I wondered what country he thought I was from. Or, maybe he knows about the difficulties about Pennsylvania’s public school system. We had a nice chuckle when he learned about my homeland of Pennsylvania.
Is your father always such an easy going gentleman? In my short conversation, he was not the stiff, military person that one stereotypes Generals to be. What is your father really like?
CLARK: He is exactly the man you met. He has always been an easygoing guy who is quick to laugh. I remember when he was Colonel and written in graffiti in one of bathroom stalls it said “Colonel Clark is civies ain’t s*&#.” He laughed about that at home and said the guy was absolutely right. That is the kind of guy dad is.

PRAVEEN FERNANDES, Human Rights Campaign Public Policy Advocate, February 24, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: A pollster claimed the only significant shift of groups of voters he has found from the 2000 to the 2004 Presidential elections are people who tend to vote Democratic on economic issues and Republican on social issues. This group, which tended to vote Republican in 2000, is trending more Democratic as the unemployment rate increases. Yet, polls find many of these voters switch back to the Republican column when the gay marriage issue is mentioned. Do you see political advantage as a reason why Bush may try and make gay marriage an issue in the upcoming election?
FERNANDES: I don’t want to presume to know the Administration is pushing this issue. However, personally, it does seem like political opportunism in its most base form. Some of our political have referred to LGBT issues as “weapons of mass distraction”, meant to focus voters away from issues that polls tell us are the true concerns of Americans—the economy, health care access, and foreign policy.

ROBERT G. KAISER, Washington Post Associate Editor, March 3, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: President Bush has labeled himself as a war President. I believe he hopes voters will not vote to change Presidents in the middle of a war. Yet, I wonder if voters might slowly tire of the war in the coming months. Or, if there is another terrorist strike, perhaps the public will rally around the President. What are your thoughts on the President’s self-depiction as a war President?
KAISER: Another good question. The war President pose is a classic two-edged sword, I think. Its success may well depend on how the country feels next October and November. Do we feel like a country under siege? Or will the wars then feel more the way they do today: serious but not overwhelming, and not the most important issue before us?
Polls today show voter concerns are focused not on Iraq or terrorism, but on a variety of issues more favorable to the Democrats, from health care to jobs. That of course could change dramatically, and quickly, with unforeseeable events during the year.

HOWARD DEAN, Presidential Candidate, March 31, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on other Democratic leaning organizations, such as the Americans for Democratic Action and the Democratic Leadership Council? How will your organization (Democracy for America) fit in, or in competition, with such groups?
DEAN: Both those groups are think-tanks, in the case of the DLC, and advocacy groups, in the case of ADA. Our interest is getting people elected in the grassroots and federal level. Our major expertise is organization and outreach so there is no direct competition. We will be allied with such groups such as 21st Century Democrats which also does grassroots organizing.

RICHARD LEIDY, Washington Post Staff Writer, May 14, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Should it bother me that 38 million people voted in the latest “Survivor” contest while 50 million people voted for Bush in 2000? Should Bush replace Cheney with Rupert on his ticket?
LEIDY: But seriously, folks…I do still pick up rumblings that Cheney may not be on the ticket. If only John McCain were a Republican, what a great Veep choice he’d make for Bush.

E.J. DIONNE, JR., author, June 11, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Jimmy Carter and his fellow Democrats may have had the right idea when they declared the energy crisis was the moral equivalent of war, yet they then never rallied the troops to go into battle. Ronald Reagan understood that the public prefers to hear upbeat messages and follow them through with policies he wanted passed. I think Democrats have always offered a better package than Republicans—environmental protection, funds to schools, equitable taxes—yet, they always packaged their issues in terms that sounded desperate and tragic. Shouldn’t they take a lesson from Reagan and be more upbeat about things? If Kerry could package his energy “Manhattan Plan” as a call to Americans to show their dedication in achieving success in our country, he can beat Bush, who lately has begun to come across as a little gloomy lately.
DIONNE: Could not agree more about being more upbeat. Reagan brilliantly stole optimism from the Democrats, and Bill Clinton won in 1992 because he stole it back. Agree that energy is a promising area where a combination of private incentives and public spending could push us in the right direction. The country is no mood for higher energy taxes, though as former Republican Congressman and Independent Presidential candidate John Anderson suggested back in 1980, if energy taxes were included as part of a package that included offsetting tax reductions, we could at least being a debate we ought to have. But even without energy taxes, there is a lot to be done.
And, again, hope and optimism beats pessimism in the United States almost every time.

STEVEN PEARLSTEIN, Washington Post Business and Economy Columnist, June 16,2004
CZIKOWSKY: You have made very informative observations on the candidates’ economic policies. How would you compare the candidates’ health care policies?
PEARLSTEIN: Bush essentially has no serious health care plan. Kerry’s is actually quite good, now that we have the details flushed out. It’s probably more ambitious than he wants to let on. And while I might quibble with some of the features, it is reasonable, attacks the big problems, works within the existing employer-oriented insurance system and avoids many of the political and design problems of the Clinton plan, from which it borrows the best ideas.

MARK PLOTKIN, WTOP Political Commentator, June 22, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: After months of nervous speculation, I am glad the Vice Presidential selection process is finally over and we have a running mate named.
So, what do you think Peter Camejo brings to the Nader ticket? Also, has Mr. Camejo ever described his personal philosophical journey from a socialist activist to an environmental activist, and does he still support a socialized economy, or have his views changed over time, and is Nader signaling a leftist turn in his movement by picking Camejo? While the far left squabbles over its 2 percent of the vote, it is interesting watching the purity debates between the differing philosophies within the political left, many of whom refuse to accept the others’ leftist philosophies and who seem to work harder against their fellow leftists then they do the political right.
PLOTKIN: The choosing of Camejo is a strategic one. He is a member of the Green Party and the Green Party has ballot access in most of the states. Nader you know is not a member of the Green Party but wants to be endorsed by them and with that he would get access to more state ballots and the District of Columbia by virtue of that association. Camejo is a provocative speaker, has some recognition having run for President before, and you know he ran for Governor of California. Nader in the most recent ABC-Post poll gets 8 percent of the national vote. It should be noted that he only got 3.2 percent last time, so instead of him going away, at this point he is increasing his strength.

LARRY J. SABATO, University of Virginia Political Analyst, June 23, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: While the elector vote contest appears close, isn’t it true that a nationwide shift of a few percentage points to one candidate or the other could result in an electoral vote landslide? If so, couldn’t this election hinge on a single emerging major issue or major event that could shift the entire election? If so, what are the possibilities of such a major shift occurring?
SABATO: Of course. The last time America had two or more very close elections consecutively was between 1876 and 1888. It is rare to have a squeaker repeated just four years later. I would not be surprised at all if the American public (in late October) made a decisive shift to one or the other major party candidates. It doesn’t take much imagination to suggest how this could happen. A domestic terrorist event, a terrible mistake by one of the candidates in a Presidential event, a dramatic improvement or decline in the economy—any of these things could turn a close election into a landslide.

JOE LOCKHART, Former White House Press Secretary, July 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It is the conventional wisdom that the candidates from each political convention get a temporary boost in the polls after each convention. Do you have any predictions on how much of an immediate post-convention boost we should expect Kerry and Bush to each receive, and what might it mean if the numbers are different this year than in past years?
LOCKHART: Think the bounce numbers will be smaller for both candidates this year because the public has taken an earlier interest in this race than in previous years and a very large percentage of Americans have made up their mind as to who to vote for. The bounce is generally a reflection of the undecideds going back and forth and with the pool so small this year the so-called bounce will also be smaller, but I think that will be the case for both candidates.

LUCIAN PERKINS, photographer, July 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: When delegates get dressed up in large hats, wearing lots of buttons, and wearing donkeys or elephants, does that make for a good picture, a silly picture, or just a fun picture for us all?
PERKINS: All the above.

E.J. DIONNE, JR. , columnist, July 28, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: From a 19th century time machine: Now that Kucinich has withdrawn and endorsed Kerry, is there any excitement over who the nominee will be? Maybe political leaders gather this evening and agree upon a dark horse?
DIONNE: That would make our lives as journalists interesting. But I don’t see it happening. I think one of the useful ways to watch this Convention is to see it as a preview of the campaign to come. In particular, I am struck by how one speaker after another—Clinton, Kennedy, Obama especially—are all highlighting G.O.P. “divisiveness.” This idea will be deployed a lot in the fall to push back Republican attacks, especially on “social” and “values” issues. Thanks.

GEORGE McGOVERN, Former Presidential Candidate, July 28, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: At the 1972 Democratic National Convention, you asked that we “come home, America.” In 2004, what will it take for America to finally come home?
McGOVERN: My theme in 1972 “Come Home America” was to call the nation back to our founding principles as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. This is the same theme I am emphasizing in much greater detail in my book. The title of the book is “The Essential America: Our Founders and the Liberal Tradition.”

ELIOT L. SPITZER, New York Attorney General, July 28, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: You have been in the forefront against fraudulent actions by securities and stocks brokers. Is this something that should be a national issue, or is this primarily an issue that should be left to state regulators? Do state regulators have the capability to tackle this industry? Is this an issue Kerry should address?
SPITZER: The issue of integrity in the capital markets absolutely should be addresses primarily by the Federal regulatory entity charged with that obligation—mainly the SEC and it is primarily because of the SEC’s failure to be aggressive in this domain that I felt obligated to intervene. I fully expect that Sen. Kerry will make integrity in the marketplace a piece of his campaign.

RICHARD MORIN, Washington Post Polling Director, August 2, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Polls are good for showing the national mood, yet how do the polls break down according to electoral votes? I have seen some attempts to report various polls by state. Of course, the dates the polls are taken in different states varies, and this lead to inconclusive analysis in a tight race. Is there any indication that either candidate is making inroads within the critical tossup states?
MORIN: Work by Gallup suggests that the national polls typically do a good job modeling the Electoral College outcome, to the extent that the candidate leading in the polls wins the Electoral College. Oddly enough, the Post and other major polling organizations had Bush ahead in 2000 and he won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. So we were wrong but right, right?

LUIS LUGO, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Director, and SCOTT KEETER, Pew Research Center Survey Research Director, August 25, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Where do people without strong religious ties fall within the political spectrum?
LUGO and KEETER: People with relatively weak religious beliefs, or who don’t regularly attend religious services, have tended to vote Democratic. And in our current survey, secular individuals are supporting John Kerry over President Bush by a 3-1 margin (67% Kerry, 23% Bush). This secular category constitutes about 1 in 10 voters.
CZIKOWSKY: Do you survey the relative weights of issues? For instance, how important and the economic and war issues compared to social issues when people determine which candidates they will prefer?
LUGO and KEETER: Yes. We asked about 11 different issues and how important each would be in the vote. The report (available on our web sites) goes into a lot of detail on this, but the bottom line is that several issues cluster at the top in terms of the percentage saying that they are very important in the vote: the economy (76), terrorism (75%), health care (72%), Iraq and education (70% each).
But different issues matter to different voters. Religion-related issues such as moral values, abortion, and gay marriage also made the list but further down (though moral values was very important to 64%). But these issues were particular important to Bush voters.

JEFF SHOSOL and KENNETH KHACHIGIAN, former Presidential speechwriters, August 31, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: There supposedly was a “new conventional wisdom” in politics that it is best to campaign with a positive approach, wait for your opponent to go negative, and then go negative yourself. That way, you appear above board and your opponent appears to be below board. Is this conventional wisdom still good, or is this old wisdom that is being replaced by a “new, new conventional wisdom”? I ask because this seems to be the strategy that Kerry was following and, while we may see in November if it worked, so far it seems to be working in Bush’s favor as people wonder why Kerry didn’t attack first and now Bush is left to define Kerry as a person through negative comments.
SHESOL: As you’ve seen, the conventional wisdom is useful only until campaign dynamics shift, and then what seemed wise last week appears stupid this week.
I read the positive/negative trajectory a little differently than you do. I think Kerry started off slashing—a legacy of Dean’s influence in the Dem primaries as much as anything else. The rest of the electorate didn’t much like this approach (as Edward’s success in the primaries showed), and Kerry made a dramatic shift toward a more positive campaign. I’ve probably not got the numbers exactly right, but the Post reported only 27% or so of Kerry’s ads were negative.
Bush, meanwhile, has been aggressively on the attack from the start—something like 75% of his own ads (vs. 527s’s) has been negative. That strategy—of tearing Kerry down—was seen last night in Guilian’s speech and others. The President is having trouble getting his positives about 50%--so he’s got to shred Kerry to win. This is going to get a whole lot uglier, and as you see, Kerry increasingly feels he’s got to respond in kind, lest he become another Dukakis.
KHACHIGIAN: My view is that this is a democracy…we should expect our candidates to be tough, aggressive, pointed—to draw the picture sharply. The advantage in Presidential races is that by the end, television and radio commercials are not as dispositive because there is also an enormous amount of free media to balance. But the sharp, well thought out negative ad clearly can punch through with a lot of repetition. Somehow Americans sort it all out at the end of the day, and remember Kerry had the advantage of eight fellow candidates out there for at least half a year pounding Bush…don’t blame the Bushies for wanting to balance things out.

MARK PLOTKIN. WTOP Political Commentator, September 1, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Nelson Rockefeller may live, but don’t you get the feel that Republicans are saying to people who liked Rockefeller, and who now like people such as Guiliani, McCain, etc., please give us your votes and then leave? Is there really a future for moderates and (shudder) liberals in a Republican Party that has been captured by the religious right and corporate conservatives and seems bent on not sharing power with the likes of any Northeast Rockefeller-style Republican?
PLOTKIN: Moderates in the Republican Party are an endangered species. There was an op-ed piece in Monday’s New York Times by former Senator Ed Brooke that was very tough, asking his party to be more inclusive and progressive. In addition a full page ad was taken out by a group of moderates, former Governors Milliken and Cargo, and former Sen. Matthias, expressing the same view. The platform of the party is decidedly conservative and on the issue of stem cell research even the conservatives such as Orrin Hatch have changed their position. No less a conservative than formerly disgraced Speaker of the House Next Gingrich appeared on a panel saying that the Republican Party, if it wants to succeed, has to have a prominent moderate wing. Christie Todd Whitman is writing a book saying it is her party, too. George Bush knows he has problems with this constituency and that is why you are seeing all these moderate faces on prime time. George Pataki, the Governor of New York who definitely would like to be described as a moderate, is place George Bush’s name in nomination on Thursday. You don’t see Tom DeLay doing that. He is in the political Guantanamo—invisible and put away somewhere.

DAN BALZ, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 1, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Are we able to get anyone who served with Mayor Guiliani who can state that “I served with Mayor Guiliani, and when the terrorists struck, the Mayor turned to me and said he’s glad George Bush is President?”
BALZ: Good question. I hope the New York press corps is working on this.

DAVID S. BRODER, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 2, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: So is John McCain fully committed to the Bush campaign, and will pledge to spend the next few months personally campaigning to see that Bush carries Iowa and New Hampshire?
BRODER: Senator McCain has told me and other reporters he will be campaigning for the President and other Republicans all over the country for the next two months. I don’t suppose he knows exactly what states will be on his itinerary as yet.

AL FRANKEN, comedian, September 2, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Shall we concede the girlie men vote to the Democrats?
FRANKEN: I hope so. We need every vote we can get. But I really believe Schwarzenegger made a mistake. I don’t think that unemployed steel workers in Pennsylvania would appreciate being called girly men.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC Host, September 23, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Do you think the primaries offer a proper choice of candidates with different philosophies from which to choose? If so, is it the outcomes of primaries and the need to win general elections that minimizes the differences between the two political parties, or, if not, what causes these minimal differences between the political parties?
SCARBOROUGH: Fear. John Kerry darted to the left to slow down Howard Dean’s astronomical rise. When Dean fell into disfavor, he darted to the right. After winning the nomination, Kerry put on a convention that looked like a military parade. And when he saw his poll numbers dropping, he once again darted to the left.
Like John Kerry, Republican Presidential candidates do this sort of flip-flopping all the time, However, George W. Bush has appeared to be steady on the issue of Iraq and the war on terror and that is why voters seem to be gravitating to his camp.
Ronald Reagan is a good example of a politician who gave the same speech for 40 years whether he was in a primary runoff or a general election. He was rewarded for his consistency. Today’s politicians in both parties would do well to follow his lead.

DAVID COBB, Green Party Presidential Candidate, September 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: How would you settle the situation in Iraq while keeping the international community calm and supportive towards America’s intentions. Do you believe Bush’s policies have made us more or less safe?
COBB: Bush’s policies—especially the illegitimate unconstitutional and illegal war in Iraq—has made America less safe by creating conditions for more terrorism. The Green Party calls for a fundamental change in American foreign policy moving us away from a foreign policy that protects the interest in a trans-national corporate empire. True global security can be achieved by supporting the human rights of people throughout the world and a Green Party Administration would lead the way to that change.
CZIKOWSKY: Who is your running mate? In a sudden rise of dissatisfaction of the two major parties and you are elected, what do you both bring to the Presidency and Vice Presidency that will enable you both to be good leaders?
COBB: My running mate is Patricia LaMarche. Patricia is a single mother of two who raised her children without health insurance and her older child just entered Bar University. Patricia and I are both from hard-working working-class backgrounds and we know what average Americans experience every day because we ARE ordinary Americans. We are the only non-millionaires running for President in this election. As such we are both uniquely qualified to understand what ordinary Americans need from our government. And what we need is to end war as foreign policy, to develop sustainable energy sources, healthcare for all people, and a real living wage for workers. Patricia and I represent the only political party that is calling for the kind of changes Americans need.
CZIKOWSKY: The Green Party, if I am not mistaken, began as a political party that primarily advanced environmental issues. Is that still your primary focus, or have you moved to a broader range of issues?
COBB: Actually, since its inception, the Green Party has been led by four interconnected priorities: Ecology, Social Justice, Democracy, and a commitment to non-violence as the only way to enact meaningful change. Greens are often assumed to be only ecologists, but we understand the interconnectedness of ecology and social issues. That is why Greens are leading the political change for living wages, universal healthcare, and changing the racist criminal justice system.

ROBERT G. KAISER, Washington Post Associate Managing Editor, October 22, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: The voter registration lists in Pennsylvania are useless. They do not eliminate names when people don’t vote after several years, as they used to. What this means is that people who have died or moved remain on the voting lists. This means political campaigns waste time and money sending materials and knocking on doors seeking voters who no longer exist.
Yet, a real problem I see with this is that it is setting the stage for mass confusion on election day. Today, I heard our Senator Rick Santorum state it is “obvious” there is voter fraud because there are now more registered voters in Philadelphia than there are people. Yet, I wonder if he understands the reason why that is, is because the list is padded because names are not being removed. I can see it now: if Kerry wins Pennsylvania, the Republicans are set to scream fraud.
On the other side, I see numerous attempts to dissuade voters in urban areas from voting: trying to move polling places, warning people they can be arrested if they don’t have ID, mass confusion over provisional balloting, etc. If Bush wins, I can see Democrats screaming foul.
Isn’t this going to be one messed up election?
KAISER: Could be.

LOUIS JACOBSON, “Roll Call” Deputy Editor, October 25, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: This may be an election where local political operatives will play more of a role than they did in recent Presidential elections. Both parties in Pennsylvania seemed prepared to challenge voters over the ID issue, and force people to use provisional ballots, and then challenge those in courts. These provisional ballots could make the margin of victory, which, in a close election, means the courts will be determining who wins. How important do you see field operations being in this election?
JACOBSON: Obviously, grass roots field operations will be extremely important—and already have been already, in the voter registration phase.
You bring up an interesting issue about provisional ballots. On the one hand, the idea made sense when it was proposed” Why not take someone’s provisional vote rather than immediately disenfranchising them? But I’m worried now about how all this will play out, for the same reason I cited earlier with the Colorado Electoral College issue. I’m not sure how it will be done in each state, but what I can foresee happening, if the votes cast are known when it’s being determined whether they should count or not, is that the parties tailor their arguments to the voting results rather than the question of whether the ballot was legitimate or not. You could even have partisan lawyers argue that one standard should hold a certain way in one state, and the opposite standard should hold in another state, just because that’s how they can maximize the number of votes for their candidate. I’d rather see a veil of ignorance over the results before these cases are decided—but I’m not holding my breath.

ELIZABTH SPAYD, Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor, October 27, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Yesterday’s newspapers state thousands of ballots are being challenged in Ohio. In Pennsylvania, scores of lawyers on both sides are preparing to challenge voters and either scare them away or make them vote on provisional ballots which means there will be later court challenges. Is there a chance that this election will be decided not by the intention of the voters but by who has the sharper lawyers? I fear there will be a deterioration of respect for democracy if this election becomes a repeat of the 2000 elections where it is decided by the courts. Are my fears justified?
SPAYD: I think the nature of elections in this country—and the role of lawyers—changed dramatically after the 2000 election. Like it or not, we’re almost surely in for plenty of litigation and legal challenge. Whether those efforts will be decisive in this election won’t be known ‘til Tuesday. Some people will take the contrarian view that this attention to the voting process is actually cleaning up our elections by identifying problems that have existed all along but had never been spotted.

JOHN ZOGBY, pollster, October 29, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What issues seem to be motivating voters in who they are choosing for President: is it the economy, is it the war, is it terrorism, or is it all three, or two out of three, or what?
ZOGBY: The top four issues are the economy, the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, and health care. The economy has stayed number one all year, but the most emotional and intense issue is the war in Iraq. Of the four top issues, Kerry wins double digits in three out of the four, but the President leads overwhelmingly regarding the war on terrorism.

ANA MARIE COX, “Wonkette” blogger, October 31, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Is your prediction (of the Presidential election) based on what you think the outcome will be after all the ballots are counted, or what the outcome will be after all the court cases have been decided over the following weeks?
COX: My prediction is based on the Magic Eight Ball we keep in the bathroom. Really, I am probably the least informed of all the Crystal Ball respondents. I do think it’ll be close, but I think even Osama thinks it’ll be close and he has almost no polling data to go on.

LARRY J. SABATO, University of Virginia Political Analyst, November 1, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Voter turnout should be a key factor in tomorrow’s election, except, really, tomorrow’s election began several days ago with absentee and early balloting. Is it true that I the past, early balloting tended to favor Republicans and this year it is trending towards Kerry?
SABATO: The record varies by state, but it is fair to say that in many of the key battleground states, absentee balloting and early voting used to be more Republican, but this year apparently more Democrats are showing up. This is an exciting development for Dems, but Republicans claim their GOTV efforts are aimed at Election Day itself. We will find out which party’s boasts are more accurate starting Tuesday night.
CZIKOWSKY: Ann Coulter predicts Bush will get 317 electoral votes. Is it fair to state she is being unduly optimistic and partisan?
SABATO: Your bet is a good one! I’m always prepared to be surprised, but I might have to go on some intravenous fluids if either candidate gets 317.

KOJO NNAMDI, television show host, November 2, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It is time for a really bold prediction: Will Nader get over 0.5 percent of the total vote?
NNAMDI: I predicted 3 percent for Nader, based on the following. The claims are that a great number of college students will be among the new voters, and I think those who are primarily interested in environmental issues, those who think Kerry is too moderate, will note Nader. I don’t think they were picked up in the polls either.

DAN BALZ, Washington Post Staff Writer, November 4, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: If I understand this correctly, $600 million was spent to get voters to change their minds about politics, and the only change from the 2000 to 2004 elections was New Hampshire went from the Republican column to the Democratic column. That probably more reflected that Kerry was the Democratic nominee and had a long time connection to New Hampshire voters than any major philosophical shift. Did any of this advertising connect to any large group of voters?
BALZ: If you talk to some of the strategists privately, they’ll suggest the ads did not fundamentally change attitudes. In states like Florida and Ohio, Kerry and the Democrats had much larger advertising buys the final week, and yet they couldn’t turn the tide in those states. Advertising is an expensive and necessary part of politics, but the 2004 campaign was a reminder that the parties know personal contact and getting out the vote often court as much or more.

DONNA BRAZILE, Democratic stragegist, and PEGGY NOONAN, Republican strategist, November 5, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: How much, if at all, difference would the election have been if Kerry had selected Bob Graham as his running mate? Could Graham have successfully gone on the offensive on intelligence and terrorism and diminished one of Bush’s key issues? Could Graham have carried Florida for the Democratic ticket?
BRAZILE: After each election, I like to spend time looking at what worked and what failed. As a Democrat, we must spend some time reflecting on the last four years and what went right and what went wrong.
John Edwards was a great choice for the ticket. He gave us hope, inspiration, and was articulate on the stump. Senator Graham, along with Senator Nelson and the Congressional delegation, worked hard for a Kerry-Edwards victory in Florida. I know. I spent considerable time there myself.
Let us go forward now. Work even harder for an America was can all be proud of.
NOONAN: You can always Monday morning quarterback this stuff, but I don’t think Kerry was going to win, period. He ran as a mystery. People don’t elect mysteries. He ran as a guy who had four months in Viet Nam, lay down for 20 years in a cryogenic chamber, woke up in 2003, and said I’m going to run for President, He couldn’t run on the past 20 years of his adulthood. That was bad. Ya gotta run on what you are. He didn’t because he couldn’t.
CZIKOWSKY: Despite the fact that this election has been decided, is there still concern about the integrity of the electoral process? Where is the outrage over the challenges to new voters and the delays caused by provisional ballots that created long lines that led to many urban voters to not vote, where is the outrage over the statements that urban voters can vote on Wednesday and avoid the long lines, where is the concern that the electronic machines tended to malfunction when someone voted straight Democratic (yet I did not hear anyone all day complain that the machine malfunctioned because they were voting straight Republican)? Instead, all I hear is Senator Santorum claiming voter fraud because there are more registered voters than there are people, and I keep pointing out that the Elections Bureau does not delete names when people move, which actually makes it harder to campaign in Democratic urban areas because the voter registration lists contain so many names of people who have died or moved that it wastes time and money mailing and calling on voters who are no longer there. Where is the outrage?
BRAZILE: I’m with you on making sure the election was conducted in a proper manner. Yesterday, I called on Chairman McAuliffe to send a letter to every Secretary of State to ensure all the ballots are counted.
Democrats did everything possible to protect and promote the rights of all citizens to participate in the process.
As Senator Kerry said, we will work to ensure every vote was counted. But, when it’s all over, we have much work to do in completing the job of updating and reforming our electoral system.
No American should have to stand to line for five hours to vote. No American should be purged prior to election day because he or she forgot to fill in one blank space.
Instead of encouraging every person to participate, the Republican went out of their way to repudiate some votes, in some neighborhoods, and in communities. Shame on them for trying to create chaos at the polls.

MARK PLOTKIN, WTOP political commentator, December 1, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I know if I pose this question, the response I am likely to get is: move on with life, forget about it. Yet, I wish to seriously ask: when the GAO studies errors in counting the votes, will this study also have anyone checking the programming of the machines and perhaps a random sample of testing how the machines count the votes? I am certain Bush won, yet legitimate questions are still out there. A Temple University statistician found that the odds of the exit polls all being so wrong by chance are one million to one (as published in the Philadelphia Inquirer). Now, perhaps there are grievous errors with the exit polls themselves, which I believe is more likely than the possibility that the election was fixed. Yet, the mathematics of this does require we determine where the errors occurred. Does anyone other than statistical academicians and paranoid Kerry supporters care to find out what went wrong with the exit polls and the final count?
PLOTKIN: Exit polls are obviously a very inexact science. I along with many others got information concerning the election and thought Kerry was in very good shape. They now say that the sample that the exit polls used was heavily weighed toward women voters and thus it was flawed. I have been told that Kerry himself having been informed of the exit polls on Election Day was very euphoric and thought he was the winner too. Obviously you can’t count on them and there is no way that the average observer knows whether the sample utilized is representative of the overall electorate. I am not a statistician but all of these polls require a lot of trust and they respond to the desire of people to know the results before the results are really in. A good person to talk to about this is Peter Hart.

HOWARD KURTZ, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 11, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: I watched some of the discussions on the CBS News report on the Bush military records story, and I heard several reporters and commentators mention how the story on Bush was wrong. I realize the memos were faked and CBS did not properly ascertain that they had authentic firsthand memos. Yet, did the report conclude that the basis of the story was false? It is my recollection that the secretary who typed the original memos confirmed the memos were fake because they were not written in the style language her boss used, but I thought she agreed that the basic facts of the memos were correct. It seemed to me as if someone who had seen the original memos had made a feeble attempt to recreate them, and perhaps he did so for a political agenda. Yet, does the report make any conclusion that the allegation that Bush shirked his military duty was in fact fabricated, or is the original story still a possibility that Bush did fail to perform his full military obligation?
KURTZ: The report offered no conclusion on whether the underlying accusations about Bush having received favorable treatment in the Guard was true or not. The panel said it could not prove the documents were fakes but that CBS has “failed miserably” in trying to authenticate them and should not have aired the story.

EVAN THOMAS, “Newsweek” Assistant Managing Editor, January 20, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: How do you assess the importance of voters concerns over the war and the military experience of the two candidates? Was it Kerry ‘s misfortunes that the Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry changes against him stuck, and that the charges against Bush that he did not fulfill his military obligation wound up instead blowing up in CBS’s face, essentially sealed the victory for Bush?
THOMAS: Kerry should have been favored on this issue, but he failed to explain how he became anti-war when he came home. Bush in effect said, you already know I went into the Guard in part to avoid Viet Nam. He had a lot of company.
CZIKOWSKY: It seems the Republicans have most of the Southern states wrapped up and the Democrats have most of the Northeastern and West Coast states wrapped up. The battles are likely going to remain for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Florida. Do you think Evan Bayh or Mark Warner could make the Democrats competitive enough to win in 2008?
THOMAS: Only if they really find a way to sound—sincerely—like red state Americans. Warner maybe more than Bayh, who seems a little bland and too Eastern educated to me.

MICHAEL LEAHY, Washington Post Staff Writer, February 22, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: I recall a poll during the Watergate crisis that asked who people claim they had voted for in 1972. Interestingly, most people claimed they had voted for McGovern. Did George McGovern like it that, just a few years later, it seemed the majority of American agreed with him on Nixon?
LEAHY: McGovern does chuckle over that poll you referenced. I think it’s fair that it warms him considerably. Remember that the break-in, and the start of the coverup, occurred in June, 1972. The story did not resonate with the American public in any serious way until early 1973. McGovern and Frank Mankiewicz often had telephone conversations in ’73 during which they lamented that the Watergate scandal had not broken six months earlier. McGovern believes (rightly so, I think it’s fair to say) that the uncovering of the scandal in the midst of the campaign would have changed things dramatically. But he is careful not to conclude that he would have necessarily won under those circumstances.
Going back to McGovern’s campaign mistakes (the Eagleton affair; the late acceptance speech, etc.): He believes that if he had better handled such things, he would likely have still lost, but that he would have probably carried something in the realm of 10-15 states and been quite credible for the 1976 race.

JOHN F. HARRIS, Washington Post Reporter, June 2, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Why is aspiring to the Presidency considered a bad thing, and no one wants to ever admit they are considering running for President? Frankly, I admire someone who say: yes, I want the job, I’ve been studying how to do the best I can for years, and I am ready to fight to be the best person for the job.
HARRIS: I totally agree. I don’t understand why (Hillary Clinton) can’t admit the obvious…”Yes, I’ll give serious thought to this if it looks like the right thing to do in 2007. Most voters assume this to be the case in any event, I feel sure.

MARKOS MOULITSAS, Daily Kos blog Founder, May 8, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I personally like how Russ Feingod has been having the courage to state things before others do; while others seem to wait and make certain the political winds have shifted enough for them to follow with similar sentiments. Yet, it seems pundits keep dismissing Feingold as “unelectable”. What makes pundits think someone like that doesn’t have a chance?
MOULITSAS: Two divorces, no family to use as campaign props, and he’s short. Some would add that being Jewish is a potential problem, though I’d like to think that’s no longer an issue.

JOHN F. HARRIS, Washington Post National Political Editor, May 25, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I have found Chris Dodd to be an intelligent, straight talker who I always thought would make a good President and probably a good candidate with his straight talking mannerisms. Yet, as he seems to be thinking about actually running, do you see a scenario where he rises from this large pact and can win?
HARRIS: Dodd did surprise people this week by saying he is considering a Presidential run.
He’s a formidable politician, and I can see the scenarios where he would be the Democratic nominee, but to be honest they seem remote to me.
It seems likely that Hillary Clinton will start out as the dominant figure in the race, and someone will emerge as the chief alternative to her. There is going to be a LOT of competition to be that alternative.

WILLIAM J. BENNETT, former U.S. Education Secretary, June 12, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Why are you not running for President? You would at least add thoughtful debate and raise the level of discussions amongst the candidates.
BENNETT: There are plenty of good people out there. Start in your own backyard for supporting Rick Santorum and getting behind Lynn Swann. How about the Republicans? Lynn Swann, Michael Steele, and Kenneth Blackwell. Not to mention Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy, and Newt and a lot others. Brains, attractiveness, leadership, even some really cool guys.

DOUG BAILEY, Unity ’08 Founders Council Member, June 27, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: It is my understanding that you intend to put up two independent candidates to appeal to people in their retrospective parties. Does this mean you will promise to run a candidate from an unrepresented faction of both parties?
BAILEY: The Unity08 online convention will nominate one R and one D, in whatever order for a Unity Ticket. They will run for the nomination as a team and they will be nominated by the convention as a team (just the way we vote for the two top slots with one vote in November). Independents may also run if they present a unity team that includes members of both parties.
CZIKOWSKY: Lowell Weicker for President. What do you think of that idea for an independent candidacy?
BAILEY: He’s one of about 75 rational names we have heard. I like most of them, including Weicker.

DAVID S. BRODER, Washington Post Columnist, September 1, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I heard a couple of political pundits state that John McCain has a legendary temper and they both (one a Republican and the other a Democratic pollster) predicted that McCain’s temper will prevent him from winning the Presidency. Does he really have a bad temper, it is really that legendary, and is having a temper a major issue that voters consider when picking a President?
BRODER: Senator McCain in his earlier political years sometimes displayed a temper that alarmed other people. I saw no sign of it during the pressures of the 2000 campaign and I do not hear those stories from colleagues any more. I think the Senator has worked hard and successfully to find other ways to vent his frustrations.

JONATHAN WEISMAN, Washington Post Congressional Reporter, November 10, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Does Tom Vilsack’s announcing for President so early give him any special advantages, or does it mean it just lets his name be placed next to Mike Gravel’s name of the only announced Democratic candidates? Do official announcements really matter in the grand scheme of things?
WEISMAN: With Mark Warner out of the race, there will be a hunt for a Democratic Governor, since Senators seem to have a lousy record and the other big names are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Vilsack is saying, look at me. But all eyes ARE on Congress right now, so I’m not sure what he gets out of it.

LYNNE DUKE. Washington Post Staff Writer, December 18, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Earlier, the Washington post printed an article about the possibility of an article of a Clinton-Clinton ticket. I think the whole discussion missed a different scenario, and that is another Democrat-Bill Clinton ticket. What better way to unite the Democrats than to nominate an “anti-Hillary” Democrat for President and Bill Clinton for Vice President? Plus, how could anyone argue Bill Clinton’s qualifications for the office?
DUKE: For Bill Clinton to become Vice Presidential candidate on a ticket other than Hillary’s, that would surely be perceived as an effort to get another shot at the Presidency.

FRANK LUNTZ. Pollster, February 2, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Since you are not a Democrat, how would you rate the candidates of the other party regarding their communication skills? Does Hillary come across sincere or is she too cautious? Is Chris Dodd a good outspoken and Joe Biden a bad outspoken? How do you rate them?
LUNTZ: Barack Obama is the best because he’s natural. He doesn’t use sound bites or clichés. He speaks like a human being. Biden is second best when he is speaking from the heart, even if he occasionally says things that trip him up. Edwards delivers the best 15 minute stump speech, but he doesn’t give Q&A, and that’s a mistake. Sen. Clinton needs to speak more from the heart and needs to be more inclusive in her language. She’s the most divisive of all the candidates.

EDWARD BROOKE, former United States Senator, February 8, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I remember arguing that Nixon should have selected you to be his running mate. As Nixon had the ability to go to China without drawing the great criticism from conservatives, I believe Nixon could have done much to bridge the racial divide had he made more of an effort and working with you on this. What do you think you might have been able to achieve as Vice President and how well do you believe the nation would have taken to a Nixon-Brooke ticket?
BROOKE: Well there were polls taken showing what a Nixon-Brooke ticket had, and it was a favorable poll, as was a poll taken with a Romney-Brooke ticket, and there was a Ford-Brooke ticket. I didn’t take it that seriously at the time in the history of the country. I would much rather have run for President than been on any ticket as a VP. I’m sort of a maverick and independent and the VP of course is sort of an extension of the President—if you disagree with him you shouldn’t be there. I thought about it at the time and I don’t think it would have been a handicap and in some polls it should have been a winning combination. But that’s conjecture. I don’t think it will be too long, I think soon Americans will look closely at Black candidates and a Black man or woman will be able to be elected as President of the United States., with the proper qualifications. I think you’re going to get good people of all races running for the highest elected offices in this country and in the world.

LOIS ROMANO, Washington Post National Political Reporter, March 1, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Chris Dodd announces for President on Imus. John McCain announces for President on Letterman. Maybe the real primary contest should be held between who really matters to voters: Imus versus Letterman?
ROMANO: At last count there were more than 20 potential candidates for President—and everyone searching to distinguish himself of herself. Obama and Clinton announced in podcasts. In the case of McCain, he really needed a forum to lighten up. He’s in an awkward position of the war, and the right doesn’t trust him. And Rudy is pooling ahead of him. He needed a boost.

DAN BALZ, Washington Post Chief Political, Reporters, May 10, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Primaries and caucuses often fall prey to “litmus test” issues. Among Democrats, the Iraq War may become a litmus test. Who among the candidates are more apt to pass the anti-war litmus tests of withdrawing the troops, and which candidates are in trouble?
BALZ: Everyone’s assumption is that Senator Clinton faces the biggest challenge because of her initial support for the war resolution and her unwillingness to apologize for that vote. She has become much more critical of the Administration over the past six months but there remains quite a lot of skepticism among antiwar Democrats about her position. But our polling and other’s shows that only a small percentage of rank and file Democrats really care whether she apologizes. Watch Iowa, a state with a long history of antiwar sentiment, as an indicator of how serious her problems are on this.

JOHN DICKERSON, Slate Chief Political Correspondent, May 17, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Last week’s “Saturday Night Live” got it right: you want to get people to watch the debates? You include the fringe candidates, not exclude them. Who wouldn’t want to watch Mitt Romney debating with the candidate of the Vampire Party?
DICKERSON: The fringe candidates certainly help. Congressman Paul certainly spiced up this week’s Republican debate and Dennis Kucinich pushed Barack Obama in the first Democratic debate to be more clear about his position on the use of force.
CZIKOWSKY: How to attract more viewers to Presidential debates: after each question, viewers phone in and eliminate one of the candidates.
DICKERSON: This sounds good to me, or allow them to vote while it’s going on. Fox tried a version of this with the Tuesday debate. I think Ron Paul was the winner.

DENNIS GODDARD, Drake University Politics Professor, June 7, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: As a political scientist, how would you compare the impact upon receiving a Presidential nomination of winning the Iowa caucus versus winning the New Hampshire Primary?
GODDARD: Well, consider 1980: George H.W. Bush surprised everyone and beat Ronald Reagan (though there remain questions as to whether all the votes/preferences were actually tallied and reported), and yet Reagan went on to trounce Bush in NH and beyond, thus winning the nomination. McCain didn’t even participate in Iowa in 2000, and he trounced “W” in NH before losing badly in SC. NH doesn’t simply ratify what Iowa does, but Iowa especially reveals unexpected strengths and weaknesses in campaigns, candidates, and campaign themes.
CZIKOWSKY: Are the potential problems with being the frontrunner this early in Iowa? Doesn’t this build the expectation that, even if a candidate not in the national lead “upsets” in Iowa, the Iowa results had been expected for so long that it no longer would be an upset?
GODDARD: Expectations are the name of the game. I always say that every candidate runs against exactly the same opponent: “Expected”. The question is, did you do better than expected, or worse than expected? That’s why you’ll see each campaign low-balling expectations as we get close to the caucuses, so that they lower the bar in order to say how well they exceeded it. An “upset”, as I understand the term, would be a contradiction of an expectation.

CARL BERNSTEIN, author, June 8, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What role has faith played in the life of Hillary Clinton?
BERNSTEIN: Religion is one of the fundaments of Hillary Clinton’s character and politics. Her comments earlier this week that she does not wear her religion on her sleeve are true.
In the first month of the Clinton Presidency she joined a women’s prayer group whose members included Susan Baker, the wife of Reagan-Busy chief of staff/Sec. of State James Baker, as well as the wife of the Washington Redskins chaplain who was also the minister of the McLean church where Kenneth Starr and other conservative Republican luminaries worship.
These women sent Hillary scripture readings, came to the White House to pray with and for her, and generally were a welcome source of strength and friendship for her throughout the White House years, and especially as the Lewinsky ugliness moved relentlessly through her life.
She was raised in the Methodist faith of her parents, but became influenced by such twentieth century theologians as Tillich, Niebuhr, and Bonhoeffer, all of whom regarded Christian values and ethics as essential elements in the exercise of political power; from this heritage, and her continuing tutelage under a youth minister who came to her hometown in her high school years, Hillary became certain that those values demanded spiritually based intervention in the political system. She went to hear Martin Luther King speak as a teenager, and that too was a transforming event.
Methodism’s “emphasis on personal salvation combined with active applied Christianity”, she has said, is what she believes in. “As a Christian, part of my obligation is to alleviate suffering. Explicit recognition of that in the Methodist tradition is one reason I’m comfortable in this church.”
White House aides found such statements to be uplifting, and at other times self-righteous.
One of Bill Clinton’s deputies maintained she used religion to justify the failings of herself and her husband, and to excuse the character flaws of both. Others believed her faith gave her determination and advocacy. And there was also a view held by some White House aides that she developed an ends justify the means philosophy that was excused by her religious beliefs.

PETER BAKER, Washington Post White House Reporter, June 19, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: How worried are the Fred Thompson supporters that Tommy Thompson is in the race? In close primaries, even a few percentage points lost to confused voters voting for the wrong Thompson could affect where each Thompson places.
BAKER: No one I know in the Fred Thompson camp seems all that worried about that. For one thing, primary voters and caucus voters are much more attentive than the average general election voters and less likely to make that sort of mistake. And for another, it’s an open question whether Tommy Thompson will be able to sustain his campaign long enough to still be on the ballot when the voters finally shot up next year.

DAN BALZ, Washington Post Chief Political Reporter, July 16, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Are high paid political consultants worth the money they are paid? I await the day that someone runs for office proclaiming “vote for me, I’m smart enough not to waste money on high paid consultants.”
BALZ: Well, are investment bankers worth what they get, or CEOs worth what they get, or for that matter, journalists worth what they get? The market sets the compensation and for some political consultants, campaign work is very lucrative. Some are better than others but few candidates can really run campaign without at least a modicum of consulting talent. Campaigns, however, reflect the candidate more than the consultants. That’s true of winning and losing campaigns. John McCain’s consultants made some monumental miscalculations—and they’re quite ready to admit that today—but the problems with McCain’s candidacy have more to do with the candidate himself and the environment in which he found himself this year.
CZIKOWSKY: I recall asking this same question fours years ago, so I will repeat it, but only change the names. Isn’t John McCain (John Kerry) actually in a good position? The press will focus on the frontrunner, Rudy Guiliani (Howard Dean), and usually the frontrunner does not survive the scrutiny. Isn’t it better to be the candidate that does better than expected than the frontrunner who inevitable fails to meet expectations?
BALZ: It is certainly the hope of the McCain team that focus on others will benefit their candidate. They also believe that all the other major candidates are flawed enough that Republican voters will be willing to take another look at McCain sometime later in the year. They believe in the Kerry analogy, which I think is somewhat flawed. Even at his low point, Kerry help up reasonably well across the spectrum of Democratic voters and Democratic constituencies. McCain has such strong pockets of opposition that he will have to find a way to overcome that enmity to scramble back into the race. Kerry benefited from the perception early in 2004 that he was the most electable of the Democratic candidates. McCain has to hope that he’s seen that way come January.

BOB SCHEIFFER, CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent, August 28, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Which of the second tier of Presidential candidates, in both parties, have impressed you?
SCHEIFFER: I think Joe Biden is certainly qualified to run. Mike Huckabee has brought welcome humor to the campaign.

LOIS ROMANO, Washington Post National Political Reporter, September 6, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I recall reading about the unusual but dignified Presidential campaign announcement by Sen. John Kennedy, who announced in Washington. Indeed, in tours of the room, guides mention this historic announcement. In recalling this, I note that things have changed. So, is the key now to find out which talk show host has the highest ratings and announce on that talk show host’s program that one is running for President? Will second-tier candidates be relegated to the 1 am talk shows, and the leading candidates wind up on Leno?
ROMANO: I think the idea is to find a venue that the press can’t step on—a straight shot to the viewer/voter. Hillary Clinton announced on her website, in a video taped from her living room. Cameras could not cut away, reporters couldn’t shout questions. In Thompson’s case, he obviously wanted to reach as many people as possible while portraying himself as a regular guy.

MARK PENN, Hillary Clinton for President Chief Strategist, September 25, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: One of the obvious trends is that a lot of people will be retiring, especially in the health care fields, at faster rates than medical, nursing, and health care professional schools will be graduating replacements, unless something changes. What policies do you foresee that will help us deal with the projected shortages in the numbers of health care professionals, especially with an increasing number of elderly who likely will require higher amounts of health care services?
PENN: The working retired is a really important group we talk about in the book (“Microtrends”)—how many people are not retiring-many because they can’t and many because they want to continue working. I think we are going to have a huge number of new issues created by this—but people seem paradoxically to be working more and being healthier. SO I think there may be more older people who are looking for more later careers.

MIKE GRAVEL, Presidential candidate, October 16, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: You were under consideration for Vice President in 1972 and received a lot of support to be Vice President. I am wondering if you have spoken to George McGovern about your current race, and if so, what advice he provided?
GRAVEL: No, I haven’t spoken to George about my current race.

DENNIS KUCINICH, Presidential candidate, October 18, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What role do you foresee your First Lady taking in your Administration? What would she like to accomplish?
KUCINICH: Elizabeth Kucinich is exceptionally well-motivated, very bright, and very committed to working to make this a better world. It’s important to understand her background. She worked for a year and a half with villagers in rural Tanzania to enable them to gain access to housing, energy, and education. She dedicated time to working with orpahs and children of the dalit in India in cooperation with the missionaries of Charity which were established by Mother of Theresa. She worked in London with the missionaries of Seafarers, which helps the brave folks who work the high seas and have little or no support when a ship comes to port. She worked on energy initiatives, she was worked to help women in Uganda who have virtually no rights in the marriages. And her academic background includes a master’s in International Conflict Resolution. On the campaign trail Elizabeth has demonstrated an understanding of complex international problems. She has personally participated in discussions with a number of chief executives of Middle Eastern countries. She has a deep understanding of principles of peace and social welfare. On the campaign trail she’s been a joy, because she can articulate what a Kucinich Presidency would dream in a way that expresses my own dreams for America. In an Administration shoe would be an activist and would bring a sense of love and compassion to the White House, our nation, and to the world. And not only that, but I love her deeply.

EMILY BAZELON, Slate Senior Editor, November 15, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I often hear commentators and bystanders looking at the candidates, especially during the debates, concluding that Hillary Clinton came across as more Presidential, whereas the others came across as candidates. I wonder if acting this way deflects from the issue of her being a woman and, if so, if you think she is successfully doing so, and, if so, is this the right move for her?
BAZELON: Yes, I think Hillary’s “Presidential” qualities are helping her, and that they do take something away from the sense that a woman just can’t be President. What makes a candidate Presidential? In Hillary’s case, it’s a combination of experience and gravitas and substance and discipline and polish, I think. You may not agree with her, and she hasn’t been on her best game in the last week or two, but she generally sounds just more ready for prime time than the others. She’s the one, after all, who has already been in the White House.

ELI SASLOW, Washington Post Staff Writer, December 10, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Does Mitt Romney believe that God has called upon him to fur for President?
SASLOW: Hmm, this is a complicated question, one that forces me to infer quite a bit. Abut, I think that at least partly, the answer is: Yes. Mormonism makes it clear that one should not just aspire to lead, he should be called to it. In church service, decisions about who should lead are made prayerfully. Romney’s father caught some heat when he admitted that he spent a full day praying about whether or not he should run for office. I think, for Romney, the idea of being called into service is deeply founded. It’s a part of everything he does.

SALLY JENKINS, Washington Post Staff Writer, December 10, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Has Hillary Clinton discussed how the Viet Nam War impacted her political thinking and what lessons she learned from that war?
JENKINS: Yes, HRC discussed the impact of the Viet Nam War on her at length in both “Living History” and “It Takes a Village”, her two autobiographical works, and she’s discussed it publicly several times in interviews. She lived on the same street as a boy who was killed in the war, and she knew lots of guys who were wrestling with the issue of whether to go or resist. She describes it as being a very anguished time for her, and one in which she had to fight off a fair amount of cynicism. It’s one thing that really moved her to resign as President of the Young Republicans at Wellesley as a freshman. By her senior year she was working for anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy, driving to New Hampshire on weekends. Wellesley in 1965-1968 was somewhat sheltered from the more hard core campus radicalism, btw. But while she was there she helped organize “teach ins” on the war and on Civil Rights. And then she was in Grant Park watching the mayhem at the ’68 Democratic Convention. It convinced her that if you objected to the war, and wanted to d something about it, the best thing to do was to become a policy maker yourself. And incidentally, even her conservative father had very mixed feelings about the war.

TAGG ROMNEY, son of Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, December 20, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Where did you serve your mission year, what did you do, and did the experience affect you?
ROMNEY: I served my mission in Bordeaux France in 1989. I loved it and it helped me become a much stronger person in many ways. Not everyone who serves an LDS mission goes overseas. You don’t really get to pick where you go. For those that can’t afford it, the local congregation helps out. My Dad’s mission was an important time for him as well—the Boston Globe did a fairly extensive profile piece that included a lot of material on that time in his life.
All that being said, my Dad gave a great speech on the role of faith in America two weeks ago in College Station, Tx. It was pretty well received by people on both sides of the aisle as best as I can tell!
CZIKOWSKY: There are difficulties being a relative of a Presidential candidate, as any relative automatically becomes subject to increased public interest, whether the person wishes this attention or not. As you may know, the brother of Dennis Kucinich passed away recently. Are there words of condolences you would like to provide that may help the Kucinich family and supporters?
ROMNEY: We certainly pass along our heartfelt sympathies to the Kucinich family. What a horrible tragedy for them to be having to deal with at this time, and in a very public way. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

JON COHEN, Washington Post Polling Director, December 21, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What polls do the best at adjusting the figures towards figuring out possible end results? I ask because there are numerous quirks in caucuses and primaries that many polls miss, and it is these quirks that often disrupt poll results. For instance, doesn’t Iowa have rules where if candidates don’t get a certain percentage of supporters at a caucus their supporters either pick another candidate or leave? Thus, whose polling numbers are calculating a likely final outcome by asking supporters found not meeting the percentage thresholds in different areas to determine what they are apt to then do?
Also, independents votes in several primaries, including New Hampshire. Has anyone calculated what independents are likely to do based upon the Iowa results? For instance, are they more apt to vote in the Democratic or in the Republican primary because of various results in Iowa? W
COHEN: Great question. Iowa caucus rules, particularly on the Democratic side, are incredibly complex. The Post’s Libby Copeland wrote a great piece on caucus math this week. Basically, in most, but not all, precincts (there are 1,781 in Iowa), supporters of candidates who don’t reach a certain threshold can join with supports of someone who does, or join with another who didn’t reach “viability” to reach the threshold. And that’s the simple version!
We ask ‘second choice’ in our poll as a way to approximate it, but it’s a crude gauge. Even the ‘exit poll’ in Iowa is really an entrance poll given the complexity of what happens inside the caucus.
On to New Hamp…
As you point out, eligible NH adults who aren’t registered with one of the parties can choose which party’s primary to vote in on Election Day. As of now, our data show that most would opt to vote in the Democratic one. We’ll see if the Iowa results tip that Offhand, I don’t have many likely Iowa scenarios that would flip many voters away from one party or the other.
CZIKOWSKY: John Edwards and Chris Dodd practically have lived in Iowa these past few months. Do Iowa voters respond to so much constant attention, or is there a saturation point where it makes no difference and maybe even causes a candidate to lose ground?
COHEN: Yup, many candidates have basically moved to the state. Sen. Dodd I believe even enrolled one of his children in an elementary school there.
My sense from the data is that not only do Iowa’s voters respond to the attention, but they insist on it. Caucuses are typically low-turnout affairs, and the people who show up are as often described as ‘activists’ by ‘voters’. The campaign engagement we picked up in our November poll was extraordinary.
A month ago, a third of likely caucus-goers on the Democratic side said they’d personally met one or more of the Democratic candidates. One in five had met one of the top three (Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.)

CHRISTOPHER C. HOLL. Former Iowa State Senate Majority Staff Director, January 3, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Because caucus meetings allow for shifting of people who leave candidates who fail to achieve a threshold, or perhaps shift to allow a candidate to achieve a threshold required, to obtain a delegate, are these initial results tabulated and kept, or are only the final results reported? If these initial results are not kept, is the press observing, and has the press recorded initial votes and how much shifting occurs? If so, how much shifting does one see at these meetings? It would be interesting to see a political science study of these shifts and to learn the factors behind these shifts.
HOLL: The initial results are NOT kept, nor are the raw total vote counts on the Democratic side, and the press Is not recording what those totals are, as there are 1780+ precinct caucuses going on. Jonathan Alter from Newsweek just asked me this very question, and I had to admit we as scholars have no way of seeing this crucial information.
My recommendation to the Iowa Democratic Party, actually, would be to eliminate their 15% viability threshold altogether. That would take care of our curiosity!
CZIKOWSKY: Are Republicans allowed to vote in the Iowa Democratic Caucus, and may Democrats vote in the Iowa Republican Caucus? The press is telling of Republicans voting for Obama. Is this permitted, or would the Republicans have to switch their registration to being Democrats? If they have to switch, how far in advance of the caucus would they have to have switched in order to vote today?
HOLL: Yes, if a voter is willing to change parties at the caucus site, they may. So yes, Republicans (and Independents) may well have some impact on Obama’s results.

MEREDITH CHAIKEN, Mellman Group Polling Senior Analyst, January 7, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Who is more apt to be undecided, a Democrat or a Republican? A liberal or a conservative? What are the most common reasons given for the indecision? Does it seem to be a difficulty in telling differences between candidates, of candidates failing to connect with undecideds, or what?
CHAIKEN: This is a great question. In general elections, undecided voters tend to be less partisan / more independent and less ideological / more moderate.
In these cases (the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary), the difference between the candidates are clearer if you see the election through a partisan / ideological prism (as I confess to doing!) So this leaves those in the middle, or whose beliefs cross party / ideological lines, choosing between two candidates who each represents a set of compromises…a hard choice!
In a primary election, those differences don’t hold—most of the candidates are close to each other on the major issues / platforms that help define the identity of a political party. Undecideds might be more likely to hold out for less “hard” issue-related information and make judgments based on leadership style, electability, or other “soft” differences.

SAUL ANUZIS, Michigan Republican State Chairman, January 14, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How popular was (Mitt’s father) George Romney when he was Governor, and what percent of Republican voters today were voters when he was Governor?
ANUZIS: He was very popular and well-respected. If you’re 50-55 or older you remember him and probably fondly. I’m 38 and only remember getting my picture taken with hi, when my Cub Scout troop visited the Capitol.
CZIKOWSKY: Are there any statewide elections this year in Michigan? If so, do you believe there would be better coattails for some candidates than others?
ANUZIS: Levin is up…coattails only hurt on the landslides either way, in my opinion. We have a state Supreme Court race ass well…that will be very “localized”.
CZIKOWSKY: How does Huckabee appeal to Michigan voters? Is his populist appeal working with working class voters, and does his belief in creationism hurt him with the more progressive voters?
ANUZIS: I think he’s doing fairly well…polling has him in third running around 12 percent. Romney and McCain are fighting ti out in the 29 to 29 percent range.

E.J. DIONNE, JR. Washington Post Columnist, January 22, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I know a voter who will not vote for Huckabee because his wife stated in an interview she hunts sleeping bears, and she feels that is not proper hunting. Now, before we laugh this off, I am reminded of how Theodore Roosevelt, a skilled hunter, refused to shoot a bear that was tied up because this did not fit his definition of sporting. To be bipartisan, neither Kerry nor Romney pulled off their public hunting performances very well. Hasn’t there indeed been some redefinition of sportspersonship in politics over the decades?
DIONNE: Honestly, I don’t know how to answer you, but I enjoyed the question and so could not resist sharing it with others. The short answer is that the rising power of the NRA seems to make every candidate want to pull out his or her rifle. In the old days, politicians who enjoyed hunting simply enjoyed hunting and it didn’t seem to have much to do with politics.
CZIKOWSKY: When a candidate states he believes in creationism, would it be proper in the debates for the November elections for the candidates to be asked if they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old? Who would such a person appoint to be the White House Science Advisor? Is this a proper issue, in your opinion, and could it indeed impact a lot of voters?
DIONNE: I think that if a candidate makes an assertion of that sort, it is absolutely fair to probe him or her on that view. (I assume here you are talking about Huckabee.) I see nothing wrong with asking candidates who have made faith a central part of their appeal to explain their views in detail. And if they make specific scientific claims (or claims that seem to be at odds with the scientific consensus, they should have to explain what they believe and why.

BRUCE RANSOM, Clemson University Political Science Professor, January 25, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How are delegates to the Democratic National Convention determined in South Carolina? I ask because we have seen different state rules creating situations where candidates get zero delegates under set thresholds of support and a candidate with less statewide votes winning more delegate elections across a state. While the media focuses on the popularity contest, we also have to keep the actual delegate elections in mind as well, as those are the total that matter at the convention.
RANSOM: Yes. Well, you know Obama is ahead nationally in terms of delegates, and even though he finished in second place overall in Nevada, he did get one more delegate than Clinton. That’s because the combination of winner-take-all, proportionality by performance in Congressional districts, in different states. Normally, it’s a combination of being awarded a certain number of delegates for the statewide victory and another proportion handed out for performance in Congressional districts. That’s why we saw the outcome we did in Nevada.
Clearly, in terms of the early primaries because of the thinking—not to say delegates aren’t important, they do determine the eventual nomination—the aim has been to determine a front-runner in each of the parties to spot momentum into Feb. 5, which essentially is a national election spanning from New York to California. Clearly, what we see heading into Feb 5, with so many delegates involved in the outcome, that’s when you’ll start to see delegates getting more attention.
South Carolina distributes delegates proportionally by statewide performance and Congressional district performance.

CAROL FOWLER, South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman, January 25, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Why do Democrats and Republicans have different primary dates in South Carolina? Has this proven to be confusing to any voters?
FOWLER: Our state law—unlike most—allows the parties to set their own dates. I insisted that the Democratic Party wouldn’t violate the DNC’s rules, which tell us how early we can go. The GOP chair down here insisted on having his primary on the 19th, even though it violated RNC rules. The SC COP has lost half their delegates as a penalty.
There has been a little confusion, but all the publicity about the race has kept it to a minimum.
CZIKOWSKY: What did polls in South Carolina look like before the Iowa caucus? I ask because I was wondering if candidates such as Biden. Dodd, and Richardson might have been provided greater scrutiny in South Carolina than they received in a caucus state with a 15 percent threshold before they could even win a delegate, and thus their candidacies were doomed before other states had a chance to look them over.
FOWLER: All three of those candidates made an effort here early on, but when they realized they weren’t making much headway decided to put all their marbles into Iowa. Can’t blame them for that, as they desperately needed a good showing there.

JON COHEN, Washington Post Polling Director, January 28, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Have there been any noticeable shifts among voters by race in the Democratic Primary?
COHEN: Yes. In our recent Post-ACB national poll, Obama led Clinton by about 2 to 1 among African Americans. Sen. Clinton had held a narrow advantage in our December poll.
The racial dynamic has been among the most interesting aspects to the Democratic contest. Obama beat Clinton by about 4 to 1 among Black voters in Nevada and in South Carolina, according to National Election exit polls. In Nevada, where Latinos make up 15 percent of the electorate, about two-thirds voted for Clinton.
At the same time, face does not appear to be as clear a dividing line as it was in 1988, when Jesse Jackson ran for the Presidency.

ADAM SMITH, St. Petersburg Times Political Editor, January 29, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: The Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida, yet I heard Obama was running TV ads in Florida. Are Clinton and Edwards also running TV ads?
SMITH: Obama’s ads are national buys on CNN and MSNBC. While the Clinton campaign has tried to suggest that amounts to breaking the “pledge” not to campaign in Florida, that’s a bit of a stretch. As far as I can tell, Obama has been very careful to continue belittling Florida’s Democratic primary voters in honor of that pledge.
CZIKOWSKY: Some believe the delegates for Florida will be reinstated. Has anyone polled Florida Democratic voters as to whether they expect their delegates will be reinstated and thus their votes may indeed count towards delegates, versus how many believe they will end up voting just for a “beauty contest”.
SMITH: Haven’t seen that question polled—whether they expect the delegates to be seated. Certainly most Democratic elected official expect the delegates to be seated eventually, and Howard Dean has implied the same thing.

DOTTY LYNCH, CBS News political consultant, January 30, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How was Guiliani polling nationally? What was likely to have happened if he stayed in the face and had a chance to win some delegates in those states where he was polling better than he did in the earlier primaries and caucuses? I never saw him being able to appeal to a majority of Republicans, but he could have been an influence at the convention.
LYNCH: His national numbers plummeted along with his poll numbers in the big states. Because most of the Republican contests are “winner-take-all” either statewide or by Congressional district, coming in second or third doesn’t get you many delegates.
And I think when he saw that he was likely to lose his home state of New York he decided enough is enough.

TIM HUTCHINSON, former United States Senator, January 30, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Given that Mike Huckabee believes in creationism, will you please reassure those of us who have more faith in science than does Huckabee as to what type of person a President Huckabee would appoint to be the White House Science Advisor?
HUTCHINSON: Gov. Huckabee, if you look at his 10 ½ years as Governor, never tried to impose his beliefs on anyone. From the statements I’ve heard on his beliefs in creation in no way disparage his confidence and value in modern science. I don’t think those beliefs—which he has been open about and believe the American public deserves to know about them—would infringe on the sorts of people he would have in his administration. I think that’s the greatest confidence people can have, those 10 ½ years of experience. As he said, he never tried to put a church steeple on the Capitol dome, and would never try to use the authority of government in that way.
CZIKOWSKY: What is it about being Governor of Arkansas that makes it such a stepping stone toward serving as President?
HUTCHINSON: Well, I really think, as you look at recent U.S. history, the American people have tended to lean toward Governors and the experience that executives have, whether it’s a small rural state like Arkansas or a big state like California. The experience of being a chief government executive best serves one when preparing to be President of the United States, and running Arkansas, though a much smaller budget, is a microcosm of running the U.S., with all the different agencies involved. That’s why you have to go all the way back to Sen. John Kennedy to find someone who had been elected directly from the U.S. Senate to the White House. We have had a lot of experience electing Governors to the White House, including Reagan and Clinton. Gov. Romney points to his business experience, but nobody except Mike Huckabee has more than a decade’s experience as the chief executive of a state government so I really believe that provides him great qualifications for serving as President.

JOHN SIDES, George Washington University Political Science Assistant Professor, February 7, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: To win, the Democrats need to hold onto all their blue states (which I presume either Clinton or Obama are capable of doing) and they must pick up one more state somewhere. Does this mean they should look to someone like Bill Richardson (New Mexico), Evan Bayd (Indiana), or Ted Strickland (Ohio) for their Vice Presidential nominee?
SIDES: Richardson is a strong possibility; helps in a swing state and appeals to Latinos. I’, less certain that even Bayh could deliver Indiana. And, while Ohio is a key state, I’m not sure Strickland (a virtual unknown) helps are much in other places.
CZIKOWSKY: I understand Romney would have had to win two-thirds of the remaining delegates to be chosen in order to get the nomination, and we all knew that was extremely unlikely. Do you expect Huckabee and Paul will follow and withdraw as well, or do you see one, or both of them continuing as sort of protest candidates?
SIDES: Huckabee has nothing to gain by continuing his run. Paul does, since he is a protest candidate. So, I see Huckabee exiting before Paul. The open question is what Paul expects to do if the Republican nomination is essentially over and there are no more candidate debates, where he’s been able to draw at last some attention.

LARRY J. SABATO, University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning, and Development Senior Scholar, February 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Do you think Tom Tancredo will run as an independent? Even if he does, or if Ron Paul or Lou Dobbs or some of the other candidates being mentioned run, do you think they have the potential of denying the Republican Party an electoral votes even if such a candidate gets only a small percentage of the votes?
SABATO: We’re all waiting to see whether McCain’s nomination generates one or more conservative independents. Will there be a Nader 2000 of the right in 2008? They don’t need high name ID or tons of money. They simply have to be a parking place for a few million votes that could deny McCain the Presidency in a close vote. There’s lots of talk, but so far, little action. But, it’s early.

JOHN WAGNER, Washington Post Staff Writer, February 11, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What percentage of Maryland Democrats are Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic, and do polls show about how each ethnic group within Maryland favors Clinton or Obama? Are there projected turnout rates for each ethnic group?
WAGNER: In Maryland’s 2004 Presidential primary, African Americans accounted for about 35 percent of Democratic voters. Many party insiders expect that figure to be significantly highly tomorrow, both because of excitement about the Obama campaign and because of a hotly contested Congressional race between Rep. Al Wynn and challenger Donna Edwards in a district that includes much of Prince George’s County, one of the most affluent African American jurisdictions in the country.
The African American vote is expected to break heavily in Sen. Obama’s direction, but Sen. Clinton has some high-profile African American supporters as well, including Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown and Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson.
If others states are any indication, Sen. Clinton may fare better among Hispanic voters here, but they make up a relatively small, albeit growing, segment of the electorate.

JEFF MAYERS, WisPolitics.com President, February 19, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I see Hillary Clinton just released a booklet of her economic policies on her web site. Have there been any articles or analysis, positive or negative, on her economic policies, or any contrasts with her economic policies and Obama’s policies? I ask in order to gage the extent to which the media is focusing on the details of candidates’ positions.
MAYERS: The media, and I’ll plead guilty to this, are focusing on the horse race. But candidate positions on high-profile issues like health care and NAFTA and the economy are a major part of the reporting this week.

MICHAEL KINGSLEY, Time magazine columnist, February 28, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: As you don’t mind wealthy people subsidizing magazines, what is your opinion of the Mellon money that subsidizes a Pittsburgh newspaper as well as magazines and several political attack groups?
KINGSLEY: The Mellons have every right to do this, as long as what they publish is honest, which it sometimes isn’t, I believe, (please don’t ask me for chapter and verse.)
CZIKOWSKY: Obama is currently the media darling. So, when does the press decide to gang up on him, evaluating his every vote and speech and tearing him apart? How do you think Obama will fare under such scrutiny? KINGSLEY: I would say probably about the day after tomorrow. But I think he’ll do OK.

DONNA BRAZILE, Democratic National Committee Voting Rights Initiative Chair and ALFRED S. REGENRY, American Spectator Publisher, March 3, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How are Democrats going to successfully unit after this campaign? How do you prevent defections to Nader which, while small, could still affect winning some states?
BRAZILE: After a very historic election season, the party will unite behind a progressive platform that will ensure we end the war in Iraq, we invest in America’s priorities, and we unite the country behind a campaign that offers a change from the status quo. So, will it be easy? Nope. But, with leaders like Pelois, Reid, and perhaps others, the Democratic Party will reunite and prepare for victory in November?
REGENRY: With all due respect, Donna’s answer sounds like a platitude to me. I think both Clinton and Obama worry about this. Obama has gotten such an overwhelming response that were Clinton the nominee, they might not get those votes. I think a “progressive platform”, as Donna says, flies in the face of what the majority of the Ameircans believe, so if the Republicans have a decent campaign they should win. There are all kinds of reasons that campaigns fail, and in the 50 years of history in my book there have been all sorts of campaigns that started off one way and wound up another. It’s pretty hard to predict a week ahead, let alone six or seven months.

LINDA HIRSHMAN, author, March 3, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Why is Hillary Clinton not winning a large share of the female vote such an issue? It long has been noted that women do not vote as a bloc. Indeed, many women disagree on feminist issues and are more apt to vote on a partisan basis or ideology. Granted, the female vote may trend more in a certain direction. Thus, isn’t the female vote trending more toward Hillary Clinton?
HIRSHMAN: Well, it’s the Democratic Primary, so the partisan divide is neither her not there. Pretty much everyone agrees that the two candidates are relatively close ideologically. So I am wondering why women in the Democratic Primary did not seize the chance to flex their electoral muscle.

DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN, political consultant, March 27, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Haven’t both parties rejected their more extreme elements—the Huckabees and the Kuciniches? Both seem on the verge of picking relatively moderate nominees. How does this create room to successfully run another moderate candidate?
SCHOEN: Yes, there doesn’t seem like there is much room for a moderate at this time. But the argument of my book (“Declaring Independence”) is that the American people are looking for a moderate candidate, and I think the two nominees reflect this desire. I think there is potential for a strong third party candidate in the future.
CZIKOWSKY: Approximately how much would it cost to run a viable independent candidate, much less a successful candidate, and unless that candidate were financed by Bloomberg, where would you expect such a candidate to find the funds in order to run?
SCHOEN: Regrettable, the American political system makes it very difficult to raise such funds. I would say it would cost at least half a billion dollars. However, if there is one thing that Obama, Clinton, and Ron Paul have shown, it is that you can raise a lot of money online.

WALTER E. FAUNTROY, former Delegate to the U.S. Congress, April 7, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Of course this is a question to which we will never know the answer, but what do you think Dr. Martin Luther King would have thought of the seriousness of which the country is accepting Senator Obama as a Presidential candidate?
FANTROY: Dr. King would have seen the Obama phenomenon in the nation that is so encouraging to billions of people around the globe today as the fulfillment of his promise that one day Black people would be judged, not on the basis of the color of our skin.

JOHN DICKERSON, Slate Political Writer, April 7, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What role does the Credentials Committee play at the Democratic National Convention—and is this a committee that could manipulate the outcome if it wanted to? For instance, I believe seated delegates vote on seating challenged delegates, so the manner in which challenges are accepted, heard, and voted upon and then accepted or rejected could alter the final delegate count towards one candidate or another. How much leeway does the Credentials Committee have in possibly creating such a scenario?
DICKERSON: It’s a good question. The rules are very complicated. The committee could vote this summer when it meets on Florida and Michigan. Or, it could meet at the convention to make the call. The committee is made up of members selected by Howard Dean and a far larger body made of delegates divided roughly based on primary and caucus performance. If it gets this far, it’ll be a nightmare.

TROY PATTERSON, Slate TV critic, April 10, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What do you think might have happened has Stephen Colbert seriously entered a Presidential primary? Even if he meant it as a stunt, I remember thinking it actually could have had an impact, as any serious candidate who received fewer votes than him could have been politically hurt.
PATTERSON: Well, he was only seeking to appear on the ballot in South Carolina, so I don’t think it would have had any real impact. On the other hand, it would have been another dagger in the reputation of the 107th Mayor of the City of New York had Colbert drawn more votes than Rudy Giuliani.
CZIKOWSKY: Are you familiar with Morris Udall, the joke-telling Presidential candidate in 1976? If so, how do you think Udall would have been in today’s environment?
PATTERSON: I’m only slightly familiar with Rep. Udall, but I do think there’s some truth to the title of his autobiography “Too Funny to Be President”. That said, I’m sure he could have enjoyed a wonderful Huckabee-like tour of the talk shows. Amazing how powerful humor is: I find a number of Huckabee’s positions morally offensive, but, after seeing him play air hockey with Colbert, I love him dearly.

JEFFREY BIRNBAUM, Washington Post Columnist, April 15, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I have a question from the Rezko trial that I would like to learn. While I do not believe Senator Obama should be held responsible for the actions of a friend of him, I still wonder. When constituents went to Senator Obama’s office to complain about the poor living conditions in Rezko-owned buildings, did Obama bring these matters to Rezko’s attention or to the attention of the people on the committees whose appointments Obama has sponsored?
BIRNBAUM: I don’t know that people complained to him about those buildings, so I don’t know if he did or did not refer those complaints to Rezko. Whatever the answer, I do think that his ties to the real estate investor will cause him trouble in the general election—if he wins the nomination. John McCain will be sure of it.

ERIC BURGESON, policy advisor to Senator John McCain, April 22, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Is it fair to state that the McCain environmental policies generally look more toward tax incentives to get people to do what is environmentally sound? Is there a distrust in increasing fines for when people do something that harms the environment?
BURGESON: Thank you for that important question. Senator McCain believes that the government must set achievable energy and environmental goals but that the market should be free to produce the means to achieve those goals.

DAVID KATZ, Yale University Prevention Research Director, May 23, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: The office of President appears to place much stress on a person. Does John McCain appear physically prepared to endure the possibility of great stress?
KATZ: I would simply remind everyone that serving as a U.S. Senator, and running for President, are not exactly a walk in the park—and he seems to be able to tolerate those activities.
From a distance, it appears to me that running for President is more stressful than being President—although we’d have to ask Carter, Clinton, and the Bushs to know for sure.

STEPHEN L. CARTER, Yale University Law School Professor, June 5, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What is some of the foreign reaction to Barack Obama becoming a likely Presidential nominee? I think back how the Soviets used to use our racial relations issues to argue against America within the international community. Is this helping our international reputation by showing that we are a nation that is mostly willing to consider candidates regardless of race?
CARTER: A lot of people say that the election of Obama will help the nation’s image abroad. I think this might help as an initial matter. But as a scholar, I tend to be a realist on matters of international relations, and I think, in the long run, the responses of other countries will be based on their evaluations of American’s concrete policies.
CZIKOWSKY: In your opinion, is being “black” a statement about one’s thoughts, one’s genetics, or one’s experiences? If it is thoughts, wouldn’t Barack Obama be our nation’s second “Black President” because Bill Clinton was our nation’s first “Black President” for his emphatic feelings with many African Americans? If it is genetics, wouldn’t Barack Obama be our nation’s second “Black President” because Warren Harding had a mulatto grandfather? Finally, and perhaps most controversial, if it is background, what are your thoughts to those who argue that because Obama did not emerge from the “ghetto”, he isn’t “black enough”?
CARTER: A very important question!
“Black” is a term largely imposed by the culture. It lacks biological significance.
I am adamantly opposed to the argument that says there is a right or wrong way to be black. Interestingly, early in Obama’s campaign, we did hear some Black leaders questioning, in effect, his Blackness. Those voices have largely been muted.

LINDA HIRSHMAN, feminist author, June 9, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Is there a clearly visible generational split among feminists? It seems obvious that older feminists supported Hillary Clinton while younger feminists were more attracted to Barack Obama. Were they any significant issues that caused this split, or was it mostly differences in style, as younger voters could identify more with a younger candidate? Finally, if it is a difference in style, who are the younger voices of feminism today who are appealing to the younger feminists?
HIRSHMAN: The generational split was not a perfect divide. I hear from lots of women my certain age who say they’re for Obama, and some young ones on the other side. The exit polling indicated that Obama’s women were younger on the whole. For one thing, they were much more African American and the AA voters are younger, so you have to keep your cross tabs straight. But even correcting for race, the “white” Obama women were on the whole younger. Several things are true: intersectionality is much more intense among younger feminists and probably their civilian cohort as well, so they see racism in general, regardless of who it impacts, as a feminist issue. That allowed them to hold onto their feminist identity and still vote against the female candidate. Second, he and most of his campaign staff were closer to their age cohort, so there were style issues. Finally, I believe that young white women have thankfully benefitted from the gains of feminism and feel their interest less keenly. Oh, and a lot of young women are fresh out of college, the last Russert?Matthews-free pure meritocracy they will ever know. LOL.

BEN CARDIN, United States Senator, June 9, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How much of an issue in Maryland is the war on Iraq, and might there be enough concern about ending the war among enough Maryland voters that Obama could carry Maryland?
CARDIN: I believe Sen. Obama will carry Maryland in the Presidential election. I believe one of the reasons is his stance on the war in Iraq. Most Marylanders agree that we should be bringing our troops home in a responsible manner, and that the Iraqis should assume more responsibility for their own country.

JABARI ASIM, Crisis Magazine Editor in Chief, June 9, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What do you think of the analogy that Senator Obama used to suggest that his is the generation of Joshua: That while the great civil rights leaders before his day brought great things, it is now up to his generation to bring African Americans to the symbolic land of “milk and honey” and that it will be up to younger people to create a vastly improved America?
ASIM: I was impressed with the analogy and surprised that more wasn’t made of it in the press. Actually, I’m not surprised because it’s a concept fairly devoid of controversy. I especially liked his talking about his generation and its obligation to fulfill the legacy of those whose struggles brought him and his peers so far. It’s hard to argue with the logic of that.

JOEL ACHENBACH, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 7, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: It was nice seeing some of the backstage photographs. The public doesn’t get to see too many photographs of candidates other that when they are before the public. How often are photographers allowed backstage and when they are, why don’t they publish more of those photographs? Do newspapers primarily want photographs of candidates speaking? Wouldn’t a variety of different kinds of photographs be more interesting?
ACHENBACH: The control of The Image is a cornerstone of modern Presidential campaigning. Photographers are usually pre-positioned on risers—with, typically, Ordinary Citizens as a kind of human wallpaper behind the candidate—but a good photographer knows how to get behind, under, on top of the manufactured scene.

RALPH NADER, Presidential candidate, July 10, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Why did you leave the Green Party? It seems that both you running and the Green Party running a candidate only dilutes the protest vote from the environmental voting block.
NADER: I never was a member of the Green Party. As an independent and its nominee, I worked in 2000 to give it visibility and nearly three million votes. Afterward, I attended more than 40 fundraisers in many states to help keep the Green Party’s momentum going. Unfortunately, internal bickering drove away many good Greens, and the party lost whatever ability it had to take advantage of the 2000 moments and lost most of the discipline and focus that its excellent agenda would have warranted.
A third party must have maturing and discipline to survive in a rigged, two party dominated system. I wish the Green Party good luck.

MARIA CINO, Republican National Convention President, July 23, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Will Bob Dole be in attendance? If so, will be speak to the convention?
CINO: We are looking forward to welcoming several all-star guests and speakers. We are currently developing our program and will announce the lineup in the near future.
CZIKOWSKY: How far away are protestors being kept away, and are you concerned that critics are going to claim Republicans are stifling free expression by not letting protestors nearer to the media?
CINO: The Saint Paul Police Department along with the Secret Service considers safety, security, and mobility is top priorities for all convention participates. Local law enforcement will designated the free speech zones.
CZIKOWKSY: Are you afraid that if Sen. McCain announces his Vice Presidential nominee well in advance of September, there will be far less attention paid to the convention?
CINO: Absolutely not. We are in the process of finalizing the program schedule and are confident that this convention will be the most exciting in GOP history. We look forward to showcasing Sen. John McCain and the Vice Presidential candidate for over 45,000 convention guests and millions more participating from home.
CZIKOWSKY: How are away are hotels booked during the convention? If a tourist wanted to visit the Twin Cities during the convention, what parts of the city would be closed and how bad would you expect traffic to be? Are any places (i.e. museums) planning on closing during the convention, or should the rest of the city be open as well?
CINO: We have 102 hotels and 16,000 hotel rooms reserved throughout the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area and we look forward to showcasing all that the Twin Cities have to offer.
A team of transportation experts have devised a traffic management plan that will ensure that most of downtown remains open and accessible during the convention. We expect that a fairly limited area of downtown will be significantly affected.
The traffic management plan will accommodate increased traffic, limit disruption to local residents and businesses, and support the Saint Paul Police Department’s safety and security goals.
The city will remain open for business. However, many venues will host convention events and forums.

LEAH D. DAUGHTY, Democratic National Convention President, July 29, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Do you and your RNC counterpart Maria Cino ever meet and compare notes, and possibly discuss particular issues, or do the two of you keep totally apart?
DAUGHTY: I have had the wonderful opportunity to meet Maria Cino, the CEO of the Republican Convention. And we’ve actually kept in touch fairly regularly over this last year. She is a wonderful woman and a consummate professional.
Of course, our friendship extends to friendly wagers…for example, when the Minnesota Wild and the Colorado Avalanche were in the NHL playoffs, we had a little bet…fortunately the Avalanche won, and we received a whole mess of Minnesota walleye fish, which we donated to the Denver Rescue Mission.
CZIKOWSKY: How much contingency planning do you do? For instance, should a nominee suddenly announce “and I decline your nomination”, would you be ready to spring into action and know what to do next?
DAUGHTY: Well, we wouldn’t be doing our jobs if we weren’t somewhat prepared for any eventuality. Fortunately, the Democratic Party’s rules provide a solid framework to guide us in the event that the scenario that you describe should happen.

EUGENE ROBINSON, Washington Post Columnist, August 12, 2008
CZIKOWKSY: When the Financial Times reported they have learned that John McCain is considering Joe Lieberman for Vice President, I wondered: how does this story get out? Do political campaigns lake different names to different news outlets, or do reporters develop close relationships where they trust the information given them? How does this all physically come about the different reporters get different pieces of news from Presidential campaigns?
ROBINSON: Sometimes one reporter has better-informed sources than another reporter. And, yes, campaigns quite often leak information to gauge public reaction. I’m convinced that some of the names floated by both the Obama and McCain campaigns are just “vanity mentions” to boost the standing of supporters who would never in a million years get chosen. In shorts, reporters use sources and sources use reporters. Symbiosis.

BOB BARR, Libertarian Party candidate for President, August 21, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What are your views on campaign finance reform? I would presume Libertarians do not wish to restrict the right of free speech, yet as a smaller political party, does it worry you that the current system skews towards political groups that attracted the large special interest donors?
BARR: All election laws, including campaign finance laws, are written by incumbents and naturally the laws protect incumbents. Third parties and Independent candidates have no voice in writing either state or federal election laws, therefore we will always be at a disadvantage. The Constitution never mentions political parties let alone the Republican and Democratic parties, yet all the election laws help to protect them from competition.

DAVID MARANISS, Washington Post Associate Editor, August 22, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Why does Obama seldom mention that he was raised by a single mother? It seems to me that this fact helped make Bill Clinton more real and acceptable to voters in 1992. I believe even more people today understand the challenges that such an upbringing comes with, and empathize with that. I should think that mentioning this would deflate the impressions that he had al elitist upbringing.
MARANISS: I wish I knew the answer to your question. When I was researching my piece, the first thing I did was read “Dreams from my Father” thoroughly. Is mother is in the book, but he doesn’t really give her her due, in part because when he wrote it he was totally absorbed by the missing father. Perhaps he will talk more about his mother in his acceptance speech, or during the general election.
CZIKOWSKY: Has Obama ever explained how he developed and continued to maintain a friendship with Rezko, and when he finally realized his friend was leading him astray?
MARANISS: This is a valid question that I cannot answer…yet.
CZIKOWSKY: I have been seeing a lot of ads on both sides here in Pennsylvania. Maybe it is just the limited ads I have seen, but I observe a distinct lack of ads responding to charges made by the other side. It seems as if Obama is letting himself be defined as an elitist, yet there is no mention that it is the McCains who are far wealthier, and that Obama is being presented as a tax-raising Democrat, yet there is no response on how much the Iraq War supported by McCain is really going to drive up taxes. If Obama lets McCain define who he is, he then should not be surprised, as I see in today’s newspapers, that the ads appear to be working and Obama’s lead in Pennsylvania is slipping. Is there a reason why Obama appears, from what I have observed, to be lying back and not effectively responding?
MARANISS: This is beyond my expertise, but as I see it Obama did indeed learn the lessons of the Kerry campaign and will not be slow to respond. I would look for a very different sort of campaign AFTER the conventions. McCain has spent an awful lot of money very early.

ALLAN LICHTMAN, American University Historian, August 25, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Several decades ago I recall someone claimed to have developed a model that predicted Presidential elections based on economic data. Do such models continue to show there are strong economic predictors in who may be elected President?
LICHTMAN: Economic models are not sufficient because they do not take into account the full range of factors that influence elections. That said, most economic models are predicting a Democratic win this year.

TIM CURRAN, Washington Post Political Editor, August 26, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How do so many delegates suddenly have “Kennedy” or “Michelle” posters to wave in the air? Has anyone written the story of the workers—whomever they are—who manager to deliver posters to people? Who are these unseen people?
CURRAN: Conventions are all about stagecraft. Those “spontaneous” moments are anything but, and those signs were being printed up well in advance as the Obama folks worked on the program, schedule, and message they wanted to deliver.
One particularly interesting aspect of this is that, almost without exception, the nominee’s campaign will either write or heavily edit every speech you hear this week, regardless of who’s delivering it.

KATINA ROJAS JOY, Democratic National Convention Delegate, August 27, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: If there is a roll call vote, do you believe Delegates should vote as they were elected—i.e. pledged to a particular candidate—or should Delegates pledged to Clinton and other candidates vote for Obama?
JOY: A true party loyalist should vote with the party, independent of the candidate.

AL FROM, Democratic Leadership Council Chief Executive Officer, August 28, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Is Barack Obama close enough to Democratic Leadership Council positions that you believe most DLC members will support him enthusiastically?
FROM: I believe the leadership of the DLC and DLC rank and file will enthusiastically support Barack Obama. His theses—hope, opportunity, and responsibility—are themes the DLC believes in deeply and, in fact, pleased a big role in injecting them into the lexicon of the Democratic Party. The big promise of this campaign—to get beyond the old partisan style and work with people in both parties to solve our country’s problems, is the promise and the strategy the DLC has pushed since we began in 1985. So I believe you’ll see DLC people pushing hard for Obama this fall.
CZIKOWSKY: I personally have found Joe Biden to be one of the most thoughtful and analytical people, with a strong moral base that I believe will help guide our policies, especially our foreign policies, in the right direction. I personally fear that the Bush Administration lost a golden opportunity after the September 11 terrorist attacks to garner international support and lead our nation as a role model for the rest of the world. Do you believe Biden will be good for our foreign relations?
FROM: Joe Biden is a good and thoughtful man. He’s been a friend of mine forever. He helped me found the DLC in 1985 and if you back into the archives of the Washington Post there was a front page story in November 1985 about a DLC trip to North Carolina that featured Senator Biden. We recently gave him a DLC Truman Award for national security and foreign policy. He’s as articulate as anyone on the American scene on foreign policy.

DAN EGGEN, Washington Post White House Reporter, September 1, 2008
CZIKOWKY: State legislators are noting that Obama, if elected, would be the President with the second longest experience at having ever been a state legislator who became President. This is good for those who believe that state governments serve as the laboratories for democracy, and that what works or fails at the state level sets the direction for Federal policies, and thus knowledge at the state government level is very useful to understanding Federal policies.
On the other side of the equation, the President with the most experience as a state legislator was John Tyler, who didn’t particularly distinguish himself as President (although times were very different then). How much recognition is given by political analysts such as yourself to state legislative experience?
EGGEN: This is an interest question. I think it’s safe to say that state legislative experience often gets short shrift in the imperfect game of weighing whether someone has enough “experience” for national office. You’re right that knowing how the sausage-making works in a legislature can be beneficial to an Executive branch official.
But state executive posts—Governor, Lt. Governor—seem to trump state or even Federal legislative experience to many. You see this in the McCain camp’s arguments that Palin, who was a small town Mayor less than two years ago, has more “executive experience” than Obama or even Biden.

JIM KADTKE, District of Columbia Delegation Chairman to the Republican National Convention, September 3, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What do you think of the Republican system of choosing delegates versus the system the Democrats use? Some note that, had the Democrats used your system, Hillary Clinton might have been nominated instead. Who has the better system?
KADTKE: The choice of Delegate systems is an old issue which actually goes back to mathematical theory that’s a century or more old, on one hand, you need a system which comes to a definite outcome in a reasonable period of time, which is not a trivial issue, on the other hand, you would like to make the system as representative of diverse populations and issues as possible. Balancing those two constraints is a subjective choice. Our two parties have just taken slightly different routes to their structure.

ANNE E. KORNBLUT, Washington Post National Political Reporter, September 2, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I like how Joe Lieberman praised President Clinton before the Republican National Convention. Overall, the winning person from all these conventions might turn out to be Bill Clinton.
KORNBLUT: Pretty amazing, isn’t it? And he got good applause, too.

JAY NORDINGER, National Review Senior Editor, September 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Governor Sarah Palin significantly raised taxes on oil companies. Is this something that concerns conservatives?
NORDLINGER: I think conservatives are looking big-picture and that noting can dislodge their great affection for Palin, short of her experiencing some kind of instant conversion.
And, incidentally, there is a fair amount of “economic populism” in the Republican Party, for good or ill. They’re not—we’re not—all Hayekians. (Well, SOME of us are!)

ERIK ERICKSON, RedState Managing Editor, September 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Governor Palin wins most deserved credit for raising a child with Downs syndrome, but many conservatives have favored reducing spending on public services for people with disabilities. How can conservatives assure people with disabilities that the services they need with be funded?
ERICKSON: I think the GOP needs to come up with some policy proposals. If you talk to a lot of conservatives, they are still upset the current President ran on the issue of adoption and never did anything with it. I think Palin can shape the policy effectively and publicly.

LESLIE SANCHEZ, Impacto Group LLC Chief Executive Officer, September 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What are your views on how we should handle immigration? I ask honestly because I do not know your position and I also know there is no unified Republican Party position on immigration. I will mention that I see, from an economic perspective, that there are forecasts that we will be lacking something in the vicinity of 50 million employees in 2050. That means both that more people are retiring faster than the new generation can replace them, and that we will need the taxes of about 50 million more employees to shore up our social services, such as health care, social security, and—according to the former Comptroller General—the entire Federal budget. Thus, I see our country with an anti-immigration mindset at a time when we should be considering how to both attract skilled labor to migrate to the U.S, as well as the reality that the most productive generation usually are second generation Americans. Any thoughts on all this?
SANCHEZ: Good question. Bottom line is the current system is not working and it’s imperative both parties make a priority to solve both the border enforcement and labor shortage issues. Fundamentally. I agree with Sen. McCain that we need to secure any compromised port of entry (air, land, and sea). We also need to find a dignified and humane way to account for the millions of undocumented individuals in this country. We need to know—who are they? Why are they here? What is their intent? Do they pay taxes?
Our resources should be dedicated to locating the criminal aliens and fighting for legal immigration.
CZIKOWSKY: What is your position on affirmative action, and what do you think of the irony that the political party that in general opposes affirmative action just used affirmative action in its nomination for the nation’s second highest position?
SANCHEZ: Gov. Palin was selected by her accomplishments as Governor of Alaska and what she brings to the ticket. It was a bold move for McCain to chose an unknown. Yet, that’s not affirmative action.

BOB SCHIEFFER, “Face the Nation” television show host, September 15, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: It seems people have forgotten Spiro Agnew, yet part of Sarah Palin reminds me of him. Agnew was a first term Governor whose role was to energize the conservative base. I note that it worked for Nixon in 1968. What are your recollections of Agnew in the 1958 election?
SCHIEFFER: I think that the reason Nixon put Agnew on the ticket was to energize the more conservative parts of the Republican Party. I believe Sarah Palin had done that. John McCain wanted a game changer, and she has certainly been that. If the Republican convention is any indication, she has brought social conservatives behind John McCain in a way they never have been before, The question is: will she appeal to the independent voters who will probably decide the election. We won’t know that for awhile, but I think even Democrats would say from a political standpoint she has made a good first impression, at least with conservatives who never much cared for John McCain.

MATTHEW MOSK, Washington Post Campaign Finance Reporter, September 16, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Are there any restrictions on what can be shown in independent ads? I understand free speech, but can anyone run a totally unsubstantiated ad saying the most believable lie the weekend before the election, and tilt an election on a made up charge? Seriously, if someone finds an alleged ex or a prostitute who claims a candidate was abusive, gay, a foreign agent, etc., and they launch an ad the Sunday or Monday before the Tuesday election, would there be any checks or repercussions?
MOSK: Okay…this is a really interesting question. And I was stumped. So I just called Michael Turner, a former Federal Election Commission Chairman, to see what the rules are.
Here is what Turner told me:
“In terms on the content, what the ads can say, there are no real restrictions. An ad can be as negative as they want it to be.
“Broadcast stations cannot take a candidate’s ad off the air; even if they are demonstrably false.
“But, that is not the case with ads by third parties. There, a station can take an ad off the air if they don’t think it’s accurate. That’s the discretion of the broadcast company.”

TED WITMER, former Clinton Administration speechwriter, September 22, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: As much as we don’t like to talk about it, the job of “President of the United States” has the highest mortality rate of any occupation. Do you think it may be more likely that someone with more Capitol experience is more apt to create his own policy agenda, i.e. Sen. Biden, whereas Gov. Palin is more apt to be dependant upon the policy advisors she might inherit?
WITMER: I think it changes from situation to situation. Many outsiders have governed very well (Lincoln for example). And Governors have traditionally been good—Clinton, FDR, Wilson, Reagan. But in the current environment I sympathize with your sense that a Biden would be more comforting than a Palin. Stil, I hope it would never come to a VP having to become President until those kinds of circumstances.

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 23, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I am wondering why we, as a nation, seem to feel that the comments by a family’s religious leader, i.e. Rev. Wright, deserve scrutiny and the POLITICAL comments by a family’s political leader, i.e. the Alaska Independence Party, are not. Even Howard Kurtz says it is not important as only Governor Palin’s husband belonged to the party. Yet, Sarah Palin attended party meetings, spoke at party meetings, and I have yet to read that she was there condemning what they were discussing. What were they discussing? The right of Alaska to succeed from the Union. If the ghost of Lincoln were looking down at this election, he would be glad to see the country considering an African American for President. Might he be concerned there is a candidate who feels a state can succeed from the Union? I don’t want to hear conservatives criticize Obama because he doesn’t wear a flag pin or didn’t place his hand over his heart when the possible Second Husband belonged to a party whose leaders says to spit on the flag, doesn’t want to be buried in Alaska until it is independent from America, and in general is not the most pro-American patriotic organization around.
WEINGARTEN: I think so far, the media has been going too easy on Palin in general. I think it is an aversion to appearing to be culturally elitist. You seldom see the word “trailer’ used, for example.
There’s one other damning fact about the AIP. As I understand it, the main reason they want to secede is so that can make their OWN durn environmental laws and despoil wilderness as THEY see fit, not as some wussy lower-48 liberals think they should.

TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC Senior Campaign Correspondent and ANA MARIE COX, Radar magazine Washington Editor, October 1, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How important do you believe the Iraq War is to undecided voters, and how might the debates best get across where both tickets stand on the Iraq War?
CARLSON: Less important than it ought to be, given its inherent importance. There’s a feeling in the press that Americans aren’t interested in the subject, which may account for why Iraq isn’t more prominent as a debate topic.
COX: Agreed. And, ironically, the relative success of the surge has made McCain’s argument that he made the right call LESS relevant to the election. Of course, it’s also hurt Obama’s campaign that HE made the right call, originally, by opposing the war. I think the war played a huge part in the primaries, but today---barring, knock on wood, any disaster—it is in the background.

LIZA MUNDY, Washington Post Magazine Staff Writer, October 6, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: The film at the Democratic National Convention almost got a bit creepy at the part where it mentioned Barack and Michelle meeting. It almost made Barack Obama sound like a guy stalking his boss. What if the story was about how Michelle didn’t want to date as his superior and how he wore her down and won her love?
MUNDY: You know, this is an interesting point. Obviously, when they tell the story of his “persistence” it sounds pretty charming and innocuous. And, one senses that her skepticism didn’t last very long against his charm offensive. But yes, if she’s kept resisting and he’d kept persisting then at a certain point it would have become problematic. I also wonder if, in today’s more protocol-conscious workplace, any of this would be permissible, anymore. Probably, nowadays, once they’d made that Baskin-Robbins visit, she would have to get herself reassigned.
CZIKOWSKY: When Michelle Obama stated that Barack won her over when he bought her ice cream: seriously, is this a dark secret women have been hiding from men for ages? You really look for in men that we buy you ice cream?
MUNDY: Yes. This is a known fact.

TERENCE SAMUEL, The Root Deputy Editor, October 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I notice John McCain mentioned his political partner Joe Lieberman three times last night during the debates. Somehow he never mentioned his other political partner Sarah Palin. I believe voters find Sarah Palin refreshingly new and folksy, but no way do they trust her ever becoming Vice President or potentially President. Does polling now show that Palin is a liability to McCain?
SAMUEL: I did not actually notice that, but I think it is now true that Palin is not the asset she was in the first week on September. And increasingly, she looks like a liability with any voting bloc other than the base of the GOP where she continues to be a huge hit.
CZIKOWSKY: Is it derogatory or not to refer to one’s opponent as “that one”?
SAMUEL: I don’t know, but it was jarring and I think stopped everybody because it was so unusual. McCain needs to grow in stature and that was, I think, diminishing fro him.

CHRISTOPHER BEAM, Slate Political Reporters, October 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Someone is going around Philadelphia posting a notice that anyone with an outstanding warrant or unpaid bill, such as an electric bill or student loan, will be arrested by a plain clothes officers when they to go vote. What is my civic duty to counteract this?
BEAM: Classic dirty trick. Some flyers also say you’ll be arrested if you have overdue rent. Or if they don’t have the proper ID. Or if you or a family member is in prison
These kinds of rumors are ALWAYS untrue. The problem is, correcting them is tricky. Sometimes, by denying the rumors, you end up reinforcing them. The trick is to spread the good info without repeating the bad.

LIZ KELLY, Washingtonpost.com Celebrity Blogger, October 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Gene Weingarten asked what Rocky would think of having people think Sarah Palin sounds like Rocky from “Rocky and Bullwinkle”. I saw June Foray, who is the voice of Rocky, and she stated “I hope not. I hope I don’t sound like her/”
KELLY: That’s too funny. I’ll have to pass along to Gene.

TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC Senior Campaign Correspondent, and ANA MARIE COX, Radar Magazine Washington Editor
CZIKOWSKY: Do you think Jesse Jackson really believes that Obama does not support Israel, or do you believe (to be completely cynical about the man who said he wanted to cut off a piece of Obama’s anatomy) that this was a sly way for Jackson to undermine Obama?
CARLSON: Jackson dislikes both Israel and Obama---Israel for ideological reasons, and Obama because the election of a Black President would shrink the pool of white guilt from which he has been making his living in the past 40 years. You could spend the rest of your life trying to figure out what Jesse Jackson is saying, or why, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right.
COX: The cause Jesse Jackson believes in the most is Jesse Jackson. That he’s earned (using the term loosely) another 15 minutes of cable news fame counts (to him) as a victory.

SEBASTIAN MALLABY, Council of Foreign Relations Center for Geoeconomic Studies Director, October 17, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: We’ve gone from “it’s the economy stupid” to “it’s this stupid economy”. Has anyone correlated economic indicators with the polls? It seems when the market was crashing Obama gained in the polls. Once the market began rebounding, McCain rebounded. Is this anecdotal, or can anyone find any statistical correlation?
MALLABY: I think it’s pretty well recognized that good economies favor the incumbent party and bad ones favor the challengers. Clinton won in 1992 partly by running on the economy and blaming the downturn, which actually had ended by the time of the election, on Bush the elder. He cruised to victory in 1996 because the economy was going great then. Gore was in the dog house until his climate change comeback because he managed to lose in 20000 despite a strong economy.
Of course, when you have the White House incumbent leaving office one could argue that blame for a bad economy could favor either side. I think McCain is suffering partly because he is from Bush’s party and Obama has spent oodles on painting McCain as a continuation of and Bush. But McCain might be faring better if he was himself more fluent on the economy and had put together a better team of advisers. There was a revealing poll of academic economists published in The Economist recently. Not only did the vast majority of economist support Obama over McCain, even Republican economists said that Obama’s economic policies were superior.
When you consider that Obama’s economic policies actually have considerable flaws----for example his populist anti-trade stuff---this is a remarkable indictment of McCain.
CZIKOWSKY: Most of the elections won over the past half century have been won by fear. We need to be protected from “wolves in the forest”. Whether it is communists, murdering parolees, or terrorists, the Republicans have been there to remind us just before the election that we voters need their protection from these fears. How much might fear replace the economy? I see the robocalls and commercials reminding me that while Obama is not a terrorist, he just hangs around with a terrorist, and remember, Barack Hussein Obama is not really an Arab.
MALLABY: You are right that people vote their fears. After 9/11, the fear was terrorism. Today, the fear is job loss, melting 401ks, etc. This is why Obama is winning.

FRED HIATT, Washington Post Editorial Page Editor, October 17, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Was this an easy decision (for the Washington Post Editorial Board to endorse Obama for President), or where there much dissent to endorsing Obama?
HIATT: Neither. Because of our respect for McCain over the years, and because as noted we agree with him on some important issues---it couldn’t be easy. But also true, as we wrote, that it wasn’t ambivalent; by the time we came to write, we all agreed, and we all felt wholeheartedly about the decision.
I won’t lie and say that’s true of every endorsement decision at every race; sometimes there’s more dissension on the board. That’s what makes this an interesting board to work with.

MARK JURKOWITZ, Pew Center Project for Excellence in Journalism Associate Director, October 23, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Phil Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney who ran uphill campaigns for
Governor, Lt. Governor, and U.S. Senator, is seeking another fifteen minutes of fame by filing a lawsuit claiming Obama is not a U.S. citizen. I notice some local newspapers are beginning to pick up his story and he claims his website on this has received 50 million hits. I thought this matter was settled a long time ago by fact checkers and rumor control experts. Yet, what might another round of coverage on these old rumors do to this campaign?
JURKOWITZ: It’s unclear what another round of coverage of those rumors or others might do to affect the race at this point. I have not seen a great deal of mainstream media coverage of this. One thing that appears to be happening as we head toward the homestretch is that the news cycle is speeding up. It is now hard for any one story that isn’t a 10 on the Richter scale to have a shelf life of more than 24 hours.
CZIKOWSKY: The problem with our Presidential selection process is no one is qualified to be President, but someone has to be elected to do the job. No one has the complete knowledge, fortitude, foresight, skill, and luck to serve as President. If Jesus were to return and run for President, he would immediately be denounced for uncertain parentage, lack of administrative experience, and failure to have traveled to all continents. Could anyone come close to making most of the media happy?
JURKOWITZ: Your question----what does the media want?---is a difficult one to answer. One thing we see in the coverage is that the press is often looking for events in a campaign that might have the potential to be a strategic “game changer, to use an overworked phrase---whether it be Bill Ayers, a debate, or even the economic crisis. The media often seem to want a fluid or changeable campaign dynamic.

TOM BAXTER, Southern Political Report Editor, October 28, 2009
CZIKOWSKY: What is the projected African American turnout for each Southern state? Is it safe to presume that the African American vote is expected to go solidly for Obama? Which Southern states, if any, might be most vulnerable to an Obama upset victory?
BAXTER: In general let’s say its unexpected to be significantly higher than the previous election---and African American turnout in the South has improved steadily as African American average educational attainment has gone up.
For real upsets, look at South Carolina, which has a high Black VAP, a powerful African American leaders in Rep. James Clyburn, and a good Obama network leftover from the primary.

DAN SEIGSON, Electionline.org Editor, October 31, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I am worried about long lines in Pennsylvania. Since we now require identification checks and provisional ballots, it is expected that both sides will have people challenging voters from the other party. Is there anything that could be done if it becomes clear that one side is doing this deliberately to make the lines longer to discourage voters of the other party from voting?
SEIGSON: The identification requirement is only for first time voters. Photo and certain kinds of non-photo IDs are accepted.
I think you’re right about provisional ballots. With them many new voters in the system, there is the possibility that some records were incorrectly entered or otherwise slipped through the cracks.

TOD LINDBERG, Policy Review Editor November 17, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: It is impossible to predict the future, yet aren’t younger voters tilting to the Democratic Party in a larger proportion than in previous generations? Also, might this have some long term impacts? Have you found evidence of the percent of people who change political leanings? It is my understanding that people basically shift little or shift slowly over their lifetimes. Thus, is this a progressive generation that is coming of voting age, they are potentially likely to remain progressives at least for several decades. Does this sound correct?
LINDBERG: Your impression sounds right, but we’ll need to look at the datea. I think the GOP is especially out of sync with younger people on issues like gay marriage, which the rising generation doesn’t see as an issue at all---marry whomever you want! But remember that elections are won and lost over that 10 percent of voters in the middle, who are unlikely to have any strong party ID and may in many instances not be paying much attention to politics except near election. Both parties will paly for these voters (unless they are very foolish).