HOME / the chat room: Real-time discussions with Slate writers.

Getting RacyJohn Dickerson takes readers' questions on the fast-moving primary campaigns.

Posted Thursday, Feb. 7, 2008, at 5:55 PM ET

John Dickerson was online at Washingtonpost.com on Thursday, Feb. 7, to discuss the outcome of Super Tuesday and speculate on the upcoming twists of the presidential race. An unedited transcript of the chat follows.

(Continued from page 2)

RSS

John Dickerson: I haven't had time to read Tim's piece but you can argue it either way. By the numbers Super Tuesday was a dead even split on delegates and number of votes. Obama won more states but Clinton won the big ones. On the question of momentum however, Obama doesn't turn out 20,000 people at his rallies because he lacks momentum and he didn't raise all that money just because he says a few nice words. And he didn't break through Clinton's serious lead in the polls in lots of states because he lacked momentum. Enough double negatives for you?

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: I am a Democrat but would prefer McCain over Bush. This is a no-brainer. As for voting for any candidate—I know what I am getting with Clinton, I do not know what I am getting with Obama. His record needs to be vetted more. And I hope it is before the convention.

John Dickerson: I don't think his record will get a great deal more vetting. It's gotten a good amount. There's not that much more to go through because, well, he's a young guy and he's been in a few tough fights but not a lot of them that can be picked over.

_______________________

Anonymous: "We know very little about his management style except that he's messy." Meaning lots of clutter on his desk? Or are you speaking of his dealing with people? Please elaborate.

John Dickerson: Sorry. I was referring to Obama's answer at one of the debates that he doesn't keep track of paper well. I should elaborate and say that he's run a heck of a campaign so clearly he's got some organizational skills.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: What do you think would be the implications if one Democratic candidate has 200 more primary electoral votes than the other candidate, but the superdelagate votes give the nomination to the trailing candidate?

John Dickerson: by electoral votes I assume you mean pledged delegates. It's tricky. Lots of people will be up in arms if a candidate wins by superdelegates. It might touch off the kind of fuss that created the superdelegate system in the first place!

_______________________

Gabfest listener: Have you seen the piece today by Adam Nagourney about how Obama's performance on Tuesday didn't live up to the hype? Sounds as though Nagourney is faulting Obama for not conforming to the media's chosen "narrative" prior to Tuesday. Maybe the headline should be "Times Newsroom Sets Unrealistic Expectations for Obama." What do you think?

washingtonpost.com: In Vote, Obama Fell Short of Fervor (New York Times, Feb. 7)

John Dickerson: Oh I quite liked Adam's story but I take your point. I think what was interesting is what happened on election day to Obama? Exit polls have consistently shown that voters who are still undecided on election day pick HRC. Is that because they think she's more experienced and a safer pick? Not sure...

_______________________

Edinberg, N.Y.: You know, I got a chance to buy this car, a beautiful convertible, that hasn't been tested yet, but which the manufacturer says gets 59 miles to the gallon and goes zero to 60 in 3.8 seconds with zero emissions. But the manufacturer just starting introducing cars into this country from Bulgaria, which has no track record building cars.

Or I can buy an Accord. Tough choice.

John Dickerson: You should work for the Clinton campaign.

_______________________

Naperville, Ill.: Clinton's strategy for years was to wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday. Obviously that didn't work. Has she invested at all in setting up ground operations in the remaining states? Conversely, what kind of operations does Obama have in the remaining states? The race might be tied at the moment, but Obama had to run up an absurdly steep hill to get here while Hillary was running on flat ground. Obama's people have to be elated at where they are right now.

John Dickerson: This is where momentum matters too. Obama has more humans running around on the streets for him feeling super energized. (Though I should note that there is empirical data to refute or at least muddy list claim. The last Gallup (or maybe it was PEW) showed that HRC actually had more intense feeling from her supporters. Nevertheless, Obama does seem to have an operations advantage in some of the upcoming states. And yes, they are elated.

_______________________

Romney: I guess he didn't want to spend the rest of his fortune in order to spend history with the likes of Huckabee and Paul. "Another one bites the dust."

John Dickerson: Brutal for him. He spent a lot of money on ads and organization and had the full backing of the conservative commentators and he still couldn't get voters to buy what he was selling.

_______________________

Endorsements: John while you went with the easy, conventional answer, take a look at the rolling poll numbers in Massachusetts and California. Obama was in the 20s consistently and had a huge bump up in the polls and at the polls following these endorsements. This is a race for time. If Massachusetts and California had held their primaries when originally scheduled, both would be more influential in 2008, and Obama would have had the time to catch up with the big-name candidate. By the way, I supported Edwards and voted for Obama, but I like Hillary an awful lot.

John Dickerson: you may see it as easy and conventional but it seems to me that we're in agreement. Endorsements matter but they don't matter enough. I get the Obama spin that you've put forward I just don't buy it.

_______________________