Print This Page Email This Page See Most Sent

Good Morning America| World News| 20/20| Primetime| Nightline| This Week| ABC News Now| i-Caught Home| News Brief| World| U.S.| Investigative| Politics| Polls| Money| Health| Entertainment| ESPN Sports| SciTech| Law| Travel Search Please Note: You've requested an ABCNews.com page that does not exist. If you've reached this page by selecting a bookmark that worked previously, it's likely the file moved to a new location because of our recent redesign. Please update your bookmarks. If you still can't find the page your looking for, check out our homepage or use the search form below: Search     Feedback| Wireless| E-mails & News Alerts| Message Boards| RSS Headlines| Podcasts| ABC News Store Contact Us| ABC.com| Site Map| Advertising Info| Terms of Use (Updated 5/6/08)| Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights External links are provided for reference purposes. ABC News is not responsible for the content of external internet sites. Copyright © 2008 ABCNews Internet Ventures

Catch up. Plenty of Note archives.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

You got your amazing weekend of mediacracy on the 9/11 fallout flap.

You got your compassionate conservative/Sister Soulja/stem cellian/triangulating/awfully clever Bush policy/politics "new way"/"third way" Cuba speech double header.

And you got yourself another week of big-time 2002 political activity, kicked off by another indication that for some reason the Bushes like to change the rules and fundraise for each other in private.

As was predictable, the momentum of new disclosures, the Sunday shows, and the hyper-ventilating newsweeklies took the 9/11 story into this morning. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess.

We are still waiting for the August 6 briefing and the full Phoenix memo to be released, or, more likely, shared with Congress (and then be instantly leaked, Mr. President), which (is why) the White House is clearly resisting.

Bob Woodward and Ari Fleischer still seem to disagree on what the title of the August 6 memo was. We're not sure who has more reliable intelligence sources.

And why is it suddenly okay for the administration, which abhors leaking, to put out to the New York Times that there has been increased terrorist chatter suggesting the possibility of an imminent attack? Is there a way to read that disclosure OTHER THAN as a ham-handed attempt to (1) change the subject from the pre-9/11 flap; and (2) to fight off an investigation by buttressing the Cheney-Rice argument that an investigation could help the enemy?

We type this notwithstanding the fact that when the national security adviser was asked whether the administration had decided to disclose its concerns over another attack to deflect criticism over September 11, Dr. Rice answered, "We don't play games with this." We don't think anyone thought or said it was a game.

Attention headline writers and weekend and morning news producers: Dick Cheney has been saying that another, more serious attack on the United States is a question not of "if" but of "when," publicly and privately, for many, many months.

Just because Tim and Tony couldn't cause him to commit actual news doesn't mean we have to pretend he said something new.

The first thing John King taught us (okay: the SECOND thing John King taught us … *) was "the first three letters of 'news' are N-E-W."

Cheney's continued tsk-tsking of Democrats and (along with Rice), his hostility to an independent commission, seemed more newsworthy, if less flashy, to us.

The Time and Newsweek covers go way over the top, with Time's use of the WTC a testament, we think, to those incestuous newsmag wars that cause cover competition to ratchet up newsstand sales.

If you cover politics you hear simultaneously from both Republicans and Democrats that the OTHER party is tougher, more aggressive, better organized, and more shameless. Now, we have good sources in both parties, but on this score, of course, they both can't be right.

Last week's attack on the Democrats by the White House, which created a straw man (after only Rep. Cynthia McKinney ACTUALLY said the president knew about the particulars of 9/11 in advance), was so brutal and demagogic that it's hard to remember the last time the Democrats reached that level. (If you don't count those anti-Bush NAACP TV ads … ..)

From Mrs. Bush's extraordinary statement from Europe, to White House talking points going to the Hill, to Vice President Cheney's speech in New York, to the Republican's House campaign committee putting out opposition research on leading Democrats accusing them of being weak on defense, to Mr. Fleischer's attack on Senator Clinton, and an email from RNC chairman to grassroots activists — the Republicans played some serious hardball.

Some of the coverage over the weekend painted the Democrats as recoiling in the face of the attack and scaling back their criticism of the president. Some Democrats in turn recoiled at that coverage, claiming that the press was measuring the "new" reaction in contrast to what the White House had convinced the world was the Democrats' "initial" reaction.

But since the Democrats had never done what the Republicans accused them of doing, much of the press was using the wrong standard. Democrats are STILL saying what they have been saying all along: that there should be an investigation into what was known from the president on down in advance of 9/11. If the tone is different, it is mostly because the white-hot period is over, for everyone, including the press.

Are the Democrats pursuing this at least in part for political purposes? Of course. But were we shocked/surprised by Dr. Rice's strong opposition to a panel to look into what happened? You betcha.

(And we found Dr. Rice quoting Bill Clinton for comfort kinda cute.)

Democrats claim they have stuck to their guns, and won this round, but not everyone agrees (including us).

The Wall Street Journal 's lead editorial does the play-by-play thusly: "Democrats and the press corps immediately pounced, with Presidential wannabe Dick Gephardt invoking the Watergate language of 'what the White House knew,' yada yada. Tom Daschle declared that he was 'gravely concerned,' as if that isn't his perpetual condition."

"The White House fired back against 'second-guessing' and partisanship amid war, and the Democrats then retreated to the safer harbor of merely wanting to know all the facts. By the weekend Mr. Gephardt was backpedaling faster than the Boston Celtics trying to defend Jason Kidd."

Of course, getting the updated talking points to the provinces isn't always done quickly, and watch the White House pick up on this: The Washington Times butters up the Democratic Party chairs from Iowa and Arkansas and entraps them into proving that not all Democrats are walking back their criticism of the president.

"'Clearly it's more permissible to start asking questions about Bush's conduct of this whole thing than it was only a few days or a week ago,' Ron Oliver, the Arkansas Democratic Party chairman, said in an interview."

"'We could get to the bottom of it and find he did all he could have done,' Dr. Sheila McGuire Riggs, the Iowa Democratic Party chairman, said in an interview. 'But right now the pieces from the CIA and FBI that we have in front us lead us to believe he failed to protect the American people.'"

This is really a story about how trial balloons in Washington--even trial balloons that are popped quickly--float over the Beltway divide and become talking points in more local circles of Democratic power. It's the same reason why most state Democratic activists still question President Bush's presidential legitimacy, even as the Democratic leadership long ago gave up on that and pays homage to him as a war leader.

The Wall Street Journal writes up their WSJ/NBC poll on all this: "As Democrats seek to capitalize on the disclosure that President Bush had been warned about possible terrorist hijackings last year, there are signs that they need to be careful about pushing their critiques too far or too fast … ."

" … (I)n a sign of the doubts Democrats and Republicans in Congress both may face as they ponder how to probe the handling of intelligence before Sept. 11, 58% of those polled said they think a full-scale investigation would be unproductive and too political. Just 36% said they want such a full-blown investigation."

"The best opening for Democrats seems to be that 41% of those surveyed — a minority, but not an insignificant one — think the administration could have done more with the information available to it."

The story also gets at the politics: "The intensity of the Democratic response to the disclosures evinces their sense that Mr. Bush is vulnerable on the matter. To some extent, it is being fueled by the pent-up frustration among Democrats that the collapse of Enron Corp., which had close ties to Republicans and the White House, hasn't proved much of a liability for the GOP. The latest imbroglio, unlike Enron, rests squarely at Mr. Bush's feet and has more potential staying power as an issue, Democrats believe."

And then some smart analysis that smart Democrats can't deny: "The aggressiveness of the Democratic leaders' criticism immediately after the disclosures may provoke some second-guessing of that tactic down the line. The controversy also has underscored the weakness of the Democratic bench in Congress. After the two party leaders, there has been no one with the foreign-policy gravitas of former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, for example, to help frame the debate. For the most part the debate has run on emotion, and Senator Lieberman, for one, wants both sides to cool down."

On the big fight (probably, given the timetable, more substantive than political, at least vis a vis 2002) over whether to have an independent commission investigate what happened, the two sides couldn't be farther apart.

One gets the sense that the administration thinks it can strangle this in the crib, but the Journal reports: "'The debate on whether to have a commission has effectively ended,' says Senator Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat who supports of the bill. 'The American people expect, and Congress will demand, some assessment.'"

"The framework outlined in the Lieberman-McCain legislation is what Senate Democrats are talking about now, though the proposal still could be rewritten, congressional aides say. Senator Torricelli predicts chief backers of the measure will try to attach the commission plan to the first available bill moving through the Senate, most likely after Memorial Day. That could be the defense-authorization bill or a pending emergency-spending bill."

A next step is for the Democratic congressional leadership to decide if it can reach a unified position on what to push for in terms of hearings and an investigation. While they dither on that question, other disclosures might strengthen their hand.

Meanwhile the Washington Post does the best reporting yet on how messed up (that's our polite euphemism) the Hill panel gearing up for hearings is: "The congressional panel authorized and funded to investigate the performance of intelligence agencies leading to the Sept. 11 attacks has been racked with internal strife, partisan politics and disagreements over its ultimate goal."

"The panel, composed of members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, has hired 23 staff members and obtained 150,000 pages of CIA documents. But it has not agreed whether its central mission is to figure out if federal agencies failed to do their job, or the less politically-charged question of how the nation's intelligence system should be reorganized."

"The panel has delayed its opening hearing date three times and forced out its original director. The replacement is expected to be someone who has no background in the specialized world of intelligence matters. The problems have been aggravated by what some staff members see as roadblocks being thrown up by the CIA and delays in resolving differences over access to FBI and Justice Department documents."

And surprise, surprise, surprise: the intelligence agencies aren't thrilled to be grilled: "The CIA has also forbidden its employees from exchanging business cards with the committee staff and has declined to turn over documents that originated in other departments, invoking what is called the 'third agency' rule under which the agency that originated the information must give its approval before it can be released."

"CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said the agency is being 'extremely cooperative' and has given the panel 'virtually everything they've asked for.'" With business cards, apparently, included under that "virtually" umbrella.

Bill Safire indicts the lot of 'em, and calls for a commission: "I say: finger-point away at the entire national intelligence flop. That means investigate both Clinton and Bush administration nonfeasance, and especially scrutinize the failure of Congressional and executive oversight."

"House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees, and the ditherers entrenched on their staffs, have much to answer for in this debacle. The president's Foreign Intelligence Advisery Board is still a joke. The notion of letting the F.B.I. set up its own counterterror C.I.A. while the C.I.A. fattens its budget is foolish."

"Neither Congress nor the executive branch can investigate itself. We need an independent 9/11 commission to see who missed what yesterday, which will let our spooks, feds and legislators get on with turning back terror today."

Alison Mitchell gets all big-thinky on us: "The debate over how to investigate Sept. 11 is unique because it involves secret intelligence and a devastating loss of life, and comes against a backdrop of further terror threats. Yet in some ways it is part of a broader battle being waged day by day between a Congress eager for oversight and an administration that believes that presidential authority and prerogatives have been eroded since the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal."

"The struggle is on an array of fronts, including the dispute over whether Tom Ridge, the homeland security director, will testify before Congress, the lawsuit by the General Accounting Office to get information about Mr. Cheney's energy task force, and the latest threats by a Senate committee to subpoena the Bush administration for information about its contacts with Enron, the collapsed energy trading company."

And she points out that it is not just Democrats who see a White House overstepping its separation-of-powers bounds: "This week, (Republican Congressman Dan) Burton's committee plans to open a new front — a dispute over an executive order issued by President Bush last November to grant a sitting president, former president and family members an expansive privilege to block the release of past presidential records."

"The committee is scheduled to vote on legislation sponsored by Representative Steve Horn, Republican of California which would largely rescind Mr. Bush's order."

Deep breath, and on to Story Deux: The lead the White House wants on the Cuba story is that the president has thought anew about how to go back to first principles and pursue a policy that will lead to a free Cuba.

Seeking a compromise in both tone and substance, the main questions are, will the benchmarks the president lays out that Cuba must meet before the embargo can be scaled back be seen as meaningful?

And will sending funding to business people and dissidents in Cuba simply serve to solidify Castro's hold?

It's testament to how much has changed in Little Havana that the White House, and Florida's far-from-disinterested governor, can even consider a policy that on some level can be seen as a softening of the U.S. position.

The Wall Street Journal gets the lead and the story just right, and tells the story much the way the White House wants: "President Bush will announce Monday that the U.S. is prepared to offer Cuba greater economic and political ties, including possibly lifting the embargo, if the communist government holds "free, fair and transparent" elections and begins to throw open its economy, U.S. officials said."

"The speech is in direct contrast to what many hard-line supporters of the embargo had expected, and it suggests the White House decided to soften its tone after former President Carter's widely watched trip to Cuba last week. Late Sunday, Bush aides were still scrambling to tell key members of South Florida's congressional delegation what the president would say."

"One senior Bush adviser said deeper engagement could come even if Cuban President Fidel Castro remains in power. 'Fidel is irrelevant,' the official said. 'If the current leadership brings democracy to Cuba , then they can expect a vastly different relationship with the United States … .'"

"The president's message is certain to enrage some Cuban-Americans, though there are also growing numbers who favor reaching out to Cuba in new ways … .(I)n a departure from the hard-line stance of many past administrations, Mr. Bush will make clear that change — and its rewards — can come in increments."

See below for more on Cuba.

Note that the White House schedule for today lists the Miami fundraiser as CLOSED PRESS, rare for the is President, and sort of strange.

Part of it could be that Florida's campaign finance system is like no other.

We have spent much of the year trying to figure it out. Basically, the gubernatorial candidates are subject to limits on how they can raise money directly, but the capacity to raise money by the state parties and for the candidates to control the party (in spending and raising) are nearly limitless.

Maybe it is a desire to avoid sunlight on those screwy dynamics that causes the Florida party (and the White House) to be more tight with facts than the others.

Per ABCNEWS's Katy Textor, the last POTUS fundraiser down in Florida was open BUT the party would not give any info about the amount of money raised. They said they aren't required to put that kind of information out. Compared to other state parties for whom the president has raised money, they have been the most secretive.

Both parties raise money all the time at closed events, but why the president chooses to do this, given that he sees openness and disclosure at the heart of a good campaign finance system, is beyond us.

The Democrats clearly have some sort of media/political strategy to get their message out; it just isn't always easy to know what it is.

Per Roll Call , pegged to the party-switch of Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), "Every day this week, Senate Democrats have planned a different media event to highlight issues on which they contend they have had success in blocking the Republican agenda. The series begins with Social Security today and ends with the environment on Friday, which is the exact one-year anniversary of the day Jeffords made his historic speech in Vermont and bolted the GOP."

"Tuesday there will be a special guest at an event with Jeffords and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): the 2001 national teacher of the year, Michele Forman of Middlebury, Vt. In what was widely viewed as payback for his efforts to trim Bush's proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut, Jeffords, while still a Republican, was not invited to the White House ceremony last spring honoring Forman."

Mike Allen has the best story anyone has done to date on how the White House legally uses taxpayer money to move the president around to campaign.

Here's a contest, but it is only open to reporters who cover the White House full time: guess the name of the "senior administration official" cited in this part of the Allen story: "One senior administration official said each trip's official component, known around the White House as the 'policy event,' is scheduled first, and then the fundraisers are added. That does not comport with statements from local party officials, who say they know about the fundraisers long before a hall is booked for the official event. Other White House officials said fundraising plans drove the schedules for several recent trips."

Bonus question: can you imitate the facial expression Mike Allen was making while he wrote down the senior official's statement?

In the one-punch of the Milbank-Allen one-two-punch, the Bush White House gets political, said Dana Milbank in the Sunday Washington Post , rounding up all the old familiar examples, including confusing polling for how to say things with polling to decide what to believe.

A busy political day, and a busy political week.

Today, Howard Dean's Democratic Governor's Association meets in Las Vegas for a policy conference.

Former President Clinton travels to East Timor as part of the U.S. delegation there.

New York mayor Mike Bloomberg is in Washington today, raising money for the GOP's Federal Victory Fund.

The National Air Traffic Controllers association is holding its annual legislative conference in Virginia. George Washington University hosts a conference on internet politics.

Tomorrow, Second Lady Lynne Cheney appears on "The View," Vice President Gore fundraises for his political action committee in Washington, D.C., and retiring House Majority Leader Dick Armey holds his final fishing tournament on Columbia Island, Virginia.

Arkansas, Oregon, and Pennsylvania hold their primaries tomorrow.

Beginning Wednesday, New York political elites with gather for the state Democratic Party convention in New York City. The AFL-CIO leadership meets in New York as well.

Also Wednesday, President and Mrs. Bush leave for Berlin. He'll attend a NATO summit in Italy this weekend, after meetings with the Pope in Rome.

"In Moscow, Mr. Bush hopes to sign an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin that would enlist Russia's cooperation in America's development of a missile defense shield. Separately, the two leaders have already agreed to sign the Treaty of Moscow, which will slash their nuclear arsenals by two-thirds over the next decade."

Later this week, petitioners in Oregon and California face deadlines for gathering signatures for ballot initiatives and referenda.

From the ABCNEWS London Bureau: U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil arrives in Ghana, accompanied by U 2 lead singer Bono on a fact-finding mission to Africa where they are to visit projects sponsored by the World Bank and other development agencies as well as various clinics battling AIDS and other diseases.

A Palestinian has blown himself up at a police checkpoint in northern Israel, less than 24 hours after another bomber killed himself and three others at a market in the Israeli town of Netanya. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for Sunday's blast — which was the most damaging such attack for 12 days.

The son of radical Palestinian guerrilla leader Ahmed Jibril was killed in a Beirut car bombing, Lebanese Hezbollah guerrilla television reports. He has been killed in Muslim West Beirut, when a bomb destroyed his car but there were no reports of other casualties. Jihad Jibril was head of military operations for his father's political faction Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.

9/11 Bombshell

Howard Fineman gets the tick-tock about President Bush's bruising week, culminating in a venting session on Capitol Hill, "a jut-jawed, disjointed discourse with a tinge of diatribe and a crescendo of podium pounding."

"[He] wandered off to the Middle East, recounting a blunt Oval Office conversation with Ariel Sharon. He said he'd asked the Israeli leader if he really hated Yasir Arafat. Sharon had answered yes, according to the president. 'I looked him straight in the eye and said, 'Well, are you going to kill him?" Sharon said no, to which the president said he'd replied, "That's good.'"

"Bush was just getting warmed up. 'Now you guys really got me going,' he said. He threatened to block the entire defense bill if it contained money for the controversial and costly Crusader artillery system. 'I mean it. I'll veto it,' he said tersely, glancing at Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma, where Crusader would be built. Bush ended with an attack on North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. 'He's starving his own people,' Bush said, and imprisoning intellectuals in "a Gulag the size of Houston." The president called him a 'pygmy' and compared him to "a spoiled child at a dinner table.' Stunned senators didn't know quite what to make of the performance. "It was like in church, when the sermon goes on too long and you're not sure what the point is," one told NEWSWEEK. "Nobody dared look at anybody else."

Fineman also claims that Hill Republicans were aghast that Ari Fleischer released what he did about the president's briefings.

David Shribman rings his hands.

Daddy Novak scolds the FBI for leaking (allegedly) the Phoenix Memo and trying to drive attention away from its own (alleged) failures.

Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, casts aspersions on Bill Clinton.

"Mr. Giuliani, a Republican, suggested that the Clinton administration also should be accountable, given that much of the intelligence coming under scrutiny was collected during its watch."

"'Remember, the Bush administration when this attack took place was a very new administration and they had just inherited the intelligence apparatus put in place by the Clinton administration so when you look at this you're going to have look at both,' Mr. Giuliani told the Associated Press after a speech to graduates of Georgetown University Law Center."

Cuba

Astute reporters of the president's Cuba policy all note the subtle shift in sentiment about Cuban Americans and the generational differences that are driving it.

"In a survey of 800 Cuban-Americans in Miami, Bendixen and Associates found that 61 percent wants the United States to maintain its trade embargo, but 52 percent say new measures should replace sanctions. Also, Miami's Cubans are split evenly on the question of lifting restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba."

USA Today does its version of the carrot and sticks approach to Cuba.

Knight-Ridder's dispatch notes how the new policy satisfies the wishes of Cuban-American voters: relaxing certain provisions on humanitarian assistance while taking a tougher line against Castro's government.

The Associated Press plays up the harder parts of the proposal and casts the decision as a rejection of President Carter's plea to relax the embargo.

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary

As part of his constant "will I or won't I?" calibration, Tom Daschle tells Roll Call that retirement is "probably … .third" in the order of likelihood as he consider re-election, a presidential run, or leaving public life in 2004.

But then, somewhat contradictorarily, he says "'[Retirement] is not third, but it certainly is not first.'"

He also reveals that the book of the man who lives 2 blocks from the international headquarters of ABCNEWS is influencing all this: "Daschle is currently reading 'Master of the Senate,' the third volume of Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson, which covers Johnson's time as Senate Majority Leader, and suggested that the book is actually pushing him toward staying in the Senate past 2004 because it shows that he can have a potentially great impact on the country by staying in the chamber."

"One close adviser noted that at the end of his Senate term, Daschle will reach his 10th anniversary as Democratic leader. 'That's a long time to have people complaining to you,' said the adviser, adding: 'I genuinely have no idea what he's going to decide. But I don't think he does either.'"

"Another confidante noted that Daschle is due to have two grandchildren later this year and that the Senator and his wife have grown tired of the attacks from conservatives, which have sharply increased since he became Majority Leader. 'If I had to pick today, I would say he is retiring,' the adviser said flatly."

"Some of Daschle's own colleagues say his list of accomplishments could vault him to the top of the list of presidential candidates. In an interview, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) all but endorsed Daschle for the 2004 nomination, saying he 'can't think of a better person' to carry the party's banner."

Roll Call also covers Senator Joseph Lieberman's Enron subpoena tussle with the White House.

By the by, Lieberman speaks to the influential Detroit Economic Club today.

The big news: we're told he's going to propose that Congress take a new look at the Bush tax cuts if the economy hasn't recovered in a year. If there's stagnation or if deficits are piling up, Lieberman would argue in favor of postponing their implementation.

He'll contend that the Bush economic vision provides very little opportunity or encouragement for the 1990s type transformation to take place.

It's no coincidence that he'll speak in Detroit, which underwent an economic renaissance during the Clinton area but has been slow to bloom as of late.

Also today, Rev. Al Sharpton holds his first exploratory committee fundraiser at the NYC home of lawyer Sandford Rubenstein.

This weekend, House Speaker Dick Gephardt collected $1.5 million for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Seaside, California.

Senators Lieberman and Dodd, normally so similar in their policy positions that David Lightman gets bored sometimes covering them, disagree on whether to keep the Cuban trade embargo in place.

Sunday, the Boston Globe 's Glen Johnson allowed the DNC convention date trial balloon to float high above the clear New England sky.

Here's what WE know: In light of the Republican National Committee's recently released plan hold their 2004 presidential convention in late August or early September, Democratic National Committee sources say the DNC is mulling over the idea of moving their convention from its currently scheduled date of July 19-22, 2004 to the week of August 30 or even later.

DNC sources claim they're being forced to consider this option to avoid having a six-week lag between their convention and the GOP's, which some fear would deny their nominee the usual convention "bounce;" they also fear the financial advantage that President Bush will have going into the general election campaign.

They say they are presenting this option in the hope that Republicans will agree to move their convention back to the more usual late July-early August date.

Now expect a lot of back-and-forth between the two parties as they each try to call the other's bluff, plus word out of the possible convention host cities about whether later dates would even work for them, or not.

The DNC is scheduled to have a site advisory committee meeting on Wednesday, where they'll consider the proposals from the five cities bidding for the convention (New York, Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, and Miami) and set up a schedule of site visits.

Republicans still haven't given a full answer to just how they'll go about persuading 13 states to change their ballot access deadlines.

On Tuesday, the New Democrat Network will host two wannabes, Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, at their spring conference. They'll speak back-to-back around lunchtime. All the active top-tier contenders were invited but, an NDN source said, Gore and Edwards had scheduling conflicts, and Gephardt declined. The group also will be releasing two polls that operatives looking toward '04 may want to give the once-over: a survey on Hispanic voters and a Penn poll.

Will Chris Lehane give up his idyllic San Francisco existence to flack for Al Gore or any other 2004 wannabee? The San Francisco Chronicle

has coffee with the Man. The Note's European Correspondent Gayle Tzemach reports from Berlin on a Ralph Nader event: "He played to a PACKED house … .(a cozy brunch spot in the liberal hangout of Prenzlauer Berg). Highlights were not-so-civil swipes he took at both NYT's Tom Friedman and German Foreign Minister Joska Fischer."

Per Tzemach, Teresa Amato, who once had a pretty good dust-up with the Fahrenkopf-Kirk tag team, was with Nader.

Politics

Roll Call big-pictures the parties' framing efforts: "Less than seven months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Democrats believe voters' attention has shifted markedly back to domestic priorities, while Republicans argue that voters view national security as essential heading into the midterm elections."

The story rounds up the major congressional races, as a front to a package of region-by-region mini-write ups of all the major races.

Gambling is the most under covered story in American politics (which is just the way Mr. Fahrenkopf and the gaming industry like it). About the only national paper that has ever taken in seriously in a sustained way is the New York Times , which today looks casino boom in the Midwest.

Someone named "Tucker Carlson" (but surely not the "Tucker Carlson" who went on a certain trip to Vietnam, or road on the Straight Talk Express) wrote this in the Sunday Washington Post Book World about Elizabeth Drew's book about John McCain: "Part of the problem is Drew's ear for political language. She doesn't have one. Unable to recognize boilerplate, she records quotes that read like excerpts from the Congressional Record, but less revealing … ..Drew is a seasoned political reporter and a hardworking one. She spent a great deal of time with McCain and his staff, maybe too much. Somewhere along the way she became a fan."

And, Tucker, we are sure it seemed like a pretty safe bet that no one would notice you recycling the same language for your New York Post review of the same book (complete with "nonalcoholic tequila"), but you forget about the 1000 monkeys on a 1000 Nexis terminals employed by the Note.

VH1's Jake Tapper shows he knows about more than Moby with this review of Dick Morris's new book, which suggests that Morris is less nuanced in matters of the mind than a Magic Eightball.

California

These California political reporters spend all these years barely writing about the secret, vast Gray Davis fundraising operation, and now they can't get enough of it.

We'll wait and see how much fun Bill Simon has with this L.A. Times story, cueing off a week of stories harping on Gov. Gray Davis for being the nation's foremost political governor. As one might expect, conglomerations of powerful people have daily conference calls to plot strategy. (And, we hope, read The Note.).

Davis participates in an 8:30 power call to design the day.

"[T]he 8:30 sessions are robust and not always agreeable, according to half a dozen of those who have participated. 'No one is namby-pamby,' South said. 'It doesn't sound like a corporate board meeting. These are all very strong-willed people, starting with the guy at the top.' (Davis has insisted, for instance, that his positive TV spots always include a list of his endorsements scrolling across the screen.)"

"The candor, aides say, comes from the shared-foxhole experience of four years ago, when few gave Davis much hope of being governor prior to his come-from-behind primary victory. They also share a basic philosophical accord."

That philosophical accord may be tested as the state legislative audit committee continues its investigation into the Oracle contract controversy. The San Francisco Chronicle today looks at how Oracle came to do what it does.

But still--and this is why Davis is so confident--nearly every political trend in California swings toward his favor. He can weather an enormous budget deficit and questions about his fundraising, knowing that he has a summer to let things simmer, a Democratic turn-out machine that is as efficient as a toll taker, a huge war chest, and an electorate that agrees with him on most issues.

Florida

We reported months ago that the Florida chapter of the AFSCME union, representing government workers, planned to endorse Janet Reno at an opportune time. Sunday, they did, claiming her response to the Rilya Wilson case made her the preferred choice of a majority of their members.

Pennsylvania

Tomorrow, Democrats will choose either state auditor Bob Casey Jr. or former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell to represent their ticket in the fall Among the political factors in play, as reported by a variety of writers and observers:

(a) competing independent expenditures: the NRA has statewide radio ads attacking Rendell; NARAL, the abortion rights group, has spots attacking Casey for being pro-life
(b) turn-out in Philadelphia will help or hurt Rendell; a lower statewide turn-out is thought to benefit Casey, who has twice won statewide office
(c) Bill Clinton's tape-recorded phone messages to Democratic constituents in Philadelphia'ssuburbs on Rendell's behalf.

Most polls give Rendell a slight edge, but since this is a Democratic primary and turn-out often overcomes polling distinctions, both campaigns acknowledge that this one is too close to call.

We'll tell you more tomorrow about this race, including recount procedures, absentee ballots, etc. Please write to us if you know about any media or private exit polls being done here.

Oregon

The horse-race to replace Gov. John Kitzhaber narrows tomorrow. Democrats will choose between State Treasurer Jim Hill and Bev Stein, a former county chairman, and Ted Kulongoski, a former state Supreme Court justice. Republicans will choose between lawyer Rob Saxton, state labor commissioner Jack Roberts and former state representative Kevin Mannix.

Iowa

Dave Yepsen's anti-tax, anti-liberal zeal makes him sound like a

cross between Arthur Laffer and Grover Norquist.

Texas

A A poll of likely voters gives Gov. Rick Perry a huge lead over his Democratic challenger, Tony Sanchez. Whites back Perry three-to-one, while African Americans and Hispanic Americans overwhelmingly favor Sanchez.

Perry, meanwhile, is being called to account for the record 82 times he vetoed legislation last year.

Senator Jim Jeffords campaigned for Ron Kirk's Senate bid this weekend.

North Carolina

"For all their philosophical differences," Charlotte Observer scribes write, "U.S. Senate candidates Elizabeth Dole and Erskine Bowles have a few things in common in their bids to replace Jesse Helms: Both have gotten a boost from out-of-state donors connected to the candidates' previous political lives. Both far outpace their party rivals in the race for cash. An analysis of campaign finance reports from 2001 and the first three months of 2002 shows that Democrat Bowles is something of a show business darling, with contributions from actress Mary Tyler Moore, director Rob Reiner and entertainment executives Barry Diller and Jeffrey Katzenberg, among others. Republican Dole is raking in money from political action committees. She's collected more than three times as much from PACs as all other candidates from both parties, funds that account for 8 percent of her campaign chest."

Rob Christenson's column on redistricting includes an excellent look at the balance of power in North Carolina:

"North Carolina is evenly divided in its outlook between Republicans and Democrats. A conservative perspective stressing self-reliance and fiscal prudence blends with a progressive streak to build better schools, universities and highways. Republicans have won seven of the past 10 U.S. Senate races. But Democrats have won the past three races for governor."

"The state House reflects North Carolina's ambivalence. Democrats won the House the past two elections and Republicans the previous two elections. Today there are 62 Democrats and 58 Republicans."

"With the House so close, the power to draw new districts is critical. The House Democrats muscled through a redistricting plan last year that they calculated would increase their numbers to as many as 69 seats. But when the plan was struck down as unconstitutional by the Republican N.C. Supreme Court, the Democrats had to draw new lines."

New Hampshire

In an item about how the New Hampshire primary this year is coming just one day before the September 11th anniversary, putting pressure on political admakers to tread lightly with any negative ads, the Union Leader Sunday (technically, of course, for you know-it-alls, "The Sunday News") betrayed the fact that it never gets tired of recycling a certain description by a certain president of a certain legendary Bow figure who happens to be the chief of staff to a certain Senator: "New Hampshire's political ad men will have a challenge on their hands this fall, according to Joel Maiola, Senator Judd Gregg's chief of staff. … .'The media loves these anniversary events,' said Maiola, whom President George W. Bush called one of the 'greatest political minds in the country.'"

Kevin Landrigan writes of Rudy Giualini's endorsement of Bob Smith:

"So how come former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani endorsed Senator Bob Smith's re-election? Because he asked. Believe it or not, that's what advisers to Giuliani were telling Capitol Hill figures who were dying to know why Smith would become the first U.S. senator to get a Rudy hug. In fact, the only condition Giuliani placed on the endorsement was that he didn't have to come to New Hampshire to produce the aid. Giuliani did get re-election help in 1989 from then-White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu, father of Smith's primary foe, Rep. John E. Sununu. Some wonder if Giuliani got motivated by the Jewish community in New York who financially have been supportive of Smith and would prefer New Hampshire not send a Republican of Palestinian descent to the U.S. Senate. The Smith campaign got less publicity about the endorsement than one would expect since it got leaked out Tuesday morning to ABC News."

Kevin, we love you, man, but
1. That wasn't Rudy's re-elect.
2. Nothing was leaked to us by the Smithies.
3. This still doesn't really answer the question about which we are all still wondering: why, Rudy, why?

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has betrayed his dual sympathies, acknowledging his party's preference for incumbents in primaries but yielding to his personal ties to the family of another White House chief of staff from the Northeast. The Manchester Union Leader story, passed to us by an anonymous New Hampshire donor, is not online, so far as we can tell.

"'The White House has a bias for supporting Republican incumbents,' Card said. 'But I've had a long and close relationship with the Sununu family. I've known John E. Sununu for a long time, and that's where my personal bias lies. I know Bob Smith, but I've had a longer relationship with John.'"

"Card served as deputy chief of staff in the George H.W. Bush White House. The chief of staff then was former New Hampshire Gov. John H. Sununu, the father of Congressman Sununu."

So Rove is publicly for Smith, but rooting for Sununu, but Card gets to be publicly for Sununu. We ask Senator Smith: will you call on the president to reign in his COS?

Michigan

Michigan's gubernatorial candidates are preparing to address environmental issues at a forum tomorrow night.

Bush Administration Strategy/Personality

Writing in the Sunday Washington Post Magazine and in his usual bizarrely-verb-tensed style that signals that he is at least thinking of amortizing the Post 's time and doing a book, Howie Kurtz must-reads a profile of Ari Fleischer.

Questions raised:

1. Did his Post colleagues know that Mr. Kurtz was getting an interview with the president?

2. Do the president and Ari really have these philosophical conversations about how to serve and outwit the press?

3. Will David Gregory be happy with his quote?

Take a moment and enjoy the view of Andy Card and Nick Calio (presidential chief of staff and top lobbyist respectively). These two guys are not interested in publicity, and when they DO get press, it is almost always favorable. And they are beloved universally (or, in Calio's case, nearly so) within the administration. Calio gets some puffy press in the New York Times ' White House Letter, with this being our favorite sentence, making it clear that he has three things to which every Administration staffer should aspire: "He collects wine, sleeps three to four hours a night and has a sense of humor that evidently amuses the president."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright blasted what she termed the Bush administration's "split personality" on a host of foreign policy issues.

"'They talk about the importance of the rule of law, but seem allergic to treaties designed to strengthen the rule of law in areas such as money-laundering, biological weapons, crimes against humanity, and the environment,' Albright said."

"Secretary of State Colin Powell was on the telephone early last Monday morning to presidential political adviser Karl Rove, assuring him he was not responsible for and did not agree with that morning's New York Times front-page criticism of Rove," reports Bob Novak.

"The Times account had Powell upset that Rove was meddling in foreign policy. Specifically, it cited Rove for assigning Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to address the April 15 pro-Israel rally in Washington. Actually, according to White House aides, Chief of Staff Andrew Card asked National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice who should speak, and she suggested Wolfowitz. Rove was needled at the White House on Monday morning. When President Bush announced the Russian arms control treaty, Rice cracked that they had better get advice from Rove (who was in the room)."

Al Kamen re-inaugurates his Exit No. 1 contest — which cabinet-level Bushie will leave first? "This may not be easy. In this Bush administration, virtually every Cabinet type has been reported to be on the verge of leaving or being kicked out. For example, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill seemed to be reported leaving on the day he was confirmed. Last summer, the drums were beating Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's name. There has been persistent speculation on how long Secretary of State Colin L. Powell would survive." If Roll Call is right, and Haley Barbour agreed to drop his lucrative deal to lobby to save the Crusader because the White House asked him to, we can't shed too many tears, because on the overall balance sheet, this White House is making Barbour a rich man.

Cindy Adams has excellent coverage of Cheney's trip to New York last week.

Natural gas drilling, ranching, and the environment: all at play in Dick Cheney's Wyoming, courtesy of Liz Shogren in Sunday's Los Angeles Times .

Lynne Cheney, America's self-described "Grandma of the United States," gets full coverage for her trip West in the Los Angeles Times .

Legislative Agenda

Roll Call chronicles Tom DeLay's (shaky) efforts to impose party discipline on conservative colleagues seeking budget discipline.

The

New York Times Robert Pear has a story we would have expected him to lead the paper with on a Sunday, but Monday will do: "Tens of thousands of foreigners are illegally obtaining Social Security numbers by using fake documents, a typical first step to identity theft and other crimes, but federal officials still have not found a way to search immigration records to prevent the practice, federal investigators say."

The story has the appropriate congressional chest beating in it.

The Los Angeles Times ' Janet Hook writes how a bankruptcy reform bill has been hijacked by the abortion debate.

"The bankruptcy bill's saga is a rich case study in how Congress works--and doesn't work. Its progress, despite repeated setbacks over the years, is a testament to the clout wielded by a well-connected, moneyed lobby. But the last-minute impasse underscores how hot-button issues can derail broad consensus and contribute to legislative gridlock."

"The abortion-related dispute stems from different versions of the bill passed by the House and Senate. The Senate added a provision sponsored by Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) aimed at preventing abortion opponents from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying fines imposed as a result of violent protests at abortion clinics. That tactic has been used by several abortion protesters in recent years, including Randall Terry of Operation Rescue."

"Fighting the Schumer amendment is Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), a leading abortion foe. The conflict could come to a head Wednesday, at a meeting of the conference committee trying to reconcile the bill's two versions."

We would add that this dispute is also about how politicians stretch over the clash of client politics and interest group politics, leveraging the loss of potential donors (the banking lobby, perhaps) in favor of pleasing a core constituent group (pro-choice women, for example).

The Washington Times makes fun of Senator Ted Kennedy's

convening a Senate hearing to focus on obesity.

*The first thing was: "never turn your back on John King."