Let's talk for a second about Gore's running mate, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. In press accounts, you were advocating strongly for Sen. John Edwards. True?
I'm not going to get into staff conversations; I don't see what good that'll do. I obviously knew John [from working on his 1998 race], and I'd never had a chance to work with Sen. Lieberman, though I thought he was an impressive guy. And I'm tremendously impressed with him as a candidate. But as for who said what about who, I won't get into that.
What about the problems that the selection of Lieberman has caused with the party's left wing, because of his reputation of being moderate to conservative?
I would dispute that there are "problems." There was some confusion about his record and his position on Prop. 209. [In 1996, Lieberman voiced support for a California ballot initiative pushing for an end to "quotas."] There were questions about whether he had positions that were at odds with some constituent groups in the party. But in his speech, he said he supported affirmative action. He said, "Mend it, don't end it."
From what I've seen, there's real support for him. Anyone in the convention hall saw that, and we have almost 1,000 African-American delegates. So I disagree that there's any kind of serious riff. People needed some information, and some of them got the information directly from Sen. Lieberman himself.
Are you concerned at all that any latent anti-Semitism could hurt your ticket's chances? Did you guys poll or focus-group for that at all?
No. And it has not been a subject of research. We don't think that his religion is an issue in the campaign in respect to any potential liability. If anything, there's the sense that Al Gore has done something historic, which has gotten people to see some of the strength and purpose behind Al Gore and his candidacy. As for questions of people not supporting Sen. Lieberman because of his religion, I haven't gotten any great sense of that. Sen. Lieberman's a person of outstanding moral character, and people recognize his independence and integrity, and they think it's an asset.
Lieberman has, generally, received good press. But overall, do you think the coverage of Gore has been unfair?
I'm not going to criticize the coverage. I think that people have been tough on him, but part of that is just a fact of being vice president. The press was very tough on Vice President Bush. And I don't think you can paint with a broad stroke everyone in the media.
How about in comparison with the coverage of Gov. Bush?
I think Gov. Bush has gotten away with a lot in the course of campaign. I was very surprised after [the] South Carolina [primary] that Gov. Bush didn't pay a higher price. But I've been in this business for a long time, and you learn that if you re-litigate the past, your record of success will be diminished. So I don't worry about that. I focus on our message and how we deliver it.
How much will you use President Clinton in the coming months?
The President is obviously an important part of the Democratic Party's efforts in general. He's someone who will go out and work on behalf of the party, and not just the top of the ticket, but for other offices across the nation. I think he'll do it by being someone who raises money, and also he'll go out and campaign, and also by being a good president. But the stage really for the months ahead will be occupied principally by George Bush and Al Gore.
Last night I participated on a panel at the Shadow Convention, and the Nation's Eric Alterman wondered why Democrats never discussed what he thought was a glaring vulnerability in Bush's candidacy: the idea that he's totally unprepared for the job. He quoted Ron Reagan Jr., who during the GOP convention told the Washington Post that Bush's greatest achievement to date is that he's no longer an "obnoxious drunk."
(Laughing) I don't think we'll be going down that road.
But what of the slam that Bush isn't up to the task? Focus groups say that swing voters like Bush, and the only thing standing between him and the White House is voters' concerns that Bush isn't ready for the Oval Office.
I think that gets conveyed when we discuss his record in Texas. When people get a sense of what he did as governor there, their opinion of him in terms of his capacity as president is tremendously diminished. But we really want the campaign to focus on these two candidates, their issues and agendas. Us standing up and saying that Bush is not up for the job is not a tack we're going to take. But it is a conclusion voters will reach on their own when they look at the record. But we're going to focus on trying to connect voters to Al Gore's biography, and then the issue terrain.
But there's a big difference between saying that someone has a conservative record, and saying that someone isn't up to the job -- the latter of which focus groups say is a much larger concern among swing voters. Why not focus on that?
I think we'll get there. I don't think we'll get there by stating the conclusion.
When you go down different roads in a campaign, you make choices. And if you go down that road, you can't go down some other road. We can't communicate 50 things, we can only communicate two or three things. Standing up and saying that Bush doesn't have the experience or the intellect or the skills for the job is an argument to be made, and I understand people will come to that conclusion based on his lack of service. But we think it's stronger to connect people to Al Gore.
We'll discuss the record in Texas, we'll debate policies, and of course I think that some people will come to the conclusion that Bush is not up to the job. And he may help them to do that. Make he'll make a mistake. Or he may not make a mistake, since he's running a campaign that's very tightly controlled, one where he can't mistake, because if he does that will show the depth of his support. But we've decided that you don't say he's only held office for five years, we'll say, "Let me tell you what he did in those five years." We think this is the most powerful road.
Get Salon in your mailbox!