TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Time magazine's political blog, "Swampland"
• Time magazine
• Mr. Carney's bio

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Jay Carney is the Washington bureau chief for 'Time' magazine, who's covered politics for 'Time' since 1993. Prior to that, he served in the magazine's Moscow bureau, covering the fall of the Soviet Union. He is also a contributor to 'Time's' new political blog, 'Swampland,' which can read at Time.com. He joins us tonight from, is it Washington or 'Swampland,' Jay?

Jay Carney: (Laugh) Well, they're one in the same, Tavis, one in the same.

Tavis: (Laugh) Whose idea was that for the name, 'Swampland?' It's kind of cute.

Carney: It's Ana Marie Cox, who's sort of the host of the 'Swampland' blog. And as you know, she works for us now, but she was known formerly as Wonkette for your viewers. They might remember her.

Tavis: Absolutely. So, before we get to the Democrats, let's start with the Republicans. Let's start with the Republican, as in President Bush. So, in less than seven days, next Tuesday, he has got to try to sell the American public in his State of the Union address, on this troop surge. Your thoughts.

Carney: Well, what I expect out of the State of the Union is a pivot away, in part, from Iraq. He tried to sell the troop surge in his speech last week. It's not selling particularly well. But he's the Commander In Chief, and he has the leverage to pursue this plan for the time being, and to hope and cross his fingers that it will work, that some sort of progress can be made in Iraq.

Meanwhile, to salvage his Presidency in other ways, I think in the State of the Union, while he has to talk about Iraq, I think we'll see initiatives on energy independence and perhaps Social Security reform one more time. Perhaps something to do with healthcare financing. Those kinds of issues that actually matter a lot to the American voting public, but have been overshadowed in this Presidency by Iraq.

Tavis: All right, so that raises two questions, at least two questions. One, are the American people going to be distracted that easily by his putting out a bunch of other things that he wants to do, when everybody knows that it's Iraq, 24-seven, number one. And number two, does he have the credibility, the juice, to pull it off in Congress anyway, right about now?

Carney: Well, those are huge questions, and I think the answer to the first one is no, he can't distract the American public, and he can't, but he also can't, by giving speeches, something he's learned the hard way over the past 18 months, really, is that he cannot affect the public's feeling about the war simply by giving speeches.

The public is taking its cues on what's happening in Iraq by watching the news, and seeing the events on the ground. And the only way that's going to change, with the public's opinion and the Senate's opinion and the House's opinion, is by an improvement in what's happening on the ground. So that cannot be affected by this speech.

But to secure his legacy, and while he hopes that things improve in Iraq, he also hopes that he can get some achievements on domestic policy. And I think we'll see he'll offer something on energy independence, something he's been criticized for for not pursuing strongly enough. Maybe we'll get something surprising out of him, if he's desperate.

Perhaps something on immigration. He may be in a situation where his proposals on immigration reform have a better chance in a Democratic Congress than they had in a Republican-controlled Congress. So I think he's just gonna sort of let Iraq pursue one course, and then try to show that he's still able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Tavis: Let me try something on you for size. I'm not so sure - I'm just trying this out - I'm not so sure that this president cares anymore whether or not we're impressed that he can walk and chew gum at the same time. I think he has to realize, at this point, that his legacy is tied to Iraq. And whatever he believes history's gonna record about him down the road, he's made his peace with that. Do you really think that he cares at this point about trying to bamboozle us, that we're gonna improve his legacy with some policy changes?

Carney: I take your point, but I think that he believes history will judge him on Iraq. He believes, probably unpersuasively to a lot of people, that in the long run history will judge him to have been right about Iraq. Now, meanwhile, presidents do a lot of things, and he can't be like Richard Nixon. Looking at this from his point of view, it would be wrong to be like Richard Nixon, talking to the portraits on the wall, obsessing about one issue.

And much like President Clinton, when he was faced with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he successfully - I grant to you that these are quite different circumstances, but when he was in trouble, he successfully showed the American people that he could divorce his attention from that problem and focus on other issues.

His mantra was, I'm getting up every morning and working on the problems of the American people. I think what we'll see from Bush is an attempt to replicate that. Circumstances are quite different, Iraq war is a lot more serious than an intern scandal, but I think that's what they're looking for.

Tavis: I take your point, now, Mr. Carney, although I couldn't help but have...

Carney: You can call me Jay. (Laugh)

Tavis: Yeah. (Laugh) I couldn't help but have that bumper sticker, though, pop into my mind that we've seen so many times, that when Clinton lied, nobody died. So, there is a distinction there.

Carney: A huge distinction; and I think that the reality is that this president's place in history will be decided by Iraq, one way or the other. And right now, it's not looking particularly good for George W. Bush.

Tavis: Right, so we jump across the aisle now from the Republicans, or that Republican, at least, to the Democrats. Is it just me, Jay, or every time I turn on my television, I see some other Democrat, and quite frankly, some Republicans, but certainly every Democrat, particularly those who we expect to be running, running to the House floor, or running to the Senate floor to make sure they're on record being opposed to anything and everything about Iraq right now?

Carney: Well, they can read polls like the best of them, and the problem that a lot of those Senators in particular have is that a number of them were on what is now perceived to have been the wrong side back in 2002, in the fall, when they authorized, in a broad way, the president to use force in Iraq. And that's certainly Senator Clinton's dilemma, it's a number of other potential candidates' problems.

It is not, most conspicuously, a problem that Barack Obama has, because he was not in the Senate at the time, didn't have to cast that vote, was in the state legislature in Illinois, and in fact was vocally opposed to the invasion.

Tavis: So tell me how naïve I am to believe that if you're Clinton or anybody else, John Edwards, or anybody else who did, in fact, cast that vote to give the president authority to invade Iraq and do what he wanted there, if your argument to the American public is I made a decision based upon what my president said to me were the facts, if I had known then what I know now, namely that the facts that he presented to me were not true, my vote would have been different.

Why am I naïve to believe that that story won't sell to an average American who would have done the same thing if the president had given them the same set of facts?

Carney: Well, I think it'll sell to some people. The problem that - John Edwards has probably made the right choice in being categorical and saying, 'I made a mistake. I shouldn't have voted that way. Knowing what I do now, it was a huge mistake.' Hillary Clinton has been a lot more sort of fuzzy about it. She's implied the same thing, but hasn't come out and said it was a mistake.

Tavis: Her last name is Clinton, but that's another issue. Go ahead.

Carney: Well, there you go. (Laugh) But the problem that you have is that it's certainly legitimate to say we saw this intelligence, the president assured us that it was this, the president assured us that by voting for this authorization, he was still going to pursue peaceful methods through the United Nations' inspectors, and that sort of thing.

But it turns out to have been a great mistake, and I wish I hadn't, I could take it back. That's a reasonable position. The problem they have is that some of their opponents, Barack Obama, Al Gore, potentially, don't have to do that explaining. They can say, 'I was smart enough to know it was wrong at the time.'

Tavis: You think there's really a chance - I've been in so many conversations about this, and I've got my own ideas about it. But you think there's really a chance that Gore will look at this field and say, 'You know what? You got a woman and a brother, Barack Obama, who are gonna be fighting this out. When I step into this race, I am clearly the most presidential.'

If you believe that Gore can make the case, that you should have voted for me, with humility. But this Bush guy got it all wrong. There are a lot of folk who believe - I'm one of them - that Gore could really have a serious shot at making a comeback here.

Carney: I think it's a real possibility, because not only - he has something that no other loser, Democratic loser in a presidential election has, which is the willingness on the part of Democrats to give him a second chance, because they don't think he lost. Normally, Democratic politics, after Adlai Stevenson, you lose, you're banished.

John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, see you later, we don't wanna see you again. Al Gore is a different story, and I think he benefits from having all the experience that Barack Obama lacks, but also having been right on the war, this war. And he also benefits from having a reputation, in spite of being anti-war this time around, to being pretty hawkish.

A hawkish Democrat. So, his positioning is pretty ideal, but he's still Al Gore, and the charisma deficit between Al Gore and Barack Obama is infinite. Even Hillary is, while not great presentationally, is probably a little better than Al Gore.

Tavis: But Al Gore's gotten a lot better since being out of office. We've seen him do a lot of stuff since then.

Carney: I think that's true, and he has the movie, and he's a little better. But Al Gore, he can't change his spots.

Tavis: Al Gore is no Jay Carney.

Carney: (Laugh) Or Tavis Smiley. But he could be a serious candidate, especially if there's remorse about Clinton, feeling like we don't wanna go there, there's trepidation about Obama, because of his lack of experience. Gore has the luxury of being able to come in late if he decides to, because he's a huge name who could raise money instantly. He also has gotten quite wealthy, thanks to Google stock, since he left office. (Laugh) So, he's sitting pretty pretty at the moment.

Tavis: So finally, the big elephant in the room that we have avoided talking about, so one final question here, the exit question, you are neither, but I still am interested in your point of view, you are neither a woman nor an African American, but Hillary and Barack are, and it's going to be a major set of issues, yes?

Carney: I think it's gonna be fascinating to watch. If one of those - I don't care if you're Republican, Independent, Democrat, or Green, purple, blue party, it would be an amazing thing for America and for the world if the leader of the free world is a woman or an African American in January of 2009. And watching this play out over the next 18 months will be history in the making, no matter how it ends up.

And what's refreshing, I think, from what we're seeing among Democratic voters, is that there's a sort of post-gender, post-racial approach to this. That you have Black Americans lining up behind Hillary, you have White women lining up behind Barack, you have poor people, poor Democrats of all colors and both genders lining up behind John Edwards. So it's not, you're not getting this kind of, Blacks are for Obama, woman are for Hillary, and that can only be a good thing.

Tavis: Yup. We will see. It should be a fascinating time for Jay Carney and anybody else covering this race over the next year or so, and I look forward to talking to Jay and others as we move in that direction. Jay Carney, the bureau chief in Washington for 'Time' magazine. Nice to have you here, Jay, we'll do it again.

Carney: Thanks, Tavis.

Tavis: Take care. Up next on this program, hip-hop artist Common. Stay with us.