Shields and Brooks Mull ’08 Race, Pace of Economy

JUDY WOODRUFF:

And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who joins us tonight from Philadelphia.

Gentlemen, good to see you both. Some new polls, presidential polls in Iowa, Mark, especially the Washington Post-ABC, what do they tell us, if anything, about this contest? Especially, let's start with the Democrats.

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:

I think, first, a caveat. Mark Mellman, who was John Kerry's pollster in 2004, reminds us that two-thirds of the voters in Iowa on the Democratic side in 2004 decided in the last month, and 40 percent of them decided in the last week. So this is an enormously fluid situation. Who's ahead by four points or down by four points probably doesn't mean much.

JUDY WOODRUFF:

So the fact that Obama is up by four…

MARK SHIELDS:

Up by four and Clinton is down by four in one, or they're even in another. And the other thing we have to remember, Judy, is there's never a straight path in these primary fights. There's always a hairpin curve, a dead-end, whatever, that surprises us. And we continue to be surprised that we're surprised, but we will be surprised again this time.

That said, I'd just add that the internals in the poll — that is, the sense of what voters' judgments on the strengths and weaknesses of the respective candidates — are a topic of major conversation among many Democrats. And that is that Senator Clinton is seen as less honest, forthright, candid, direct than is Senator Obama or even Senator Edwards, her two principal opponents.

And I think you can make the case, the Democrats lost two presidential elections to George W. Bush where their nominees, John Kerry and Al Gore, were both seen as more intelligent, knowledgeable, and in Al Gore's case, far more experienced than George W. Bush.

But George W. Bush won, I believe, in both cases because he was seen as more steadfast in his beliefs and convictions, more honest, and more likable. And I think Democrats, there's a certain sense among some that they've seen this movie before, where their candidate failing on the likeability, honesty, straightforward question becomes a problem.

JUDY WOODRUFF:

So, David, how much worry should that be to Hillary Clinton?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times:

I think significant worry. Obviously, there's been some movement here, as Mark said. Obama has a two-to-one advantage on honesty. And to me equally amazing was that Obama is even with Hillary Clinton with women, so that shows some vulnerability.

And the third thing that I think should cause her some worry is that Obama actually is doing some things right that he wasn't doing right earlier before. He gave a speech a couple of weeks ago now at the Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner, which could be seen as a turning point, if this momentum continues.

And the essence of what he said was: Don't vote out of fear. Don't vote because you're afraid of the Republicans, afraid to not vote for Clinton. Think higher, dream higher, and vote for something that will offer real change. And that was quite a good speech.

He hasn't followed it up with tremendous substance, but it was a fantastic speech. And he could ride that speech, that sort of message, quite a long way, I think.