Overview of the 2004 Elections

10:30 A.M. EST

Real Audio of Briefing

MR. DENIG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. Welcome, also, to journalists assembled in the New York Foreign Press Center.

So anyway, that's sort of where we are. I am actually very skeptical. I know that we had a 7.2 percent GDP growth rate for the third quarter. Number one, I'm skeptical that when the figures are revised in the next few weeks, whether they hold at 7.2 -- I wouldn't be surprised to see, once they kind of go through the final revisions. whether it ends up being closer to 6 or so. But I certainly don't think that we can sustain a 7.2 percent GDP growth rate.

And in the fourth quarter, most of the estimates are that growth will be back down to about 4 percent, something like that. Now, normally, 4 percent's a pretty good rate, a pretty healthy rate, and where you're actually sort of creating some jobs. However, we are in an interesting economy right now, and there was a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where they looked at the last four economic downturns and they looked at U.S. job losses during those economic downturns. And they found during the economic downturns in the mid-'70s that 49 percent of the job losses during that recession -- or, actually, it was two back-to-back recessions -- but 49 percent of the job losses were cyclical, sort of temporary job losses, like let's say a factory lays off a group of assembly line workers, and then when the economy comes back they basically rehire the assembly line workers, add another shift on to the assembly line, and then so they're simply brought back. But 49 percent of those job losses were cyclical or temporary losses, while 51 percent were structural or permanent job losses where the jobs did not exist anymore or were moved to another country. And in the early '80s, that economic downturn, '81-'82, reflected the exact same percentages: 49 percent were cyclical, temporary job losses, 51 percent were structural, more permanent ones.

In the downturn of the early '90s, though, it was 43 percent cyclical or temporary, 57 percent structural or permanent. But in this economic downturn, only 21 percent of the job losses were cyclical or temporary losses. 79 percent of these job losses are structural. These are jobs that either do not exist at all or they do not exist in this country anymore. And it always takes longer and it's harder to create brand new jobs than it is just to call back workers, to recall workers, who had been laid off. And that's why I think this is going to be a particularly obstinate recovery and why I think it's going to take a lot higher growth rate to create -- to kind of chip away at that -- what had become by Aug/ July a 2.6 million job loss; why chipping away is going to be actually fairly, fairly difficult.

And in terms of Iraq, it's a huge problem -- both in terms of the actual cost, the dollar cost of the war. You know if you take $87 billion, if you divide by 435 Congressional districts -- that works out to $200 million per Congressional district. That's a lot of money, or $1,000 a family, which is a lot more than most of the tax cuts that most people got.

That's a lot of money. And it's during a tough economic time with a lot of other domestic needs out there. Politically, that's pretty costly. And what are the casualties? I mean, what are -- you know, things the last few weeks haven't gone -- you know, they seem to be getting worse.

So I think that this is going to be a very, very, very close presidential election, and it's going to turn primarily on Iowa -- I mean, not Iowa -- New Hampshire. It's going to turn on the economy and Iraq. And either one could sink President Bush. If both of them turn around, he's in great shape, and if they both turn bad, you know, he's going to have a very difficult time getting reelected.

So why don't I stop at that point and open it up for questions or comments or accusations.

MR. DENIG: Let me remind you to please use the microphone, identify yourself and your news organization. Let's start right here, please. Thanks.

QUESTION: Michael Backfisch, German Business Daily, Handelsblatt. You said there is a 50 percent chance that Dean will become the Democratic nominee. But with the increasing polarization in the country, wouldn't a figure, a mobilizing figure like him, have more appeal to the Democratic basis? The first question. Second one. What about the electability on the national level? Wouldn't he be an easy victim for the Bushies, you know, as this inexperienced foreign policy guy from Vermont, whom you can't rely on?

MR. COOK: I think, first of all, the Democratic base is totally motivated. Republicans in the 2000 election were going to vote no matter what because they hated Al Gore. I mean they just hated the guy. And they'd have voted for anybody against Al Gore. And frankly, I think that's sort of where we are with Democrats and President Bush, so that I think there's so much intensity within the Democratic base of support, and at the same time, intensity of support for President Bush among Republicans, that I think getting the base out is -- I don't think it's going to be a big problem for either side, and I think Dean would do fine in terms of the party base.

Now, you know, the second question is, when you take that narrow little sliver of eight or ten percent in the middle of the true Independents, of the true swing voters, is Dean as good a candidate with those people or not? Hard to say. You could say he's exciting. You'll talk to people who talk about, in some towns, that when he's had rallies there, the biggest rallies the Democratic Party has seen since Bobby Kennedy in 1968, generate an enormous amount of excitement.

But at the same time, does he have some self-destructive tendencies? Maybe. I mean, and that comes down to the questions: Is he a Jimmy Carter -- I'm sorry. Is he a George McGovern, where he leads the Democratic Party off a cliff? Or is he a Jimmy Carter -- kind of a strange niche candidate with an odd appeal that would have not worked four or eight years earlier or four or eight years later, but, for whatever reason, seemed to work in that particular year, as Jimmy Carter did in 1976.

But I think the fact that there is a consensus among Democratic strategists that Gephardt would be stronger and among people in the Bush campaign that he's stronger, I'd conclude that Gephardt would probably be more likely to: (a) hold the Democratic base; and (b) peel off some people in the middle, than, say, than Dean would. So I agree with the conventional wisdom.

Did I answer your question?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. COOK: Okay.

MR. DENIG: Good. Next question. Let's go to the gentleman back there, please.

QUESTION: Yes, Brian Yang from the Nippon TV. Mr. Cook, you talked about -- a little bit about the campaign finance. Can you talk about a little bit about recently Mr. Dean announced he would, you know, not use the public finance system, and Mr. Kerry also considering to do the same thing? Can you say what's a fact for this announcement?

MR. COOK: Well, I think President Bush's campaign has said they're going to raise $175 million, that's a lot of money. I think it's a tough calculation for a campaign to make. There's a risk, because if he decided to stay within the system, what would happen is, he'd get a big check from the federal government, you know, in early January, you know, which would be his matching funds. And that'd be great. You know, just get a check, and, you know, that's terrific. The problem is, by the time Dean won the nomination or soon after the time, he would probably have hit the maximum of about $45 to $50 million. It's a complicated formula, but the commonly used figure is $45 million, although I think it's actually closer to $50 million that you're allowed to spend. And then he'd be sitting there, and where he cannot legally spend one more dollar, and meanwhile the Bush campaign is beating the hell out of him, and he can't respond.

And so, I think any Democratic campaign in the situations that Howard Dean found himself, where he had the capability to raise a lot more, would have made the same decision he did. And to be honest, you know, $50 million sounds like, it's a lot of money to me, it's a lot of money to you, but in a country of 270 million people, $50 million actually isn't a whole lot. I think any campaign would do the same thing, and I don't think Americans tend to buy into process arguments. I don't think it will hurt Dean at all.

Kerry, though his wife is worth several hundred million dollars, he can only access the amount that's in their joint assets. He can tap up to 50 percent of what's in their joint assets, not of the total of what she has. And, you know, keep in mind, just about all really, really, really rich people, when they get remarried, you know, they have prenuptial agreements and they have, usually, the bulk of their assets walled off and inaccessible to the spouse. And you know, and this is the case here. And so, you know, maybe there's $10, $15 million dollars that he could borrow up to 50 percent against that. But, you know, we're not talking about John Kerry being able to go out and spend, you know, $50 or $100 million dollars. It's just not there. But I don't think there is any political cost to going outside the system. And frankly, I think it was probably a necessity.

QUESTION: It's Tim Harper from the Toronto Star. I wanted to get your views. Dean campaigning as the outsider, the anti-Washington candidate, perhaps, going head-to-head with Gephardt, who, I guess, could be described as the consummate insider. How do you see this outsider shtick working against an incumbent president, potentially, in '04? The Schwarzenegger factor in California, does it have any legs going into a federal election campaign?

MR. COOK: First of all, I think you have labeled them right and I think there is something to it. But I think that the essence -- if you are really going to boil down, sort of, "What is the true essence of the Dean campaign?" Go back to last fall and early January where Dean was separating himself from the others by pointing to the fact that he as Governor, he had signed into law a Civil Unions Bill, in terms of -- it's not same sex marriage, but it was civil unions. And he used that as an example that he wasn't just another politician, you know, who licks his finger and sticks it out and goes whichever way the wind is blowing -- that he was not just sort of a typical politician. And that got him a small amount of notoriety, but you had to watch politics pretty closely to have even noticed that. And then the war came along.

It's not news that within the Democratic Party, there is and has long been, a fairly strong, sort of, an anti-war faction within the party. I mean, it goes back long before Vietnam, but, certainly, you know, George McGovern, Gene McCarthy, and the Vietnam War. And that this anti-war faction within the Democratic party, as well as just others who aren't necessarily in that faction, but weren't crazy about this particular war, they looked around for a leader -- and most of the Democrats in Congress voted for it; and, in fact, most of the Democratic leaders in Congress voted for it. Heck, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for it. And so those people were sort of looking around for a leader, and they get this short little governor from Vermont. He is like the most visible Democratic leader who's against the war -- who was vocally, aggressively against the war.

I am absolutely convinced that if Senator John Kerry, a guy that had come back from the Vietnam War, who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee against the Vietnam War, who became a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, someone who later, when he got elected into the Senate, joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was sort of associated with the liberal and more sort of anti-war coalition or issues within Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am absolutely convinced that had Kerry voted against the war, he would be the commanding frontrunner within the Democratic party for the Democratic nomination, and that Howard Dean would be sitting at two or three percent. But I think Kerry effectively cut himself off from his own base, his own support.

Now some of you are probably thinking, "But wasn't there a survey that showed that a majority of Democrats think that the best nominee would be someone who voted in favor of the war but was very critical of the way President Bush has conducted the war?" And while that may be true with a majority of all Democrats nationwide, when you look at the Democrats that were most likely to go with John Kerry, that doesn't describe them, and these people were against the war. And so I think Dean was able to sort of tap into that.

Then the third thing, and this gets back closer to your theory, is that Dean tapped into this sentiment within the Democratic Party that was not obvious to everyone, that there were a lot of Democrats that just didn't disagree with President Bush, and they didn't just hate President Bush, but they despised him, and that they were very frustrated that the Democratic Congressional leadership had not been critical enough, had not been aggressive enough in opposing President Bush on tax cuts and all this other stuff. And Dean really tapped into that.

And so that's sort of the third concentric circle out, you know, with civil unions [in Vermont] was the first, then the big one was the war, and then the third was just sort of somebody who will take the fight to President Bush. And that's really sort of the essence, I think, of the Dean candidacy, along with just sort of being kind of this quirky guy who says whatever is on his mind, whether it's a good idea or not. But it was sort of a refreshing thing from sort of overly programmed politicians.

So, I think he's the outsider, but you know, it's not just the inside/outside sort of thing. I think it's more than that.

I'm not sure. Did I answer your question?

QUESTION: Yeah, I just would like to follow up, though. If you portray yourself as an outsider, it may tap into that base within the party. I mean, can you portray yourself as an outsider and run against an incumbent president with any success, I guess is what I'm asking?

MR. COOK: Well, it just depends on where the president is. Look, if the war is going badly and, you know, I mean, if people are happy with -- well, okay -- if people are happy with what's going on, then insiders are nice. And if they're not happy then being an outsider is a little better. But I also think, though, that Gephardt is better positioned to tap into economic dislocation. And then you could argue that on the Iraq side because, you know, he did vote for the war. And so you can argue that, well, he has a harder time attacking President Bush. But on the other hand, if you say, well, no, he voted for the war but is critical of how it's been run, you know, there are people -- you know, you can make an argument there that that makes him better positioned. So you can argue on that side of things, but you know, I think Gephardt has probably a stronger economic argument than Dean does.

MR. DENIG: All right. Let's go to Finland back there.

QUESTION: My name is Jyri Raivio, Helsingen Sanomat, Finland. What about Mrs. Clinton? You mentioned her briefly. Do you think it's still possible that she's going to run? And if she's going to run, it's even theoretically possible that she's going to be elected?

And another thing if I may -- if the jobs are not coming back, will the trade be a big issue in the election?

MR. COOK: As a matter of policy, I do not bet on political things. But if I were a betting person, I would bet my house that Senator Clinton does not run -- for two reasons.

Number one, it's not a good time for her to run -- Senator Clinton accumulated a lot of political scar tissue over the eight years of the Clinton Presidency, she got damaged pretty much during that eight years. Scar tissue oftentimes heals. Does it heal enough by 2008, for her to win then? We'll have to wait and see. But I think it's pretty clear that it hasn't healed completely as of now and probably won't by 2004. And I think she's a very smart and very shrewd person. I think she knows that.

I was just looking at a poll last week where they tested four or five different Democratic presidential candidates against President Bush, and then they matched up, you know, one on one with President Bush, each one, and then they tested Senator Clinton. The only candidate that President Bush was able to get 50 percent support against, was Mrs. Clinton, was Senator Clinton -- that every other Democratic candidate was either beating him, tied, or maybe a little bit behind -- but he only broke 50 percent against Senator Clinton.

You know, it's where she's just carrying some baggage. So I don't doubt that she gets on her knees and prays every night that President Bush gets reelected so that it's an open seat in 2008. I don't doubt that for a second. I don't doubt her designs to get elected president or her desire to get elected president. But I think she knows that it's just too soon. And I think it would be a terrible mistake for her to do it.

Now, the second question was trade. Trade is -- I mean, my own bias is I tend to be very, very free trade. Protectionism has been, to use a cancer metaphor, has been in remission for a long time. I think we are starting to see it coming back. And we did not see it come back in any meaningful way during the economic downturn of '91-'92, but we are seeing it come back now.

It's very, very strong in North and South Carolina, in northern Georgia, southern Virginia -- you know, the textile country. But it's also strong in -- and getting stronger not only in what used to be the rust belt, sort of the Great Lake states, but really all over the country. And I think that there is a strong feeling that, correct or incorrect, I mean, you know, but I think public opinion shows there's a very strong -- there's a very strong view that NAFTA, and specifically U.S.-Mexico trade, has been harmful to the U.S. economy and to U.S. workers; not so much the U.S.-Canada side as much as the U.S.-Mexico side; and that, generally speaking, Americans are more harmed by free trade than helped by free trade. And I know that was true in exit polls in both Kentucky and in Mississippi in last week's governors' races.

So that I think the specter of trade -- well, trade is certainly rising in significance as an issue; and I think protectionism is a growing force. And while I'd certainly disagree with trade barriers as a solution, you know, I think politically speaking; it's getting some steam. It is, and it has to do with those structural job losses.

MR. DENIG: Okay. Let's just see if New York has any questions.

MS. NESBIT: No questions from New York.

MR. DENIG: Okay, all right. Let's take the lady in the middle, in the back, please.

QUESTION: Alice Kelley, ZDF, German Television. I'd like to get back to the question of whether Gephardt might not be vulnerable on the question of Iraq and his stance on Iraq. That you talk about that his position can be explained and is justifiable. But it seems to be that there might be a great deal of attraction to be -- to have Dean as an anti-war candidate from the very beginning and hope, and that the arguments might be made that this will come to haunt any of the other Democratic candidates, either it be in discrepancies between their votes, or that as Americans as a whole, reevaluate or revisit the issue and the justifications for it that Iraq is such, and the support for Iraq from the beginning, might have been misdirected?

MR. COOK: I think probably one way to look at it is, divide up the American people into four categories: The people that are for the war, and totally supportive; the people that are against the war, and totally against it and don't like the way it's been run; the third group is people who, to some degree, are/were supportive of the war, but don't think we've handled it well; and then the fourth group who have no idea where Iraq is or what it is, okay? (Laughter.) I mean, it's a small group, but anyway, I'm being facetious more than anything else.

The thing is, the argument would be -- and I'm not trying to make the case for anybody here -- is that Dean has total support here. President Bush has total support here. But among the people who think, "Well, maybe Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy, and maybe taking him out wasn't a bad idea, but we sure have screwed it up and should have done it differently," you know, the argument would be that a Gephardt might be able to -- I mean, whoever the Democratic candidate is -- I don't care who they are, they're going to get this group over here, the anti-war people, you know, because they -- they hate President Bush. They're going to be -- they're going to vote no matter what.

Would Gephardt be able to access this middle group that thinks, you know, "We should have done it, but, you know, we should have gotten, you know, X, Y, and Z allies involved. We should have done this. We should have done that. We should have given it more time. We should have sent, you know, we should have worked harder to get Turkey more on board, so that, you know, I mean, the Fourth Army division could come down."

I mean, you know, so I think there is an argument that, that someone who voted for the war might be in a better position to -- to tap into the, "We just haven't done it right." So I tend to think that that's probably right -- correct.

MR. DENIG: Let's take the lady in the way back, there.

QUESTION: Yeeli Hua Zheng, Phoenix Chinese Television. And two questions: The first of all is, what is the key for Dean to be so effective in his fundraising? Who, you know, who is behind this thing responsible for his money? And I think second question is, as you said, John Kerry should have been such a commanding front-runner, but right now, you know, he seems to be so lag behind. In your opinion, what's wrong with his campaign? And what, you know, possible could have done to him? Thank you.

MR. COOK: Sure. I think on the second -- by the way, I was in your country two years ago -- two weeks ago, and went to -- I'm going to mispronounce it -- Xhibaipo (ph) (laughter), where Mao had his headquarters back -- starts with an X. Anyway, interesting.

How do you pronounce it? Xhibai -- okay. Whatever. Anyway, sorry, everybody else.

Anyway, I think Dean is catchy. There's sort of an energy or excitement that Dean is capturing that's very interesting. You know, I think a lot of times when we've had failed or flawed Presidencies, or problems with Presidencies, people tend to look to the opposite.

And after President Clinton, for example, President Bush was sort of -- I think part of his appeal to some people was, here's a guy that was not real slick, and was not real smooth in his speaking, but he was sort of a plain speaking person who was seen as telling the truth -- that what he -- you know, he said what was on his mind, all that. And I think that was central -- central to his appeal rather than a very slick, glib, "politician who would say anything," and you know, the Clinton stuff, okay? And whether it's true or not, I'm not saying, but that's, sort of, I think what a lot of people found attractive in Governor Bush during the 2000 campaign.

I think Howard Dean is another variation on it. You know, you just get a sense that when Dean is asked a question, he just empties; I mean, he just tells you whatever is on his mind, whether it's a good idea to say that or a bad idea, he tells you exactly what he thinks. And to a lot of people, that's very refreshing. I mean, it's sort of -- it's not like a typical, canned, programmed politician, and they really like that.

Now it's also dangerous, because you can say things that you probably shouldn't say, you know, like, you know, "I want the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks," and things like that. But I do think that Dean is --has sort of captured the imagination and the energy of a pool of Democrats unlike anybody that we've seen in a long, long time.

And -- I mean, that's why, to me -- normally when you see someone go from nowhere in the polls in a presidential race, to the front running position, they're pulled off an upset. I mean, they've somehow unexpectedly won, whether it was a straw poll or an early caucus or a primary, where they've just pulled -- you know, and everybody says, "Gosh," you know, "where did this come from?"

But for Dean, he just sort of did it on his own. I mean, it was just sort of personality issues, message, whatever it was, sort of really kind of captured this energy and has done -- so that it's, really it's kind of interesting to watch. So it's hard to describe, but it's certainly there.

In terms of the money, Dean's money is largely small donations -- $50, $100, $200, a lot of it raised over the Internet. You know, it's not sort of the fat cat money that you normally see on both the Democratic and Republican side -- you know, small donations.

What was the second question?

MR. DENIG: The implosion of --

MR. COOK: Oh, the John Kerry campaign. Oh, I just think Kerry -- and again, I'm not saying whether the war was a good idea or bad idea, fought well, fought badly -- I'm not saying anything on that. But I think that Kerry cut himself off from his own natural constituency -- that the group that Kerry intended to go after was people who were liberal, younger, better educated, more affluent, particularly in New England -- did I say liberal? Liberal -- and liberal again, but there was an upscale, well-educated group of people that were John Kerry's people, and that -- and this group of people tend to be very much against the war, and they really hate President Bush, and that they were ready, and in fact, Kerry had already won over a bunch of those people.

And when he voted against -- when he voted for the war, he sort of built a wall up between himself and the people that either, already were with him, or would have been with him once they knew more about him. And he just sealed himself off from those people. And, you know, to be honest, I think he's been in sort of a spiral downward ever since. And again, whether is was -- I mean, whether it's the right vote or the wrong vote, politically speaking it was the wrong vote for him under these circumstances in terms of going after the people that he needed to get.

You know, in terms of his campaign organization, yes, he had probably too many advisors. The joke was it was an ark, like Noah's Ark, and it had two of everything, two pollsters, too many consultants. (Laughter.) And I mean, it was -- you know, but the thing about it is, I think that was completely inconsequential, I mean, to what's happened.

Had he won the Democratic nomination, would having all these big egos around the table become a problem? Oh, it might have become a problem, but this was, I think, more -- and also, the man is just not a people person. He's not a very gregarious person. There's not a lot of warmth. He's not -- doesn't have strong people skills. So I think the combination, but I think his war position probably hurt him a lot more and didn't hurt Gephardt so much because that's not the people he was going after.

You know, he's more a populist, union guys, older, probably less affluent, probably lower level on the education scale. I mean, you know, each person -- the politics are different from each individual person. And for Kerry, politically speaking, it was the wrong vote.

QUESTION: I'm Elaine Monaghan, with the Times of London. I wondered -- do you think that Kerry has any chance of recovery at this point? I wondered if you thought that his motorbike stunt on Jay Leno yesterday and his shedding of campaign staff? Does that smack of desperation?

And also, what about the trade union endorsements that Dean is picking up for Dean -- how much does that hurt Gephardt?

MR. COOK: Well, when I said 50 percent Dean, 30 percent Gephardt, and that means the other 20 percent is sort of shared by Kerry, Edwards, Clark, you know, I mean so -- no, I'm not going to stand up here and say that there's no chance. I mean, because that's -- you know, it's dangerous to say things like that. But splitting 20 percent three ways isn't much, okay?

Put it this way. I didn't stay up to watch. I watch Jay Leno half the time, and I didn't stay up and watch it last night. And if I thought it -- you know, and so I don't even know what he did. So yeah, I mean, I -- somebody told me that it looked awkward and contrived and was not terribly convincing, which, you know, my hunch was right.

In terms of the endorsement, the labor endorsement, first of all, I think it shows the split within organized labor. Industrial unions and unions that have trade as a big -- as a real priority, those unions are, you know, the vast majority of those unions are going with Gephardt.

But for AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, government employees, service employees unions, which the most common member of the SEIU is janitors, you know, trade's just not an issue with those people. And so despite the fact that Gephardt had been very supportive of them, that's just not important. And so, you know, Gephardt's doing incredibly well with one side of labor and has had huge problems with this other side of labor. Now, labor was not very comfortable early on with Dean, and I think it says a lot that he's been able to pull them over.

I think the most important thing -- and those are huge unions with very sophisticated political operations, and it was an enormous benefit for Dean, but I would say it's a benefit on another level. That confederate flag thing was pretty damaging. And, I mean, not just on the substance of the confederate flag, but also just the, you know, how many stupid things is he going to say, and is this going to be a real problem? To get endorsements from two huge unions after having had something really embarrassing happen, it kind of puts a band-aid on it. I mean it just sort of fixes it. It makes -- I mean, as opposed to, let's say, something -- let's say there was a group that was expected to endorse Dean that suddenly didn’t and endorsed somebody else. That would have just been horrendous for Dean on the heels of the confederate flag thing.

So I think it was enormously helpful for Dean on a bunch of different levels. But not that -- it's only surprising in that early on, nobody expected groups that like that to support Dean. It's not surprising that they didn't go with Gephardt because -- well, it is and it isn't because, I mean, they aren't trade sensitive -- but on the other hand, you know, it's going to raise some issues and questions in future -- among future presidential candidates on the Democratic side that, you know, here's a guy that's been with them 100 percent for his entire career and, you know, a lot of organized labor is turning their backs on him.

And it makes you kind of wonder, you know, if I were a Democrat thinking about running for president down the road that, you know, they don't look like they show a whole lot of gratitude, so why should I -- why should I take tough votes for labor if they're not going to -- if they're going to be fair-weather friends? You know, at least that faction of labor?

MR. DENIG: We need to end the formal part of our briefing right now, and I want to thank our speaker Charles Cook very much.

MR. COOK: Oh come on. One more.

MR. DENIG: But we'll take a few more informally.

MR. COOK: Yeah, okay.

MR. DENIG: So thank you very much. We really appreciate it.

MR. COOK: Thank you very much.

MR. DENIG: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

QUESTION: Carlos (inaudible) with JIJI Press. I have two questions. Of the Democratic candidates, who is running the best losing campaign, and why aren't they succeeding? For example, Lieberman, Edwards or General Clark.

And two, should Governor Dean be the Democratic nominee? How much is the confederate flag flak going to affect his potential for support in the south?

MR. COOK: That's a good question. I would say two people who have had good campaigns, Dean and Gephardt, and nobody -- Joe Lieberman has a good campaign. The campaign is not the problem. The problem is, you know number one, he's too conservative, you know, for the Democratic Party. Number two; although he's a very, very decent man, he just doesn't evoke a lot of passion. You know, I mean, he's just sort of -- somebody once compared him to -- I don't know how many of you follow Winnie the Pooh, but Eyeore -- you know, I mean, just nice and lovable, but not exciting, you know? He just always looks a little sad, and -- anyway, but a very nice, decent guy. But I think his campaign is very, very good, but, you know, I just don't think he was ever going to go well, so I don't think the campaign's helped him a lot.

You know, Edwards has had some -- you know, a lot of these campaigns have had some very talented people on board. I mean, I think it's a challenge for Clark because, you know, to have first nine, now eight other campaigns ahead of you who sort of had the pick of all the top people in the party, you know, you sort of have the leftovers, so that's kind of a problem. But I'd say Lieberman's got very good people -- very, very good people, but it just hasn't worked.

But the two campaigns that have clearly -- as has Edwards -- the two campaigns that have really, like, moved the ball forward, and have advanced their causes are clearly, you know, certainly Dean, and I think Gephardt. And Gephardt's only problem is money. He just hasn't raised that money -- that the donor community doesn't seem to recognize, I think, that he has actually had, in other respects, a very good year.

What was the other question?

QUESTION: Should -- shouldn't Governor Dean be the Democratic nominee? How much will the confederate flag flap affect his potential for support in the South?

MR. COOK: I think the South is pretty -- first of all, for political purposes, nobody considers Florida part of the South. I mean, it's sort of -- Florida is Florida, okay? It's its own place. So, you know, just talking about the rest of the South, I don't think Democrats are going to carry any southern state.

And if God told me today that the Democratic nominee was going to win the presidency, and if I were a betting person, I'd still bet you that they didn't win any southern states. And the fact is Al Gore came within 537 votes of winning the presidency without any southern states.

Now, you know, I mean, I think if a Democrat were winning fairly comfortably they might have a shot at, say, Louisiana and Arkansas -- maybe. Maybe. But outside of that, I just don't think they're doing -- and the thing about it is, if I were a Democrat, I wouldn't waste a lot of time on the South, because I don't think they're going to do it. I mean, I think that they, you know, I would concentrate my resources on elsewhere, rather than this -- I mean, this notion that a Democrat can't win without the South, you know, I think it's just sort of self-indulgent baloney. And I say that as a native Southerner. And I don't believe it. I mean, it would be nice to be -- you know, for a Democrat to win the South, but, you know, (inaudible), it'd be nice to win anywhere.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Just following up, really. Where then does -- Roy Eckelston from The Australian Newspaper -- where then does Dean, if he gets the nomination, win the presidency? Which states does he do that?

MR. COOK: Well, the thing is, I think the map is still the same -- the map is the same map, pretty much, regard -- within, well, to a large extent, no matter what. And, you know, the thing about 2000 election is it is God's gift to political scientists and political reporters because you basically have a tie election, so you know that in a 50/50 race, this is where all the states were. And there's nothing particularly screwy about 2000, and so you can start that off as just sort of a starting point, and say, "Okay, what are the six, seven, eight states that Bush just barely won? What are the six, seven states that Gore just barely won?" And you've got a pretty darn good list.

And if you look -- you know, you talk to the Bush campaign, you know, you talk to various Democratic campaigns, you talk to the -- I can't remember what's the name of it, it's the Steve Rosenthal, Ellen Malcolm, George Soros -- anyway, their list. I mean, all -- everybody lists are virtually the same. The Alliance -- ACT, yeah, ACT, A-C-T. But all the lists are -- I think the only discrepancy was -- I think Steve Rosenthal's group has Arizona on their list, and the Bush campaign doesn't. They think it's trending Democratic, but that it's not going to be Democratic enough for Democrats in 2004, but maybe 2008, 2012, it will.

But basically, everybody's looking at the same 14 -- 14, 15 states, no matter what. Now, will Dean -- would Dean be a more appealing candidate in, say, Oregon and Washington, some of those states? Yeah, I think so. Would a Gephardt be a little bit more appealing in, you know, Michigan and some of those others?

I would say, the Bush campaign, they are -- they have hope that they can win in Minnesota, Wisconsin, but the rest of the -- oh, and Indiana always goes Republican -- but the rest of the Great Lakes states are looking pretty tough where the economy has hurt the President a great deal. You know, Michigan, where Gore carried last time, I think President Bush is less competitive now than he was before; same thing for Illinois. I would say Ohio that President Bush just barely won last time; I think Ohio is a problem. I really do. So, but it's basically the same map.

But, you know, it would be easier for Dean just to write off the South. The pressure would be on other Democrats to campaign the South, but to be honest, I'd blow it off.

QUESTION: What you said about Florida, though, you -- you said Florida wasn't part of the South, fair enough. But do you think that Jeb Bush -- is that going to give it -- how do you think it's -- still 50/50 there?

MR. COOK: I don't think -- I don't think it matters one bit who a governor is. Wait, wait, wait. Up through Election Day, I don't think it matters one bit who the governor is, okay? Now, you get into, you know, who's what during the post-counting, you know, who the, you know, I'll leave that to you, but -- I mean, you think about, who were some -- in 2000, who were some of the Republican governors that had some of the most effective political machines in the country, operations in the country? John Engler, the Governor of Michigan; Al Gore carried Michigan. Tommy Thompson, the Governor of Wisconsin; Al Gore carried Wisconsin. Tom Ridge, the Governor of Pennsylvania; Al Gore carried Pennsylvania. You know, this myth that governors have these sophisticated machines that can mobilize hundreds of thousands of people on election day, you know, like automatons walking to the polls, that's just (inaudible) [nonsense]. I mean it hadn't been true in years. But it's this myth. And I -- you know, so I don't, you know, anyway. See if that makes the transcript.

Yeah.

MR. DENIG: Let's take the gentleman right there.

QUESTION: Hi, Jose Calvo, from El Pais, Spain. Where is General Clark? Why are you putting him off? Why is not more in your comments? What is he doing right now?

MR. COOK: I think people who have won elections in the past are more likely to win than people who have never won elections. I think people who have run for offices in the past are more likely to win than people who have never run for office before.

I think people who have been titans in business and industry, just at the pinnacle of their profession, I think a common mistake that they make is they think that all of the expertise and experience that they have accumulated in the business or the military or whatever, translates directly over into politics. I mean, after all, how hard could politics be? Politicians do it every day, you know? And they tend to do horribly.

I mean, now there are exceptions to every rule, and you're probably thinking, "But what about Arnold Schwarzenegger?" Arnold Schwarzenegger won under the only circumstance he could possibly win. There was no primary. It was a five-, six-week campaign, one debate, and they gave him the questions in advance. I mean, you know, it was not a normal -- I mean, it was made to order for him.

So, but generally speaking, these first-time candidates don't do well. And I could go through example after example -- for example, there was -- this may mean nothing to you, but there was a general named Pete Dawkins, who was a Heisman Trophy winner football player at West Point, was a Rhodes Scholar, was, I mean, really, in the -- back in the early '60s, late '50s, was like one of the most famous football players and was a god. I mean he really was impressive people. He ran for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey. They just beat the hell out of the guy. He wasn't suited to be a candidate. Or how about Al Checchi, the former chairman of Northwest Airlines? He spent $65 million running for governor of California five years ago, came in fifth in a place -- in a field of five.

You know, these guys -- I'll you what. I mean, let's grab somebody off the street, bring him in here, and tell him to write a news story. Now it could be great. Chances are it probably wouldn't though. You know. I mean, and so I just don't think -- number one, I don't think he's -- and also, I mean, his strength is being a general, but we've got some of the -- some far better known generals who are just carving him up, you know, by saying, you know, he doesn't have the integrity, he doesn't have the character, that he was fired from his job. Geez, that's not, you know, I mean -- I would say his chances of winning the nomination are about as close to zero, or about as -- I mean, they're about like mine or yours, you know? So.

QUESTION: Michael Backfisch, Handelsblatt. Well, you said, Iraq and the economy are the make or break issues for these presidential elections. If both are going well, Bush will win the elections; if both are going badly, he's in deep trouble.

What if the economy is going decently, a growth rate around 4 percent, unemployment rate going down a little bit, 5.9, 5.8 percent, and Iraq is still the mess that it is right now. What would that say for Bush and for a Democratic nominee?

MR. COOK: I think if, defining where it is now as same casualty rates as the last couple of weeks, I think it will be very, very hard for President Bush to win. I think it would be really hard. I mean, at that point, you look and count the toes on the Democratic candidate. You know, have they blown four or five of them off?

I mean, I mean, you know, at that point, you start thinking unless -- unless the Democrats made a lot of real big mistakes, I think, under those circumstances, I think the President would lose.

MR. DENIG: We'll take the lady in red here.

QUESTION: Hi. I'm Joanna Carr from BBC Radio. President Bush makes his first-ever state visit to the UK next week and he's widely expected to be met with a huge anti-war protests. And I just need to ask you, what do you think the domestic political impact here might be to scenes like that, you know, shoulder-to-shoulder allies?

And also, do you mind if I come and record your answer because I'd like to use it for the radio, please?

MR. COOK: Sure. You know, there is a TV show called "Colombo," where they have this detective. And he's always -- he's finishing an interview with a suspect and he starts to leave, and then he turns around and asks them the zinger question, that always ends up with them going to prison.

(Laughter.)

And -- I wish I hadn't called on you -- or he called on you, whichever.

(Laughter.)

I don't -- I don't know that having huge demonstrations against the President makes a lot of a differ -- a big difference to American voters. I mean, they're going to -- I think they're going to judge President Bush on their own terms, you know, on the economy, on the war, how they're doing, do they have confidence in him for the next four years or not?
And I don't think rather huge demonstrations, or if they were all throwing flowers at him, I don't -- I mean, I don't think demonstrations, positive or negative, really, would make -- have much of a -- would make that much of a difference.

QUESTION: But I think the point I'm making is that there was a survey this week that shows that large proportion, like, the majority of the UK population are very anti the invasion of Iraq -- a huge problem for Tony Blair. And I don't think that's widely perceived here in the U.S. So what I am suggesting is that if you have the pictures of huge demonstrations --

MR. COOK: I don't think it would make a bit of difference. I mean, I really -- I mean, I'm just trying to give you an honest answer. I don't think it would make -- I mean, I think -- I think there is a general idea that the rest of the world isn't really crazy about what we've done. I think that's accepted. And whether -- you know, but I don't think it would make that big a difference, to be perfectly honest.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. DENIG: Let's go to the gentleman right here, please.

QUESTION: Hi. Charlie Sheldon, National Post of Canada. I'm wondering --

MR. COOK: Can you just give me a -- can you give me a nicer question than that?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, maybe this one will be more up your alley. How much unrest do you think there are among Republicans in Congress, and, to a lesser -- well, to the same extent, sort of, the Republican voters about the way the war is going, the increasing violence, increasing casualties? And, I mean, you see John McCain and Chuck Hagel talk about it quite a bit. But I'm wondering how deep you think that is, and where those voters, if they reach a certain, sort of, point of unrest go?

MR. COOK: There are some, what I would call foreign policy elites, in the Republican Party. You know, you've mentioned Hagel and McCain. I'd throw in Lugar, Senator Lugar. There are some foreign policy elites that have real, some real questions and some objections. But among rank and file Republicans on the Hill, I think there is a nervousness; there is a feeling, "Gosh, this isn't going so well."

But, you know, I think they're -- I think they're still very supportive. I mean, they're going to -- I mean, I think Republicans, as a unit, are going to be near unanimous in support for the President and I don't think you're going to see a lot of cracks -- cracks in that. And their nervousness would be less policy-driven than political-driven of, "Oh, gosh, what are the consequences of this?"

But I don't see any cracks, you know, in the armor. They tend to be very, very, very supportive. I mean, I think a lot of them, you know, maybe they think $87 billion was too much and they'd like to cut out a lot of the -- a lot of the aid. They'd like, you know, I think a lot of them would rather have voted to make it a loan rather than a grant. And, you know, I think there were some broken arms on that one.

But so, it's not to say that they don't have real differences, but at the end of the day, they're going to be there. And just as the end of the day Democrats are going to be very unified against them. And so, and that's sort of the product of the polarization that exists in the country is true to, you know, the hundredth degree, you know, when you get to Congress. And so, yeah, there are differences of opinion, yeah. And some are -- I mean, I think the vast majority -- I think McCain, Hagel and -- although McCain is very supportive of the war, McCain, Hagel and Lugar have more objections, and I think they're more likely to articulate their objections than a lot of the other members. But I don't see really a lot of cracks there, I don’t.

MR. DENIG: Okay. Last question. We'll take the lady in the middle here, in the white.

QUESTION: I'm Chiyaho-Sato, with Mainichi newspaper, a Japanese daily. And do you think there is any possibility that no Democratic candidates will be get -- will be get majority to be the nominee until Democratic -- Democratic Party Convention in July?

MR. COOK: I pray every night that I live long enough to see a brokered convention.

(Laughter.)

No. I mean, I'd put it -- not only do I not think that there is going to be a brokered convention, but we have nonrefundable plane tickets to a small island in the Bahamas the third week of March. And I'm in the least bit worried that the Democratic nomination won't be settled long before then.

I mean, to be honest -- I mean, no -- I mean there may be some poor man or woman out there still thinking that they're running for President. But, I mean, I think we will know on March 1. And to be honest, we may very well know on March -- on February 15. I think, you know, anybody with 30 IQ points is going to know who the Democratic nominee is going to be by that, so I would love to see a brokered convention, I really would. But the process narrows it down enormously and very, very quickly -- maybe too quickly. But I don't think that's going to happen. I really don't.

Anyway, thank you all very much.

MR. DENIG: Thank you, Charlie. Appreciate it.