Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are co-hosts of MSNBC’s morning news program, Morning Joe. During a recent appearance at Harvard’s Institute of Politics, the two sat down with the HPR to discuss recent developments in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Harvard Political Review: Over the past week, all I have been hearing on the news and seeing in the newspaper is Obama and Wright—what's going on?

Mika Brezezinski: Well, I'll be honest. My view on Wright has changed. When this whole thing started, I looked at the issue as a reflection of the broader race divide and the social and historical factors that usually go into the discussion. After his appearance at the Press Club, he has come off as someone who is just pushing forward his own agenda.

HPR: So you would you describe him as disingenuous?

MB: Yes, I would.

HPR: And this is something that has obviously hurt Obama. But, at the risk of seeming too sentimental, why is it hurting him so much?

Joe Scarborough: Well, the Republicans have an incredible ability of getting people who would otherwise vote Democrat to go Republican. More than that, they can convincingly portray Democrats as elitists. It's amazing. In 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush—the most rich, white, WASPish person you can think of –was able to depict Michael Dukakis, the son of Greek immigrants, as an elitist. And he was able to get away with it!

HPR: You're speaking to Obama's "bitter" comments now, not the Wright issue?

JS: Well I think they're intertwined. Coupled with the Republicans’ ability to portray Democrats as elite is their capacity to make Democrats look un-American, un-Patriotic. And then you have all these debates and discussions about why someone isn't wearing a flag lapel or saying, “God Bless America.”

HPR: But it seems as if a lot these accusations of being elitist that we are hearing are coming from Liberals and Democrats. Maureen Dowd, Ivy-League educated herself, came out with an article recently lambasting Obama as out of touch.

JS: I think the point is that Democrats have become cognizant of this skill on the part of Republicans. After the 2004 election, I remember Maureen Dowd coming out with a number of eviscerating articles about this whole issue and how it played out in her eyes. It boggled her mind that George Bush was able to win on the argument that Kerry was elitist and out of touch.

HPR: But isn't there just something fundamentally different with what is going on now? I mean it's one thing to go out and identify and mete out differences, but I remember Hillary going out, I think it was before the Texas primary, and saying something to the effect that "I'm coming into this election with experience, John McCain is coming into this election with experience, Barack Obama is just bringing a speech.” Hasn't this escalated to a whole other level?

JS: The Democrats are in a blood bath now, but that is not at all unusual in the primaries - they get pretty nasty.

HPR: But in 1980, with Bush versus Reagan, you had a somewhat similar contrast and heated primary process- but it never seemed to go out of hand. I mean if you look at the debates, you see the similar arguments about Reagan representing change and Bush bringing in Washington experience, but it didn't get as visceral as what we are seeing now with Clinton and Obama.

JS: Well, there was the whole "Voo-Doo Economics" deal. And, in 1976, Ford ran a famous ad that made Reagan out as a warmonger. So I would not say that it's really been historically that different. And once the party is united and has candidate, I think they are going to win—and I mean it, like double-digits. Once people see Obama give his speech at the Convention, it'll be like '96—instead of Bob Dole, it'll be McCain, and we'll be asking why he is running.

HPR: So all the commentators and politicians saying that Hillary should step out of the race—

JS: It's ridiculous. This is the year Dems are going to win—it's like 1964 or 1992.]]>http://hprsite.squarespace.com/the-home-stretch-042008/rss-comments-entry-1814219.xml