Kautzman's AP GO PO Blog

Every weekday, members of the Washington Post political team take your questions on politics. Here are highlights from today’s chat with Anne E. Kornblut.

Mount Prospect, Ill.: How do you reconcile the apparent wide gap between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (according to recent polls) and the significant reaction (both in donors and total dollars) that puts Obama at the top tier, above Clinton? Is it possible that despite those polls, this grassroot movement for Obama is something the media is missing that will show its strength at the voting/caucus settings, and that is why Obama continues to avoid any strident criticisms of Clinton?
Anne E. Kornblut: It’s a great question,and one we spend a lot of time scratching our heads over here. Your theory is entirely possible; it is, after all, about three months until we see actual voting begin. And let’s not forget who was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination four years ago (hint: it was not John Kerry). The Clinton campaign, though, would say that Obama’s support donation-wise is a reflection of his support from elites who can afford to help him (and donors overall make up a small portion of the population), whereas Clinton has broad popular support… We will find out soon enough.

Salinas, Calif.: Hi Anne. Is John Edwards deciding to accept public funds for his campaign an example of trying to put the best face on an increasingly difficult position for a bottom-of-the-top-tier candidate, in contrast with the money generating juggernauts of Clinton and Obama? Is he banking on his long-term fieldwork in Iowa to counteract the limitations on spending that public financing will impose? I would expect his team to spin their position as taking the high road on campaign spending, considering their circumstances. Your thoughts?

Anne E. Kornblut: You are exactly right. By accepting public financing, Edwards is essentially conceding that his fundraising efforts haven’t been as successful as they had hoped. He is trying to put the happiest face on it — arguing, as you suggest, that he will be the one to reject the monied interest and stick to government-imposed limits, and calling on other Democratic candidates to do the same. But it’s a hard sell. And it may just be a reflection of the fact that there is only so much money out there, and only so many candidates who can vaccuum it up.

Silver Spring, Md.: Can you please explain why the leading Republican candidates didn’t show up for the debate last night in Baltimore? Would it really hurt these candidates that much in places like South Carolina to appear in front of a black audience? If this is the state of the Republican party I don’t see how right-thinking people of any race can continue to associate with the party. This is really repulsive behavior. People who act this way shouldn’t be president of a diverse country and can’t be expected to understand a world made up of many different cultures and viewpoints.

Anne E. Kornblut: I think the basic thinking was that there wasn’t a great deal of percentage in it for these guys. It’s the end of the fundraising quarter and they all had previously scheduled events (or so they said). This has been a particular bete noir for the former RNC chairman, Ken Mehlman (who did, by contrast, show up), who made the same case during his tenure that you have here. The current crop doesn’t seem to have bought in to that thinking, quite.

In the West Virgnia woods: Do you see any hint that Democrats know Hillary Clinton is pro-immigration, pro-NAFTA, pro-outsourcing? In other words she is very much a free-trader, and there is no sign anyone knows. She’s on a fast track to the presidency and people need to know where she stands on issue that are not on the media radar screen. Iraq is the only subject that interests the national media. Important as Iraq is, it is certainly not the only important issue. Do you think the media will broaden their interests to cover domestic issues?

Anne E. Kornblut: She has, actually, voiced differences with her husband over NAFTA (saying it would require revisions) and her opponents, Edwards in particular, have made sure to underscore where she has been on trade. One of his more recent lines is that the Clinton administration failed to bring us health care but brought us NAFTA instead. I would not be surprised at all to see this emerge as amore important issue in the weeks/months ahead. Great question.

South Bend, Ind.: I’ve watched a lot of the Democratic debates and I’ve come away really liking how Joe Biden isn’t willing to pander as much to the liberal base on Iraq withdrawal and actually adding something different to that discussion with his plan for a basically leaving Iraq in a loose confederation. What are the thoughts of foreign policy experts on the merits of this plan? Also, I know Biden doesn’t have a chance at the nomination, but what about vice president for one of the inexperienced candidates (Obama, Edwards, heck even Clinton) or Secretary of State?

Anne E. Kornblut: Sen. Biden has done a really interesting job of shaping the debate, hasn’t he? I am not a foreign policy expert, but put to a vote in the Senate this week, his plan for the confederation (not a partition, he was quick to note during the debate) won a majority. As you suggest, he is, as always, worth keeping an eye on and paying attention to.