E-mail a friendChris Cillizza
airdate August 18, 2008
Chris Cillizza writes "The Fix"—a daily political blog on The Washington Post's Web site. He's also a regular contributor to the Post on political issues. Cillizza was previously White House correspondent at Roll Call, covered governor's races and southern House races for the Cook Political Report and wrote a column on politics for Congress Daily. His freelance work has appeared in numerous publications, including The Atlantic Monthly and Slate. The Connecticut native is a graduate of Georgetown University.
Author tells Tavis how the Georgia-Russia conflict will impact the presidential campaign. (2:37)
Full Interview. (10:30)
Chris Cillizza
Tavis: Tonight, though, we start with politics and Chris Cillizza from "The Washington Post," author of the paper's influential weblog, "The Fix." Prior to his current post, he served as Washington correspondent for "Roll Call." He joins us tonight from "The Washington Post" newsroom. Chris, nice to have you on, sir.
Chris Cillizza: Tavis, thank you for having me.
Tavis: So many issues affecting this political campaign for the White House - so many issues, so little time. Let me see if we can do it in 10 and a half minutes here. Let me start with these two international stories - certainly two of the many - but two major stories on the international front that I suspect will have some impact on this campaign for the White House, this race for the White House.
One, the issue of what's happening in Georgia and Russia's intervention there over the past couple of weeks; and then the other story, of course - the news of Mr. Musharraf resigning in Pakistan.
Let me take them in that order, one at a time, and have you unload them for me and tell me what you think their impact will be on this campaign and whether or not these two stories enhance McCain's standing.
Cillizza: Well, Tavis, the wonderful thing, I think, about covering politics is it doesn't happen in a vacuum. You don't just have the two candidates talking about what they want to talk about. They also have to talk about what happens in the world around them. No question these two events, as you rightly cite, are going to have a big impact.
John McCain very clearly believes, certainly with the Russia-Georgia conflict, that it works to his benefit. He came out immediately with a very strongly worded statement in support of Georgia. His campaign continues to push that. They've essentially said that this is a 3:00 a.m. moment of sorts, to borrow a term from the Democratic primary race.
That this is a moment when experience, when knowing how to get things done, when knowing the world situation matters, and that John McCain is much more well suited to handling these sorts of crises than Barack Obama. So the McCain campaign clearly believes these external events from the last few weeks have helped them.
The Pakistan development is so new that I don't think we have a lot of analysis on it, but certainly any time the eye drifts toward foreign policy, John McCain's campaign believes they're fighting on good ground.
Tavis: And yet your answer notwithstanding, to my read at least - and maybe you know different - but to my read, I don't know that Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama said, at least - I'm not talking about the issue of experience - but what they said about how they would handle this and what ought to be done was really not that different.
Cillizza: No, absolutely not. McCain is essentially, Tavis, I think relying on that resume. He talks quite a bit about it, I think he's basically saying, "Look at my resume, I've been to Georgia, I've been an advocate for it for some time." Their statements, I would say McCain's maybe a little bit more pro-Georgia, a little bit more aggressive.
Obama's statement was more diplomatic; more, frankly, along the lines of what the Bush administration initially said. Obama came back, made a little bit of a stronger-worded statement. But no, the differences between their two statements are not huge. I think what you're looking at or what the McCain campaign at least hopes you look at is the difference between their two resumes when it comes to foreign policy.
Tavis: It's one thing - and I hear your point loud and clear - it's one thing for the McCain people to want us to look at their resume. That's what they want us to see. Obama wants us to see that he offers a different way of dealing and being in the world where our country is concerned.
The larger question for me is have you seen any discernable difference, any notable difference in how the media is covering this particular angle of the race, given McCain's resume? Is he getting the benefit of the doubt in the stuff that you've been reading?
Cillizza: Well, what I would say, Tavis, is I don't know about the actual content of each story. What I would say is that McCain has struggled for months. And this was true especially since he secured the nomination in February and the Democratic race went all the way on till June. He struggled to break through.
The coverage was Obama and Clinton. After Obama secured the nomination it was largely focused on Obama. He's the newer face; he's the history-making candidate in this field. I actually think from a reporter's perspective it makes sense. What the Russia-Georgia conflict certainly has done for McCain is give him a foothold every day in the news.
His campaign puts out a statement almost every single day, they have a conference call almost every single day on this - not necessarily saying all that much new, but trying to keep it in the news because they feel like it's a winning issue for them. So I would say it's helped McCain get on the front pages of newspapers like "The Washington Post" a little bit more than he did a few months ago.
Tavis: This requires looking into a crystal ball and I know that reporters can't really do that, but let me ask it anyway: Whether or not if there continues to be - god forbid, but if there continues to be this kind of conflict on the international front between now and November, do you think it's likely that McCain could end up pulling this thing out, to your earlier point, because of the way the storyline developed around this campaign, not even so much about what they did inside of their campaigns?
Cillizza: Tavis, I actually don't know the answer to that. If I had a crystal ball I would definitely be using it, but I don't. (Laughter) What I think is that what you're seeing shape up is the contrast between experience and judgment. The McCain campaign is going to say this is a dangerous and complex world; we need someone with the experience who has been to these places, who has looked these world leaders in the eye, who they know on a first-name basis to be representing our interests.
The Obama campaign - and he's done this, I think, to pretty good effect to date - will say, "It's about judgment." In the primary, they said Hillary Clinton has lots of Washington experience, but on the critical foreign policy decision, that vote for the use of force resolution in 2002, Barack Obama opposed it - he wasn't in the Senate but spoke out in opposition to it - Hillary Clinton voted for it.
So experience doesn't do you any good unless you have judgment. Obama's campaign got a very nice boost, Tavis, when he went to Iraq earlier this summer. He arrived there; the Iraqi prime minister said you know what? We think U.S. troops could well be out of Iraq in the next 16 months or so. Not a ringing endorsement of the Obama plan, but certainly close to what Obama has proposed for the future of the country than what John McCain has proposed.
So I think those are the two poles that you're going to see this election fought on - experience on the one hand, judgment on the other. And I really think whoever can make a more compelling case over whether experience matters more or judgment matters more is probably going to wind up on top in the fall.
Tavis: What reason is there to believe that McCain can win with the experience argument, because Mrs. Clinton, who you referenced earlier, tried that and it didn't work so well.
Cillizza: I think that the struggles of Senator Clinton to make the case that Barack Obama was not experienced enough or didn't have the right judgment to be president should be warning sign for John McCain. What I would say though, Tavis, a general election electorate looks different than a Democratic primary electorate.
A Democratic primary electorate, certainly in this election, very much opposed to the war - Senator Clinton's vote for the war made it very difficult for her to carry a message on foreign policy that she had the experience and the judgment necessary.
The general election electorate is going to be a little bit more divided on the war. Certainly the majority of the American people do not believe the war was worth fighting, but there is real consternation and questioning over what do we do next. And so I think that that debate will play out a little more evenly between McCain and Obama, and if you just look at the polling, and it's a crass way of looking at this race but in some ways it's one of the few measures that we have, the polling suggests that yes, Barack Obama is ahead, but he is not ahead by 10 or 12 points that would suggest a blow-out; he's ahead by four or five or six points.
That would suggest that when the fall campaign gets truly engaged, that we're looking at what could be a close race with John McCain's experience certainly going to be the thing he's going to lean on in hopes of convincing voters that now is the time to go with him rather than this new, fresh-faced Barack Obama.
Tavis: So we're all packing up in a couple of days, headed to Denver for the start of this two-week run of conventions - Democrats first in Denver; of course Republicans in St. Paul the following week. We'll be there on this TV program - on the radio and television - my radio and TV shows both emanating live from those sites over the next couple of weeks.
That said, Chris, the news that we're waiting for in front of those conventions is who they're going to pick as running mates. And so it would appear, if what I'm reading is correct, that on the Obama we've whittled this down to three people, basically - Joe Biden, Democrat, of course, senator out of Delaware; Democratic Senator Evan Bayh out of Indiana, and; and Tim Kaine, the governor of Virginia.
Those are the three names that keep popping up the most; Biden, of course, in the news a lot over the last 24-48 hours because of his foreign affairs, international experience. What's your sense right quick of what it's going to look like on that side?
Cillizza: I think you're exactly right in that top three, Tavis. My guess - and it really is a guess, I don't want to fool viewers that I know - my guess is that it will come down to Bayh or Biden. I think that Barack Obama wants to make what he believes to be a safe pick, a pragmatic pick, somebody who is going to reassure voters on that national security foreign policy credential.
It's the one only obvious weakness that he may have. My guess is they are going to move in that direction to try and shore it up.
Tavis: And on the McCain side we keep hearing that Governor Pawlenty is really the choice.
Cillizza: What's fascinating is most people don't know who Tim Pawlenty is, and that can work to McCain's benefit or his detriment. On the one hand, you can help define the image of Tim Pawlenty, a two-term, Midwestern governor. On the other hand, people don't know who he is. It's not likely that that independent, undecided voter is going to get really energized that John McCain picks Tim Pawlenty.
The one thing I'll say about McCain's pick, Tavis, and this is important - McCain is a gut politician, much more so than almost anybody else we see who rises to this level in national politics. He makes sort of instinctual decisions. I think that's why you see people like Tom Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania, and Joe Lieberman, a Democrat turned Independent senator, mentioned in that top tier as McCain possible picks.
They are very close personally to McCain, and I think that may well matter quite a bit when he makes his final decision.
Tavis: Got about just 15 seconds right quick - your take on this faith forum that they had at Saddleback this weekend?
Cillizza: I thought both candidates had different jobs to do and both did it. Obama was playing to a tough audience. They're not going to agree with him on where he stands on most of the social issues. I think he did a good job of saying, "Look, I come at this from a moral perspective, even if you don't agree with me."
McCain was good; he used it as a campaign event much more so than Obama. Stuck to his stump speech, and again, he was playing to a friendly audience so he was received well.
Tavis: Chris Cillizza from "The Washington Post." Chris, we'll be covering these conventions, as you will be, over the next couple of weeks, and I'm sure we'll talk to you again. Nice to have you on. Thanks for taking the time.
Cillizza: Thank you for having me, Tavis.
Tavis: It's my pleasure.
Back to August 18, 2008