Shields and Brooks on the Obama-McCain Race | Online NewsHour | June 12, 2008

Program
Support
From:

ABOUT US | LOCAL TV LISTINGS EMAIL PRINT

REGION: North America

TOPIC: Politics

Online NewsHour

Originally Aired: June 12, 2008


	Shields and Brooks on the Obama-McCain Race

	With the lengthy Democratic primary campaign in the rear-view mirror, the focus turns to the presidential campaign showdown between Sen. Barack Obama and GOP Sen. John McCain. NewsHour analysts Mark Shields and David Brooks answered your questions on all things politics.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Welcome to this week's Insider Forum, I'm Judy Woodruff.

Well, the lengthy and historic Democratic Primary campaign has come to a close. The senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, is the presumptive nominee. Last week, his chief rival, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, suspended her effort, and threw her support to him.

Now, the focus turns to the general election, and the showdown between Obama, and the presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

So what are the prospects for the Obama-McCain match up? And what should voters keep an eye out for on the campaign trail?

To answer those questions and yours, we turn to our regular political analysts, syndicated columnist, Mark Shields, and New York Times columnist, David Brooks. Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you, Judy.

DAVID BROOKS: Nice to be with you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: First question comes from Redondo Beach, California. Terry Coleman says, "Both McCain and Obama seem to appeal to independent voters. Does either candidate really have an edge, already, in the general election?"

Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, to answer the question from Redondo Beach on the base surveyed, a slight edge to Obama.

But independents have been tilting strongly Democratic this year in every other measurement and actual interviews, so, I would say Obama is not running as strongly as the Democrats generally, generically, are, and then add to that that John McCain is obviously stronger among independents, with independents, than any other Republican possible nominee.

DAVID BROOKS: I guess I'd agree. I think, I'm looking at the polls here, and Obama has about five point lead, which is about seven points or so behind the generic Democratic/Republican gap. So, he's got a lead, and not a big one.

I guess what disappoints me, so far, about the election is -- while they both should appeal very strongly to independents, I'd say both in their policy proposals at the beginning, have not really cultivated independents that much.

My newspaper had a story yesterday about their economic policies, and Obama's a pretty traditional Democratic approach, and McCain's is a pretty traditional Republican, you know, tax cut approach.

So, I'm sort of disappointed already at how orthodox the two campaigns have been, both in substance, and also in even the way they're running against each other.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, what --

MARK SHIELDS: I think that's a good point that David makes, it just -- look at the tax policies of the two of them, which was analyzed in today's Wall Street Journal, in a tax dollars story -- and they're pretty conventional, pretty predictable, and not terribly imaginative on whole.

And the idea that, you know, what we need is just a tinkering with the tax code, I think, is faulty, and whoever gets elected is going to have to make major changes, and it would give his campaign just that much more moral imperative, and moral momentum, as well as political capital, if they would argue that now.

But I think that's -- I think that's a legitimate point.

And the nitpicking back and forth. I mean, there's great enthusiasm on the part of -- it seems to be on Oprah -- for the Democrats, but I think, you know, the sad thing is that, you know, that sort of that nitpicking back and forth. You know, "Your mother wears Army shoes," sort of argument.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A question from Maplewood, New Jersey, Pam Friedman, "How serious for the Obama campaign is the resignation of Jim Johnson? What does it signify about the campaign, these early days of the general election?" And this, maybe picking up on what you're saying, but going beyond that -- "what should Obama be doing differently as he determines who will be on his team?"

David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I have a complicated view on this -- what Jim Johnson did, I think, is reason for him not to serve Barack Obama.

But, I have a problem with the entire Obama message, that we shouldn't allow lobbyists to play any role. There are -- you know, there are good lobbyists and there are bad lobbyists. Jim Johnson happens to have a pretty good reputation, I would say, in Washington.

And my biggest fear about Obama, is that he can't actually deliver on what he promises, he doesn't actually know how to pass complicated legislation.

That's actually a very tough thing to do -- Lyndon Johnson could do it, people like Dick Darman could do it -- even, you know, Richard Nixon could do it. I'm not sure Barack Obama knows how to do it.

And if he's going to learn how to do it, or get people to know how to do it, a certain proportion of them are going to be lobbyists, or have worked with lobbyists, or maybe, like, in Tom Daschle's case, be married to lobbyists.

And I think this blanket ban on lobbyists is just a terrible idea, because it takes them -- it sends him towards staff that really has no experience in Washington, practically, and that could be terribly damaging.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, what about that?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, Ben Bradlee, the erstwhile, legendary editor of the Washington Post had a rule that was, "Never do anything that you can't imagine being on the front page of the Washington Post tomorrow in the morning." And, you know, your public dealings.

And I think, there's no question that given Obama's pronouncements that he's running against Washington insiders, with special deals, special arrangements, that it became an untenable and indefensible position for him to keep Jim Johnson, who is a highly respected and very esteemed citizen of the city.

But once it was revealed that he had been CEO of Fannie Mae, he had, in fact, received preferential treatment, and his home mortgages, residential mortgage from Countrywide, a company -- a sub-prime lending company, the sub-prime tragedy, the chaos in the country that Obama has run against.

So, it -- once you lay down, as your marker, that that's the case, it became impossible for, I think, for him to stay.

But, you do need, you do need wise advice, you do need wise ways and sharper guys in getting things done. And there's no more important decision than Obama's going to make between now and November, than that of the selection of a running mate.

What he says on education and health, he can always correct. But what a running mate says in Troy, New York, or Boise, Idaho in the middle of October, may come back to haunt or hurt the campaign.

So, I think that the idea that this was just a volunteer, and it really didn't matter, and therefore his own, Johnson's own involvement was irrelevant, which was Obama's defense, I don't think it washed.

And I think it showed Obama's campaign at its worst. So, I think he had to quickly move off him.


	Mark Shields Sydicated Columnist

	Just one thing on the vice president. It all comes down to this -- whether the candidate decides to make a micro-choice or a macro-choice.

The vice president question

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, let's move on. You raise the vice presidential question. Brian McMullen of Eugene, Oregon writes in, "To what extent does the selection of a vice presidential nominee effectively balance out weaknesses of the Presidential candidate?"

And what areas of perceived weaknesses are each candidate hoping to shore up with their vice presidential pick, David?

DAVID BROOKS: I think it most importantly, it should balance out the weakness of a president, not so much the weakness of a candidate.

My view is a bit of a minority view, I don't think the vice president makes much of a difference in the election, one way or another. I guess Lyndon Johnson did, but that was a long time ago.

Some candidates -- I remember when Bob Dole picked Jack Kemp -- that was a good few days for Dole, probably the only good days he had. But, I really don't think it makes a big difference.

So, I think when you pick a vice presidential candidate, you should pick someone who will actually help you govern. And as we've seen more in Cheney, the vice presidents really can make a big difference.

And so, for Obama, again, I go back to my theme, I think you need someone who actually knows Washington well, and can help him navigate legislation.

For McCain, I think, his problem is organization of domestic policy. And so, he needs someone who will give him some organization in domestic policy.

And so for Obama, I had recommended somebody like Sam Nunn, or Tom Daschle, and for McCain, I had recommended somebody like Rob Portman, who was an Ohio Congressman for 10 years, and then ran the budget under President Bush, or Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota.

He's got very good connections with the white working class, and the Republican Party has lost touch with its base, which is the white working class.

So, I really think it's a more a governing issue than a campaigning issue.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, following up on this theme, Rachel MacNair of Kansas City, Missouri, says, "In the close races we've had twice now, abortion has helped the Republicans. One of the balancing acts of the Democrats would be to pick a pro-life running mate." She says, "This would upset a lot of Hillary voters, but this can be mitigated by having it be a pro-life woman. Does any of this make any sense? Or does that make any sense?"

MARK SHIELDS: I would say, probably not. I mean, I think you can see the Democratic Party has ceased to apply a litmus test to the matter of Roe v. Wade for its nominees for the Congress.

I mean, in 2006 the Democratic Senatorial campaign committee backed Bob Casey in Pennsylvania in the primary for the United States Senate, the son of the most famous pro-life governor Bob Casey Sr., and he's pro-life himself, and he, of course trounced the Republicans in the general election. And they took some criticism for that, Judy.

I -- and the Democrats elected to the House, in the two most recent special elections, in both Louisiana and Mississippi when they took both seats -- long-held Republican seats -- were both, are both pro-life.

So, the Democrats, as Tom Davis, the Republican Congressman from Virginia, which is probably one of the two or three smartest people I know in Washington, put it, "The Democrats have broken -- they've cracked the code. They've figured out that in order to be a governing party, they have to be an umbrella party." Whereas, he said his own Republican Party is still applying a ... test before they'll let candidates on the ballot.

And I think there is something to that. I think the chances of there being a pro-life running mate are next to zero in 2008, not just because it would upset people, because people don't know Obama.

You have to know the candidate already very well, the nominee, before you did that.

Just one thing on the vice president. It all comes down to this -- whether the candidate decides to make a micro-choice or a macro-choice.

A micro-choice is where the presidential nominee says, "I want to carry a state." And like John McCain saying, I wanted Charlie Crist for governor of Florida, or Obama saying Ted Strickland -- I'm not saying he'd accept it -- but the governor of Ohio would carry Ohio, because they're important states.

The other, the macro is when you say, I've got to address a larger problem, whether it's political or governing, as David mentioned.

But Dick Cheney, in 2000, was very much a macro choice for George W. Bush, who had no experience internationally, or in national security or foreign policy. He hadn't even traveled overseas, except, I think, for one trip.

And Cheney is a former Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff. It wasn't the question. He could have carried Wyoming if he had Rosie O'Donnell on the ticket, it's not a question.

So, I think in Obama's case, what he has to compensate for is his own perceived lack of strengths, and experience.


	David Brooks New York Times

	I guess there are two things to be said, was, first, McCain is not traditional evangelical conservative, I think, in the way that, say, George Bush was.

Christian voters

JUDY WOODRUFF: James Schreyer of Minnesota writes in, "How deeply is Senator McCain going to be indebted to the conservative Christian block of voters?" He says, "Such as the Southern Baptist Convention that mobilized, and helped the Republicans get elected in all of the national elections since the 1994 Republican takeover. He can't get elected without them, can he?" James Schreyer writes. He says, "However, if it's not an ideology he shares, how do you see this unfolding?"

David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, he can't get elected without a mention that you're a Republican, can't win without social conservatives.

So, I do notice, I think I read a headline today that Franklin Graham had a warm embrace with Barack Obama. So, everyone's courting evangelicals.

So, I guess there are two things to be said, was, first, McCain is not traditional evangelical conservative, I think, in the way that, say, George Bush was.

I don't think that's the core of this value system. I think his value system is more built on the military code of honor and courage.

And so, I think he is conservative, he has certainly always been pro-life. But I don't think he has quite the same value system, same orientation.

But it is important to court those people, in part, because there are a lot of them, and they're very important.

But in part, it is, the second thing to be said, is the social conservative vote has been changing quite a lot over the past decade or two. There may have once been a day when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed, or the moral majority of the Christian Coalition spoke for this community, it is certainly not true anymore. Evangelical Christians are much more cosmopolitan, much more affluent than the average American, much better educated than the average American, and it's become a much more politically diverse group, and a much more -- a group that doesn't feel themselves in opposition to main culture.

So, Rick Warren, and people like that really have replaced people like Jerry Falwell as the, sort of, the moral center of the movement; much more poverty oriented, and much more service-oriented. And hence, much less politically predictable.

And so, McCain, has to do a good job of courting them. He has done a good job of courting them, he has done poorly because he doesn't know the movement. He courted this guy, Hagee, who really doesn't speak for the movement. And Barack Obama is actually courting them with some chance of some success, because it is a more diverse movement than maybe it used to be.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark --

MARK SHIELDS: I agree with David.


	Mark Shields Syndicated Columnist

	As far as the 527s as a concern, I think there is hope that you would get . . . a pledge that they would condemn, oppose ad on their behalf that attacks their opponent.

Getting out of Iraq

JUDY WOODRUFF: This is Paul de Havilland, Littleton, New Hampshire, David, I'm going to put this one to you, "How is it that Barack Obama could not swoop the South," I think he means not be expected to do well in the South, "when he did so well in the primaries? I know they're primaries, but if the African-American population flocked to him then, and should do so again, aren't these red states in play for Obama?"

DAVID BROOKS: No.

[Laughter.]

DAVID BROOKS: There simply aren't enough African-Americans, these are pretty conservative states. And there may be a few he can pick off, and I know he was talking about picking off a few. But, if he won those states, it would be because he won a national tide, and won everywhere else, and there just -- there just aren't enough African-American voters in those states to really turn it over.

And then the question becomes, is it because it's racism or is it something else? And this is a question that's impossible to answer.

I think obviously there's a racial element in play, but the second thing to be said is a lot of people -- and this was the -- Mark has mentioned the Peter Hart focus group that was done in Virginia a little while ago, which I've heard various people in the campaigns are talking about.

And one of the things that struck me about that focus group, is that people a) didn't know that much about Obama, but b) had trouble relating his life to their own lives.

So, Obama's had this very, very unique upbringing, you know, North Chicago background and, you know, Harvard Law School -- people don't know quite where that fits in, they can't relate to it one-on-one.

So, I think that's created a mystery around him, which is beyond race -- it's just, "Who is this guy? What does he really stand for?"

JUDY WOODRUFF: David, Blaise Arena writes, "My main concern in this campaign is the impact of the private 527," he writes 547, but I know he means 527, "Organizations, radio and TV ads. These ads," -- these are these independent groups that can weigh in without direct connection to the campaign.

He says, "I think these ads had a devastating, distorting effect on the last Presidential election, and on many local elections since then. It seems impossible to mount an effective defense against them. What advice do you offer to either candidate who's targeted by these 527s?" David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it's certainly true John Kerry, for example, felt targeted by them, with the Swift Boating -- and it's certainly true that George Bush felt it, with -- there was an ad running where he was allegedly in a lynching, dragging somebody in chains.

And so, these ads certainly are nasty.

I'm actually less convinced that they actually shape elections one way or the other, I think voters are reasonably good at shaking off these kinds of ads, and just deciding on their own who to support.

I guess the lesson, though, of the last election is, respond immediately, and this is certainly the lesson that the Obama campaign has taken. That, as soon as anything comes up, respond immediately.

They've started a Web site, even today, in which they talk, in which it's an attempt to respond to some of the misinformation that's floating out there about him.

So, they -- this is just something that's been set up by our system, these people exist, and they exist in another world where they're not really accountable to anybody.

But, I'm still a little skeptical they really shape elections.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Barbara Sigman of Los Angeles, Mark, raises a very big issue, and I know we've only got a few minutes left, but I'm going to go ahead and put it out there, because I think it's on a lot of people's minds. She says, "Do you think Barack Obama would be able to live up to his promise to withdraw troops quickly from Iraq, if he's elected?

MARK SHIELDS: In all likelihood, he would regard that as a promise that's going to be absolutely compelling for him to keep.

I think unless he starts hedging during the debates -- which he may very well do, but I think that's central to the Democrats victory in 2006, and I think it's too much of an element of his own candidacy that he was the anti-war candidate.

Judy, as far as the 527s as a concern, I think there is hope that you would get -- could get from both of these candidates, because they are, and see themselves, different -- a pledge that they would condemn, oppose ad on their behalf that attacks their opponent. But I do think it did shape the election of 2004.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David, on the Iraq question?

DAVID BROOKS: I think it's extremely unlikely we'll be out by 16 months, and I think Obama's already begun hedging that.

He's got the line, which I think is a good line, we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. And if he tries to get out in the 16 months that, occasionally, he's talked about, personally, I think that Arab leaders all around the region will be very upset. I think the Colonels in Iraq, our Colonels would be extremely upset, the Republicans would be extremely upset, and it will polarize Washington, and make any other bipartisan effort impossible to do.

I really don't know too many Democratic foreign policy thinkers who think we'll be out in that short a time.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I want to thank you both. This has just been terrific, once again. I want to thank both Mark Shields, syndicated columnist, and David Brooks, New York Times columnist, and our regulars on the NewsHour.

And I also want to thank all of our viewers and online visitors who sent in so many questions, and so many questions, it was tough for us to choose which ones we were going to ask.

We obviously weren't able to get to all of them, but we hope we were able to answer some of the ones that you all felt very strongly about. We hope you're going to join us online, for a chance to ask questions to next week's expert panel.

Until then, I'm Judy Woodruff.