Note Archives, updated weekly.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

But we also said that his short-term problems were not likely to stand in the way of his achieving his agenda (the point of politics), or of being a strong bet for re-election (the means to the end of four more years to achieve the agenda).

It's gone well beyond cliché to compare the presidential trajectory of 43 to that of 41 (war/Iraq/previously stratospheric poll numbers settling down/stubbornly weak economy/a belief that a "good man" can't lose to some purportedly lesser being).

And it's also gone well beyond cliché to say that 43 has learned the lessons of 41 and won't repeat his mistakes (a narrative line on which Dan Bartlett has always been happy to assist).

With Bush facing the possibility of running for re-election with an economy so weak that just might trump any national security credentials, here's your clip-and-save of why and how 43 (struggling GDP and all) is in better shape than his dad was at this point in the 1992 cycle:

-- There's more time for the economy to get better soon enough for voters to feel it. (Better than expected economic news this morning, reports ABCNEWS' Schindelheim: GDP was revised UP, instead of down. The four-quarter increase was 1.4 percent).
-- He will continue to push a domestic agenda, even during war (reports today peg his Medicare unveiling to the period in which the CW has it that the attack on Iraq will begin).
-- He has a loyal, nearly leak-proof, blind-quote-eschewing staff.
-- He almost certainly won't face an attack from the right or a nomination challenge.
-- The congressional wing of the party is likely to be more supportive of him than the '92 crowd.
-- The war against terrorism has the potential to re-create the Cold War's electoral college lock.
-- There is currently no Ross Perot-like figure that will drain right-leaning votes away from him in the general.
-- The McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan changes will magnify his fundraising abilities.
-- Unlike his father, who resisted starting his re-election campaign, 43 launched his own during the transition in 2000, and hasn't let up.
-- At this writing, the Democratic field does not appear to have the kind of once-in-a-lifetime political heavyweight that was Bill Clinton.
-- The crowded Democratic field will be relatively easy for the White House to discombobulate.
Ah, the Democrats.

Despite their brave public words, no rational analysis at this point would give them much cause for optimism that they can take back control of either the House or the Senate in 2004, unless some very, very strong presidential nominee emerges to lead them all to the promised land on flowing coattails.

And right now, the old Will Rogers' saw is about as true as it has ever been.

From last night's meager candidate attendance at the New Hampshire state Democratic party dinner, to the tong war taking place over the nominating calendar, the 13-ring circus that is the Democratic effort to find a leader is messier than an MSNBC edit room after some cute PA has cut his first package.

It's possible that all of this confusion and ambiguity and process stuff won't have the slightest bit to do with the Democrats' chances of winning back the White House.

But it's also possible that it will.

On a staff level, Democrats are going to have to spend the year doing opposition research on, and spending rhetorical fire on, each other.

As the last two men to win presidential elections have proven, winning your party's nomination while championing a dynamic and optimistic general election message, with the discipline to give the same stump speech over and over, is the way to take control of the White House.

None of the Democrats are near that point yet, and getting there is going to be even harder with all the distractions.

Take, for example, the undercovered effort by leading Michigan Democrats to move WAY ahead in the nominating calendar.

Michigan wants to move earlier (how much earlier is still open to debate, and might, after much back and forth, provide a solution), and DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe does not have the hammerlock on his party's schedule that Rove/Mehlman/Oliver have on theirs.

In the latest move in Michigan's gambit, yesterday DNC member Debbie Dingell and Senator Carl Levin sent a letter to all eight (minus Bob Graham) declared presidential candidates, asking them not to take or sign the (traditional) "pledge" that would prevent them from campaigning in any state that holds its primary or caucus during the protected Iowa and New Hampshire window.

As of now, the pair wants to schedule the Michigan caucuses for the night of the New Hampshire primary, January 27.

How this gambit will end up is anyone's guess, but the New Hampshire folks are mobilizing on it (only not as aggressively, at least not yet, as we would have thought), and it is safe to say that a lot of Democratic thinking hours that could be spent on how to beat George Bush are now going to be spent protecting different state and institutional interests on the various calendar fights.

Some of the conventional wisdom about who would be helped by certain calendar changes might end up not being true. Today's assumptions and narratives probably won't be tomorrow's, so we'll limit ourselves to some very general comments.

Much of this will test those campaigns which are inexperienced and underfunded.

Even the question of how to deal with the pledge in New Hampshire is really not that easy.

In the past, like in the 1996 GOP nomination contest, it really tied the candidates and the campaigns in knots.

Many other states (and most of the country) have no idea about the loyalty demanded by denizens of Iowa and New Hampshire. But, eventually, sticking to the pledge could be seen by the world at large as craven or provincial.

But not sticking it to it, at least for so-called top tier candidates who truly believe they can win, place or show in either state, could legitimately hinder their chances of winning in those states and could force them to revamp their entire outlook.

Modern political campaigns are set on the rhythms of Iowa and New Hampshire. Strategists frame issues, develop travel plans, woo fundraisers, and court the media with reference to how it will play in those states.

In a sense, even if you're a McCain-like figure who seeks to opt out of one or both of the earliest states, you're dominated by the very notion that they exist.

There is something to be said for tradition. New Hampshire and Iowa have become two of the most politically savvy states in the union, and voters appropriately demand much from their presidential vote courtiers.

No other state can come close to them in the short term to producing those magic tough-feel-smell-the-candidate conditions, or the direct, issue-driven voter-to-candidate contact.

But there is also something to be said for bold challenges to tradition. The argument Levin has been making for years is simply stated: Iowa and New Hampshire have no firm claim to their status. They distort the delegate-selection process. They do not represent the demographics or character of the Democratic party or the nation. Their intransigence is in part responsible for the front-loaded nomination process.

"It's something Senator Levin has been working on for years and years and years," said Tara Andringa, Levin's spokesperson.

This did not, in other words, come out of the blue.

We contacted Mary Ettinger, the president of UAW Local 6000's, who said that she personally thinks it's a good idea.

"I have just recently heard that it is something that the UAW is behind and … " And then, she referred us to the UAW.

Solidarity House, as UAW's DC headquarters is called, was closed when we called at 3:30 p.m. Thursday. (They did not return our call by the Note's deadline this morning).

An aide to Rep. John Dingell said because there isn't a single statewide elected Democrat in New Hampshire, an effort to reduce its influence this cycle is particularly apt.

Michigan has a couple of statewide elected Democrats. Its governor, Jennifer Granholm, for one.

And it's a more diverse state than New Hampshire — ethnically, at least.

See for yourself:

MICHIGAN: LINK

NEW HAMPSHIRE: LINK

Jenna Gent, Granholm's communications director, said that Granholm was open to the idea but would wait for the state Democratic party to decide what it wanted to do before she makes up her mind. She said that Granholm did not conceive of the new date and has not been a key player in discussions about it.

"Senator Levin came to us with the proposal," she said.

Gent said that Granholm hasn't talked to DNC chair Terry McAuliffe or other members of the Democratic National Committee about the date change.

For what it's worth, the buzz at the AFL-CIO convention was this: the UAW is pushing this hard.

We have no evidence whatever than any campaign or candidate is either behind this or pushing for this.

The AP write-up fills in the rest for you: "Levin and Dingell, the wife of U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Dearborn, said they understand that Democratic National Committee rules say no states can hold their nominating contest before Iowa, which has set its caucuses for Jan. 19, and New Hampshire, which will have a primary date of no later than Jan. 27. States that violate the rule risk having their delegates prevented from being seated at the convention." LINK

"'If we schedule our caucuses outside this window, we will be fully prepared to defend our position at the Democratic convention in Boston next year," they said in their letter to the presidential candidates.'"

"DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said during last week's DNC meeting in Washington that he believes the national committee will work something out with Michigan's Democratic party leaders. But if they decide to violate the rules, he will enforce the penalty."

The state party is expected to decide by mid-April.

Hypothetically, what would happen if Michigan held firm to the January date?

Would South Carolina would suddenly look a little less attractive to certain candidates? Would, in the nexus of issues, globalization and trade replace health care as the controlling issue of the contest? Would CAFE votes will be scrutinized? Would Jennifer Granholm become a Kingmaker? What about Michigan and affirmative action? And African American support?

Incidentally, Maryland might move its primary to Feb. 10 — LINK — creating more chaos.

And last night's Democratic dinner in the aforementioned state of New Hampshire wasn't exactly a whopping success, if judged by candidate turnout. Carol Moseley Braun skipped it, leaving only Lieberman, Dean, and Sharpton.

Now, we know that everyone who wasn't there had some sort of reason/excuse, but ask yourself: what motivations, if any, did they have to skip it, and what do those possible motives say about the health of the state and/or national party, and the candidates themselves?

The press coverage, in state and nationally, of the dinner reflects the relatively low wattage.

One mega-macro exception: Almost like an Akin, Gump associate wearing a Patton Boggs pin, Mike Glover dispatched himself to New Hampshire to cover the 100 Club dinner last night.

Mike, for the uninitiated, normally doesn't get too far east of Cedar Rapids, or west of Dave Kotok's house.

"Lieberman and Sharpton spoke to more than 500 New Hampshire Democratic activists at a fund-raising dinner designed to showcase the party's presidential candidates." LINK

"'Unemployment is up, the stock market is down,' said Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. 'The future of the American dream is on the line." (Sound familiar, Mr. Gore?)

John DiStaso has a more extensive take on the evening, finding time between his bites of Chicken Cordon Bleu to chronicle the back and forth: "Lieberman, the relatively quiet man who spoke between the fiery Dean and Sharpton, had perhaps the most cutting anti-George W. Bush remark when he said, 'When more people around the world see the American President as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein, then you know something is really wrong with our foreign policy.'" LINK

He went on, 'We are saddled with an administration that has forgotten that family, responsibility and faith matter more than power, partisanship and privilege.'"

"Yet, Lieberman has been taking the strongest stand in support of Bush over going to war in Iraq. That earned him a brief chiding from a protester who shouted 'No war!' during his remarks, and it earned him some veiled criticism from Dean and Sharpton."

"Sharpton said that people ask whether he is 'polarizing' Americans with his tough rhetoric, but he cited GOP policies in New Hampshire and across the country. 'Let's talk about the real polarizers in America.'"

"With Americans out of work and a deficit looming, Sharpton asked Bush, 'Where is your compassion and what have you conserved?'"

"Dean called for national health insurance and vowed to work for the interest of labor unions."

"'We need to bring this party back to its roots,' he said. 'If we don't stand up for what we believe in, how can we expect anyone to vote for us."

The Boston Herald's David R. Guarino thinks Howard Dean "made perhaps the biggest splash" at the dinner, as the former Vermont governor criticized both Bush's Iraq policy and his own fellow Democratic contenders for voting as hawks but campaigning as doves. Guarino doesn't have much to say about Lieberman or Sharpton. LINK

Big Casino/budget politics

If you underestimate the extent to which the White House will gain leverage in the Senate for the president's tax plan by ramming it through the House and having it sitting right there, ready to be conferenced, well, we think you are making a grievous error. LINK

Keying off the bicameral introduction of the plan, the Washington Post 's Weisman does a little code breaking, on the one hand: " … (B)usiness groups have begun falling into line behind the plan, and the White House has proven adept at keeping GOP dissent muffled … ." L INK

… and a little code breaking on the other hand: "So far, Democrats' efforts to undermine the tax cut with talk of war have not greatly worried Republicans, a senior GOP aide said. But if the administration drops a $95 billion war-funding request on Congress just as it is drafting the tax cut, it could be problematic, the aide said."

"For now, Republican sources say, the biggest concerns are the deficit — projected by the White House to reach $304 billion this year before war costs are considered — and the president's standing on economic issues."

Paul Krugman remains, shall we say, not that optimistic about economic growth, even after any war with Iraq. LINK

In the New York Times , Edmund Andrews follows up on the Mankiw appointment, as the inevitable post-nomination strife ensues. LINK

Andrews points out that while Mr. Mankiw is widely respected intellectually, the Harvard economist's new status has many questioning the Bush Administration's commitment to its tax strategy, as those who formulated Bush's much-promoted plan seemingly are being replaced by those who challenged it.

Andrews quotes an early edition of a Mankiw textbook (later revised) deriding the "supply-side tax cuts of President Ronald Reagan as 'fad economics' conceived by 'charlatans and cranks,'" leading supply-siders such as Hoover fellow and Reagan White House veteran Martin Anderson to complain of the tome, "'It's stupid; it's simply not what a good economist writes.'"

Legislative agenda:

Jim VandeHei's editor at the Washington Post clearly told him to go match yesterday's New York Times ' story about the president's triangulating criticism of congressional Republicans for their funding of homeland security measures. LINK

Match it VandeHei does, to an extent that the story might have included this, right around the 10th paragraph: "The analysis and organization of this story first appeared in Thursday's New York Times ."

Reading the story will cause you intense déjà vu, from the reprise of the president's words to the NGA meeting, to the blind quotes from Hill staff about how annoyed they all are.

The story suggests that at least some Hill GOPers have a more charitable view of being triangulated than did Democrats during the Clinton years, even if some anonymous knives are being hurled over this:

"A top GOP House official said the Bush administration was intimately involved in negotiating the details of the $397 billion omnibus spending bill the president signed into law earlier this month. White House officials and many budget experts said the measure provides $1.3 billion specifically to local governments to combat terrorism — considerably less than the $3.5 billion that Bush said he wanted."

"'If the president wanted the money, he should have asked for it. He never did,' said a senior House GOP leadership aide. 'Bush will say what he needs to say, and we understand that.'"

VandeHei also "matches" Roll Call 's Thursday story about how Senator Voinovich and others are concerned about Administration surrogates coming into their states and effectively pressuring them to support the Bush tax plan.

But there is some moving of the ball forward: "Democrats said the president's remarks likely will be fodder for political ads in 2004 accusing House and Senate Republicans of failing to protect the homeland. The president 'is saying, in effect, Republicans shortchanged homeland security,' said Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). After reading the president's remarks, Hoyer said he told his staff, 'let's develop this' for a campaign … "

And this is new and interesting, although it seems to us to stick out like a sore thumb from this story: "Bush also is unintentionally pressuring congressional Republicans to spend more time raising money this winter. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who an aide said raised more than $1 million in January, and other top Republicans are trying to collect as much money as possible before Bush vacuums up huge sums from GOP donors. Bush is expected to raise upward of $250 million for his reelection and spend much less time than he did last year raising money and campaigning for fellow GOP candidates."

All your bigger papers debrief the members of Congress who Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson briefed yesterday on the administration's evolving Medicare plan, which now seems to call for some sort of prescription drug benefit even for those who stay in the current, "traditional," non-HMO version of Medicare.

Somehow, even though the administration has changed direction from one vaguely defined Medicare reform plan to another, the price tag remains, magically, exactly the same: $400 billion, as Mike Allen Notes in the Washington Post . LINK

The New York Times ' Robert Pear reads back his notes from yesterday's briefing by Thompson, and the lead is clear: "The proposal would provide modest drug benefits to people in the traditional, fee-for-service Medicare program. The government would offer more extensive drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries who join a private health plan … " LINK

"Under the latest version of the administration's proposal, people in the traditional Medicare program would receive two kinds of assistance: a discount card that could be used at pharmacies, and so-called catastrophic coverage protection against very high drug expenses."

"The catastrophic coverage would pay for drugs after the beneficiary's pharmaceutical expenses exceeded a certain level, perhaps about $4,500 to $6,000 a year."

"There would be no extra premium for the drug coverage offered to people in the fee-for-service program, administration officials said."

Per the Wall Street Journal : "Mr. Bush is expected to unveil the White House framework soon, perhaps as early as next week when he is scheduled to address the American Medical Association … ."

"The new approach lets lawmakers take the lead on the issue, and Republican leaders are hopeful of forcing action by midsummer … ."

"It appeared possible the White House could stir new debate by offering a less-generous benefit for seniors who remain in the traditional Medicare program in order to encourage beneficiaries to switch to private health plans where coverage would be more extensive. Seniors remaining in traditional Medicare would receive catastrophic drug coverage, as well as a drug-discount card to pay for less-costly drugs. But even this may not be enough to quiet the criticism among lawmakers, especially moderates who favor more generous coverage at less cost to seniors."

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary:

The Congressional Black Caucus wants to host four candidate debates, the USA Today reports. "Plans are being quickly laid for the first debate to take place this spring, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the caucus chairman, told USA TODAY and Gannett reporters. He said the debates will ensure that candidates address education, health care and civil rights issues in a year when war and terrorism are commanding the headlines." LINK

Matt Miller lauds the chiseling in of health care to the issue slate for the '04 race. LINK

EDWARDS

So it turns out that Senator John Edwards wound up skipping the 100 Club Dinner — which, his people Note, he never committed to attend, but said he would try to make it — because he had a meeting with FBI Director Robert Mueller over at Mueller's HQ. The Director extended the invite recently given that Edwards has been talking so much about homeland security … .

The tick tock of all this is still not entirely clear to us, but we are sure the Democrats of New Hampshire will understand.

"Former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt has agreed to be national co-chairman of Edwards' presidential campaign. Gantt twice ran unsuccessfully against U.S. Senator Jesse Helms," John Wagner reports. LINK

Edwards' arguments against legal/tort reform mirror those of Jesica Santillan's lawyer, according to the Raleigh News-Observer. LINK

Edwards told the paper he would not talk about the policy aspects of the tragic case.

KERRY

The Boston Globe 's Glen Johnson is back in the swing of things, as Senator Kerry, speaking to a group of Orange County Democrats (Calling Rob Lowe!), accused President Bush "of political favoritism for offering federal money to buy back corporate oil-drilling leases off Florida while fighting California in court as that state tries to buy out similar leases to protect its coast." LINK

Simultaneously condemning alleged Bush nepotism while appealing to the green-thinking, electoral-vote-rich Democratic state of California, Kerry pronounced: "'Mr. President, you shouldn't have to have a brother who is governor of a state, in a difficult election, in order to do what's right and buy out the oil leases. And when I am president, I am going to buy out the gas and oil leases off the coastline of California, and we will protect that precious natural resource for the legacy of the future.'"

Johnson also observed that Kerry is still polling ahead of his fellow Democratic contenders in New Hampshire, although Howard Dean, coming off a hot couple of weeks, is catching up slightly.

Oh, and Glen got to the bottom of Kerry's mysterious-but-no-doubt flattering tan: a 36-hour jaunt to the Baja peninsula in Mexico.

"Two weeks after surgery to remove his cancerous prostate, Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry returned to active campaigning Thursday with a broadside at President Bush on the environment and a pledge to block oil drilling off the California coast," The Los Angeles Times reports. LINK

"The Massachusetts senator, looking tanned after completing his medical recovery in Baja California, made the promise at a campaign stop in Anaheim."

"After the speech, Kerry said he was unsure how much it might cost to buy back leases of the 36 federal oil tracts off the coast of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties."

"'It's affordable,' Kerry said. 'I mean in the context of the long-term interests of the country, if you can afford it for Florida, you can afford it for here.'"

At around 6:10 this morning, Imus held up for his radio audience the Vogue photo spread of the (Heinz) Kerrys and did his usual "I love John Kerry but I'm voting for Bush" schtick.

IOWA

41 made them laugh at Coe College. LINK

NEW HAMPSHIRE

David Lightman got the name of the heckler. LINK

Almost all the candidates, even the absent ones, had signage and presence at the Holiday Inn.

Kent Warner and Beth York, legendary Democratic activists known to all those in the know, sent along these observations (reproduced precisely from a Note e-mail exclusive) from deep inside the Center of the Universe:

"Food:. Does it count as chicken cordon bleu — a french delicacy — if you put canadian bacon in the middle? Maybe this is a continuation of the anti-france sentiment that prompted sofitel hotels to pull down their three color flags off their us hotels."

"Kit Seelye brought her 'ducklings' — the students from Harvard she is teaching. They proceeded to put buttons and stickers from all the candidates on, but at least two had Dean for President bill bottles full of change they were shaking to make noise."

Politicsnh.com claims that the architect of the plan to hold John McCain's 2000 primary win to under 20 points does not plan to return to the scene of the crime in two weeks as planned: "Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's chief political adviser, was scheduled to speak at the Hillsborough and Merrimack County Lincoln Day Dinner on March 12th. PoliticsNH.com has learned Rove has told the county committees he will be unable to attend." LINK

Is the St. A's event off too?

RNC Chair Marc Racicot's well-received address to grassroots activists in Manchester included the following exchange:

"Questioned about GOP efforts to 'embrace diversity' by Wayne Jennings, a New Boston Republican activist and chairman of the New Hampshire Cultural Diversity Awareness Council, Racicot said the party formerly had a strong ties with minorities, 'but we let that relationship atrophy.'" LINK

"Racicot said Bush has put a host of African-Americans and other minorities in key posts. But he said the party, overall, 'is not where we need to be, yet.'"

"Jennings said later Racicot 'added comfort and a little relief' to his concern, but he said, 'I would hope that the New Hampshire congressional delegation and the governor follow the lead of the president and bring some diversity to their office.'"

The Manchester Union Leader's editorial page blasts state GOP Chair Joe Kelly Levasseur: "That Manchester and New Hampshire Republicans have let his offensive remarks pass without a public reprimand is both surprising and terribly disappointing. " LINK

Restrictions on abortion rights might soon be debated in the state legislature. LINK

SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina Democrats have begun the process of choosing a new party chair. LINK

DEAN

At the New Hampshire dinner last night, Howard Dean continued to use the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" line without any reference to Paul Wellstone.

He also seemed to stun the room with a reference to Jeane Shaheen running against Judd Gregg.

The Note was unable at press time to figure these things out.

Some observers think that there is something "wrong" with the fact that those who have been heckling the pro-Iraq-invasion Democratic presidential candidates at party events are allegedly Dean supporters.

We are officially not sure how we feel about this.

GRAHAM

We still don't know how big a player Senator Bob Graham will be in the nomination fight. He has no organization or experience in the key early states (including Iowa and New Hampshire), and he is a blank slate to a lot of Democratic activists around the country. But he'll be able to raise a lot of money in Florida, and as a former governor and national security expert, he has a good resume. A brief look at his economic and social policy record shows that while he votes with his party more than ninety percent of the time in the past few years, he occasionally has diverged from the flock of Democratic primary voters, who tend to be more socially and economically liberal than other self-identified Democrats. LINK

Then there are the diaries.

And the work days. Senator Graham once played a dead body in a theater production.

"Graham is a bit of a ham with a puckish sense of humor that's often hidden by his serious demeanor. He's been known, at unexpected moments, to break into unselfconscious song: 'I've got tension on the surface/ But I'm boiling over just below/ Because of you, hon,' he once warbled during a speech to Nashville Democrats." LINK

"Also, Graham lacks the close-neighbor status other candidates will enjoy in three states that start the presidential voting in January — Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt has it in Iowa, Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry in New Hampshire and North Carolina Senator John Edwards in South Carolina," the Los Angeles Times ' Mark Z. Barabak writes.

"'I have a hard time seeing Graham breaking through in any of those [kickoff] states,' said independent political analyst Charles Cook. 'To get anywhere, a candidate will need some momentum from one of those three.'" LINK

"Graham, 66, is a Democratic icon in Florida, where he has never lost an election. With a proven ability to win over moderates and Republicans, he won each of his last five statewide races by at least 9 percentage points and three of them by more than 25 points," The St. Petersburg Times reports.

"But in Washington many people say he's not a player." LINK "His longtime focus on Florida issues gave him little national profile. It wasn't until he headed the congressional inquiry about the Sept. 11 terror attacks that he became a regular on Meet the Press, the sort of show that signifies political heft in Washington circles."

"Inside the Beltway, Graham is seen by some as a curiosity. People wonder whether he has the fire to mount a grueling national campaign. They remark on his odd habit of keeping detailed notebooks that include the minutiae of his life. They speculate that he's really aiming for vice president."

"Most observers, though, acknowledge that a political powerhouse in a critical electoral and fundraising state can't be written off. Add that he's a former governor, a Southerner and an authority on terrorism and national security, and Graham appears to some as a real contender."

It's always nice to see Todd S. Purdum flex his always-impressive political journalism muscle, and he drew the Graham straw at the New York Times for today's edition.

After running through all of the Florida senator's on-paper strengths with a good measure of generosity, Mr. Purdum to-be-sures this: "But Mr. Graham is also comparatively little known outside his home state and has little support among organized labor and other big Democratic interest groups. Further, his low-key personal style has never been tested in the heat of a national campaign … " LINK

David Von Drehle's Washington Post version is similar, although it mentions those pesky diaries.

As best we can tell, the Florida-steeped Mr. DVD seems to be the only journalist this cycle to get an actual interview with the Senator in which the newly-minted candidate says he will make a special emphasis in South Carolina, but that he has appeal in the other key early states:

"'I grew up on a farm and my family is still heavily involved in agriculture,' Graham said. 'So I think I will have something credible and personal to say to the farmers in Iowa,' the first caucus state. 'And I've taken a lot of moderate positions that will be appealing to independents' in the open primary state of New Hampshire." LINK

LIEBERMAN

Ryan Lizza's campaign journal looks at war and Iraq and looks at Senator Lieberman's cautious positioning:

" … .Lieberman is also hoping that the issue will simply fade away. He is the one candidate who hints publicly at what aides to all the pro-war candidates told me privately: Guys like Dean may now be getting a huge organizational boost from the war, but, at the caucuses next year, the war will no longer matter."

"'Hopefully,' Lieberman explains, 'and I believe this is a reasonable thing to say, by the time caucus voters in Iowa go to vote next January nineteenth, any possibility of military action in Iraq will have passed as a part of history.' At that point, liberals will be watching to see how committed Bush is to democracy in Iraq, an issue Lieberman is spending a lot of time talking about."

"In the war's aftermath, Lieberman suggests, a decade of advocacy for the overthrow of Saddam will be an asset, not a liability. Just as the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic and the fall of the Taliban neutered previous antiwar movements, next January it will be up to the Kuciniches and the Deans of the race to explain why they opposed ridding the Middle East of a tyrant. Before leaving, Lieberman offers a final piece of political wisdom to the gathered reporters, who all seem to agree that his campaign is stuck in neutral. It could serve as Lieberman's motto: 'Running for president is not a sprint.'"

The Washington Times ' Donald Lambro suggests that Senator Lieberman is losing more ground in the fight for the black vote. LINK

Lambro contends that Lieberman's shaky relationship with African-American voters may put his quest for the Democratic nomination in jeopardy. And the general growing frustration of black voters about being taken for granted by Democratic candidates isn't helping.

As a free service to fundraisers, here's a link to Lieberman's Lehrer show interview. LINK

MOSELEY BRAUN

Is it a measure of how seriously her candidacy is being taken that we can find no reference to the reason for her absence from the dinner?

Except for us:

"We ran in to a scheduling conflict earlier in the week. We didn't think that we should put out an advisory saying we weren't able to go since we had never put out an advisory saying we were going," wrote Moseley Braun adviser Kitty Kurth in an e-mail.

KUCINICH

Since we all know that Jake Tapper, despite his numerous impressive print clips, simply wants to be a television star, we thought we would tease his coming-this-weekend salon.com interview with Congressman Dennis Kucinich as if it were a network news magazine promo, teeing up only Tapper's questions, so you are driven mad with anticipation about what the answers are:

Tapper asks: "A rival's campaign has brought an April 1972 Cleveland Magazine article to my attention in which you are accused of using racial politics. The story says that after you arrived in the City Council in 1967 you began 'playing confrontation politics with the city's black administration as if [you] had invented the game.' Care to comment?"

And this: "If I were a pro-choice Democrat how could I trust you?"

The answers will SHOCK you!

POLITICS

Kirstin Downey's editor at the Washington Post clearly told her to go match yesterday's New York Times ' story about the anger of the Teamster's Jimmy Hoffa and other AFL-CIO leaders in response to Wednesday's presentation by Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. LINK

Downey doesn't really advance the story, despite her claim that "(m)ore details of the meeting emerged today," although she did determine that the labor leaders were bothered both by substance ("Participants said Chao shocked the group by opposing any increase in the minimum wage, showing no sympathy for retired steelworkers who lost pension benefits, and reciting a list of legal actions her department has taken against unions and their leaders.") and by alleged tone (Chao allegedly "requested a podium and a riser to stand on, rather than sitting at the table with the labor executives as past labor secretaries have done.").

If the Democrats can count on a united, riled up labor front in 2004, well, that would be pretty good for them.

Chao's spokesperson, our very favorite Kathleen Harrington, tells the Post that the Secretary is "very perplexed" about the reaction. We wonder if the White House political shop is similarly "perplexed, and if the administration is looking for a way to fix this, or will simply resign themselves to the status quo.

The New York Times ' Steven Greenhouse reports that the executive council of the A.F.L.-C.I.O broke with long tradition and strongly denounced President Bush's Iraq policy, unanimously approving "a resolution urging Mr. Bush to embrace a broad multilateral approach to Iraq and criticizing the administration for dividing the world and insulting America's allies." LINK

For many Republicans and conservatives, the great civil rights issue of our time is school choice, and the greatest impediment to improving public schools are the power of the teachers unions to thwart change, and the Democratic party's refusal to take the unions on.

When President Bush pushes voucher programs (as he did in his latest budget), some liberals see it as a sop to the right to keep the base happy. It may be partly that, but it is also because the president truly believes that the school choice revolution is the answer, even after many of his party colleagues were frightened off by lopsided defeats in misguided ballot measures on the matter in 2000.

The dominant media's failure to treat the operations and influence of unions (including the teachers unions) on par with the way corporations are treated is one of the great ongoing injustices of political reporting.

And the "special interest" control that unions (including and especially teachers) exert over the Democrats is badly undercovered as compared to the special interest influence that those same corporations have over the Republicans.

This weekend on "Here's the Point" with Mark Halperin, Terry Moe, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, talks about the role he sees teachers unions playing as barriers to change in America's broken education system, especially their mostly successful efforts to block choice measures. LINK

The Washington Times ' Ralph Z. Hallow reports yet again that Republican members of the National Governors Association, which met this week, balked at "what they said was the dominance of the organization by its left-wing staff" and concern over a proposed "policy statement critical of President Bush's economic policies, including his tax-cut proposals." LINK

Hallow writes that some Republican governors refused to pay their dues, while others threatened to drop out altogether until NGA vice-chair Dirk Kempthorne promised to make changes after taking over as chairman later this year.

NGA Executive Director Ray Scheppach and NGA chief congressional lobbyist Frank Shafroth are under attack for the alleged "Democratic tilt to the organization;" Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in particular are looking to oust the offenders and reorganize the staff immediately, something, Hallow suggests, would please the White House as well.

The story notes that "a senior NGA staff member speaking on the condition of anonymity denied that the staff leaned leftward and said Republican governors were making a scapegoat of Mr. Scheppach."

Demonstrating what some might see as a fit of journalistic pique, but we consider "just Ralph," Hallow huffs: "Asked for a list of staff salaries and whether Mr. Scheppach, in particular, was being made a fall guy, NGA Communications Director Christine LaPaille first asked not to be quoted then did not return repeated telephone calls and e-mailed questions over the last three days." Some may like to call House majority leader Tom DeLay "Felix" to Senator Hillary Clinton's "Oscar" (or vice versa), but the New York Times editorial page just dubs him "DeLay, Inc." Chastising him for participating in fundraising telemarketing, they say he's "the standout in this crass crowd … [who] deserves to be honored as politics' nonpareil pitchman of the year." Yikes. LINK

Will Senator Clinton write a letter to her "hometown" paper defending her new best friend?

Bush Administration strategy/personality:

Morphing the "Washington Wire" into "Page Six," Jackie Calmes leads with "GREENSPAN FANS? White House dismisses allies' gripes about Fed chief."

"It won't close door on replacing Greenspan, whose current four-year term ends next year. But its kudos contrast with conservative supporters' rage at Greenspan for telling Congress a stimulus bill isn't needed. Bush calls him an 'excellent chairman.'

"Yet some lawmakers see the White House behind the attacks. Republican operative Scott Reed says replacing Greenspan wouldn't hurt Bush: 'What better way to put his own imprint on economic policies than to get his own person at the Fed?'"

"Greenspan, at the Fed for 15 years, turns 77 on Thursday."

Media

In case you thought AP White House correspondent Scott Lindlaw's band's debut over in Arlington was a once-in-a-lifetime experience, weep not, music lovers: they will appear again Saturday night at the legendary Jenny's Chinese Restaurant, 401 M Street, SW. For a mere $5, you get Jenny's delectable buffet AND Lindlaw and company, who probably will go on around 9:30 p.m.

. C-SPAN's impenetrable Brian Lamb gets a prize, winning the 2002 National Humanities Medal, along with seven others. LINK