Note Archives, updated weekly.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

As the war bears down on all of us — we should see (but not hear from) the president this morning at a homeland security photo op (stills only), and maybe hear from him this evening, to announce the start of the conflict — no amount of polling, reporting, or deep thinking can really answer the ultimate political question, combining the best inquisitive instincts of Sigmund Freud and Carrie Bradshaw: In matters of war and peace, and love and war, what do the American people REALLY want?

The Chattering Class, from both its Washington and New York headquarters, has ramped back up to levels near the immediate post-9/11 aftermath, in which the denizens of those towns are so much more practically and psychologically affected by concerns about terrorism and war preps than the rest of the nation that it can't possibly help skewing the politico-media messages emanating outward.

Yesterday's Gang of 500 concerns — the flap over Senator Daschle's Monday remarks, the budget wars, the Estrada filibuster, the fascinating and nearly inexplicable escalation in the political sniper fire between some of the Democratic presidential candidates — none of that amounts to a Hill of refried beans compared to the risk of American and other life starting within a news cycle or two.

At the same time, given what day of the week it is, we felt compelled to ask ourselves at The Note staff meeting: which do Americans care about more — the Oscars and the NCAA men's basketball tournament, or a distant war against Iraq (for now let's leave out the spat between Tom Daschle and the White House, and its underlying free speech thematic)?

We weren't smart enough to figure out an answer for ourselves, so we turned to a man we call "one long-time observer of the American political scene," and he gave us this sage answer:

"Americans are Americans. We'd like both: war and the Oscars; war and the NCAA. Orange alert but don't change your normal routine. If we're in the heat of the battle, or responding to domestic retaliation, I don't think it's a close call. But if the war here is the walkover that the administration is signaling (talk about losing control of expectations), I think everyone will be happy to pretend it's not that big a deal."

Not much has been cancelled yet, beyond the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner (Did any reporters cover that NRCC funder last night?), but plenty of fingers are on plenty of triggers to start postponements and cancellations, including a lot of "purely" political events, such as Hill press conferences and Invisible Primary activities of all sorts.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal trumpets the apparent history making of Congressman and possible senate candidate Jim Gibbons, who "(c)ampaign finance analysts said … appeared to be the first federal lawmaker to announce a hold on fund-raising, but (he) … probably ..(won't) be the last." LINK

Yesterday, in a pair of classy, straight-forward press conferences bookending the evening news and inexplicably not shown live on cable, the NCAA and the Academy both said they planned to go forward on schedule, leaving the distinct possibility that we might over the next four days have a variety of literal and/or figurative "split-screen" moments.

The ultimate Split-Screen Moment came in 1997, when Bill Clinton was forced to share his State of the Union address with live coverage of the verdict in the O.J. Simpson civil trial.

What these kinds of choices and preferences will say about the nation's priorities are too le commencement du siècle for our little publication, but we know intuitively that they will be windows into all sorts of political and sociological currents.

With the Republican leaders in Congress still trying to finish their budget outlines this week, there is a lot of Big Casino budget business that will go on, even in the heat of war, Oscars, and Madness.

But the highest purely political angst out there in conjunction with the probable Iraq conflict is to be found in the upper strategic reaches of the out-of-power party.

That's where some see the easy morph from McGovern-to-Dean-to-their-nominee-to-Bush-with-the-bullhorn leaving the Democrats on a trajectory in which someone just might end up winning a nomination not worth having, no matter what their position on Iraq has been, or the state of the economy.

The New York Times ' Adam Nagourney writes big and bold about the possibility that 2004 will NOT be a Seinfeld election (about nothing) but rather one that turns on national security — and the concern in some quarters of the Democratic party that its candidate will be McGovernized below the bar of acceptability. LINK

It's a must-read, and not just because it teases out better than all that has come before it the tensions and divisions that plague the party of Lieberman and Kucinich.

Read the whole thing (that's what a "must-read" is all about … ), but check out the rich, textured multi-meanings in just these three choice paragraphs: "Most Democratic presidential contenders said they would refrain from criticizing Mr. Bush while troops were heading into battle. But Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont who is running as an antiwar candidate declared he would continue his attacks, war or no war."

"Dr. Dean's position prompted concern among aides to his rivals, who suggested today that it was playing into the White House's hands. 'If Howard Dean didn't exist, Karl Rove would have to invent him,' said a senior adviser to one of Mr. Dean's rivals, in a reference to Mr. Bush's senior political adviser."

"One of the Democratic candidates who was booed in California last week, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said today: 'In the first few days, America needs to band together and be supportive of the troops. This is not going to take very long, and if Howard — I think anybody who knows anything about this knows there will be plenty of time to be critical.'"

Disrupting the Chicken Little views dominating the Nagourney opus, one adviser to a hawkish presidential candidate tells The Note, "I don't buy the notion that Howard Dean will be the Democrats' bogeyman in the general election."

"Lots of Americans are sympathetic to the view that this war is a questionable enterprise. What I believe is a bigger threat to Democrats in the general election are candidates that are viewed as being wishy-washy on the war. Equivocation on security issues is the real vulnerability for Democrats."

Concerns over all of this seem to have been the catalyst for the outbreak of some real sniping between the Edwards, Kerry, and Dean camps, which might go into a deep freeze during the war, but, then again, might not. And will surely re-emerge in the fighting's aftermath. And it is worth watching.

However, with, for example, Posties Dan Balz and Jonathan Weisman writing about the war today, we appear to be on an arc in which political reporters are reporting for combat duty along with most everyone else.

So we'll stop the summary with this war round-up, and we'll all see, together, what happens next.

-- Moments after Reuters reported that US troops crossed into the DMZ, Centcom called ABC to deny the story. (Rapid communication response?)

-- Turkey will allow the US to use its airspace, but not its bases.
-- Tens of thousands of American combat troops are streaming toward the Kuwaiti border.
-- Last night, generals psyched up the soldiers, and the tanks began to move. LINK
-- Iraq's foreign minister promised "death to aggressors."
-- Demonstrators blocked the official residence of Australian P.M. John Howard, as large anti-war protests continued there.
-- Israeli P.M. Sharon said his country was prepared for a SCUD attack but doubted Iraq would be able to succeed with one.
-- The Washington Post reports that "Iraqi helicopter gun ships, meanwhile, were seen firing rockets in northern Iraq, apparently at Kurdish militia targets. Militia officers in the autonomous Kurdish zone said Iraqi soldiers also fired mortar rounds overnight at targets along the ragged line that separates the 17,000-square-mile area from territory near the city of Kirkuk, which remains under Baghdad's control."

The Daschle flap

:

For whatever reason, the Daschle story was given bigger play on network television than in the papers.

Normally, a Washington story that merits evening news and morning show spots would get, for example, more than three paragraphs of Washington brief on 8A of USA Today .

Since this wasn't a particularly great picture story, we are at a loss to explain why that is. Forgive us: we are war-addled. Tom Patterson and Brent Bozell: you boys go figure it out, and let us know in, say, four months.

With its steadfast vigilance about free speech and open debate, even in war time, the Boston Globe is one of the few papers to give the Daschle story big play.

The talented Anne E. Kornblut and Wayne Washington get smack on the front page with their Daschle story, and have the good sense to use both of Tom DeLay's great quotes (over in TV, we call 'em "soundbites"). LINK

"'Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle," House majority leader Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, said in a written statement. Translated from the French, the remark roughly means: Shut your mouth … " (Ain't nothing "rough" about it.)

"'Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?" DeLay said." That might sound like a false choice to some.

With typical understatement, the Washington Post 's lede-alling duo of Balz and Allen say "The skirmish over Daschle's remarks underscored that, even as many lawmakers and the American people rally behind Bush and U.S. forces on the brink of war, partisanship has not disappeared in Washington … ." LINK

But their kicker paragraph, about the White House use of "this podium" to go after Daschle, is WAY out there: "Fleischer's remarks, which he stood by under repeated questioning about whether he was suggesting criticism of Bush is unpatriotic, were a clear effort to put critics of White House war policy on notice that they would face a ferocious response. The volleying between Democratic and Republican members of Congress continued throughout the day." (emphasis added by La Note)

The New York Post 's Deborah Orin, quotes Ari Fleischer's bitter reaction to Daschle, which he terms "'inconsistent' with Daschle's past call to avoid politicizing Iraq," and House Speaker Dennis Hastert's comment that Daschle's words "came 'mighty close' to comforting the enemy." LINK

Orin also reminds Daschle that he voted against the Gulf War, despite his praise of 41's "'perfect model' in winning U.N. backing" in 1991.

The New York Times ' Carl Hulse just re-writes the wire. LINK

The man from South Dakota wasn't alone in his presidential criticism. Even though presidential candidate Kerry issued a stark post-address paper statement, all eyes (and accusations) were squarely aimed at Daschle, as ABC's Ed O'Keefe reports. LINK

Avec un dot drawing that makes the Senate Minority Leader look more like a Keebler Elf than he actually does, the Wall Street Journal editorial page lays into Mr. Daschle: "On the eve of war, the long American tradition is for politicians to set aside partisanship for at least a few days. Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are among the Democrats who've lived by that standard this week. Then there's Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle … ."

"One explanation is that Mr. Daschle is now trying to have it both ways. Having voted for war, he can now cover himself with Democratic partisans before the shooting starts by offering yes-but criticism. But that's the charitable view."

"The more plausible explanation is that this is exactly what Mr. Daschle believes. He really does agree with the French that Mr. Bush is a cowboy, that America is too powerful and must be reined in by the United Nations, and that if only Mr. Bush had tried harder and longer (four months, or 12 years, not being long enough) Saddam would have agreed to be disarmed."

George Will is like-minded (normally is) with his Journal colleagues, ending his Daschle-IS-McGovern piece with this: "There are many honorable exceptions — although with varying degrees of clarity — among the Democrats. Presidential candidates Joseph Lieberman and Dick Gephardt particularly stand out as plausible presidents." LINK

"As for Daschle, he has become the Democrats' Trent Lott, with two differences. Lott was embarrassing about 1948, not 2003. And his fellow Republicans were embarrassed.

The Invisible Primary and the war:

Proving once again that no homestate paper (even Wagner, even Lightman) is covering "their" guy the way the Hub press is white-on-rice-ing John Kerry, check out these clips:

The Boston Herald's Joe Battenfield assesses the backlash against Senator Kerry's pro-war vote, as "Kerry is becoming a fresh target of some Democrats for supporting a resolution giving President Bush authority to wage war, but scolding Bush on the stump." LINK

Battenfield, naturally, cites Howard Dean as a prime critic, and writes that "Dean advisers said they plan to emphasize what they call Kerry's pattern of waffling on the war issue … 'It's clear who the candidates are who took determined stands and it's clear which candidates did a lot of maneuvering on this over time' a top Dean strategist said. 'There will be plenty of time after the war is over to revisit where people stood.'"

Kerry, who yesterday decried the president's "'disastrous' diplomatic failures," and promised to continue to speak out against the administration's choices, still has the talisman of having served in the military: ""When it comes to decisions about national security and sending troops into harm's way, you speak from your heart, your gut and your head — and in my case, from the perspective of one who has seen and experienced war … When it comes to keeping Americans safe, you have to focus on what's important, not what's popular."'

And in California, where Kerry was recently heckled, and Senator Edwards booed, California Republican party spokesman Rob Stutzman jumped in to speak for the state's Democratic voters ("a number of Democrats were 'very uncomfortable with the image projected by their party'") and single out Kerry for "'trying to have it both ways' for downplaying his vote to support war while courting anti-war voters in Iowa and California. 'Here's someone who voted for the resolution . . . and now is afraid to abandon what he thinks is the base of the party.'"

The Boston Globe 's Glen Johnson sums up Senator Kerry's attack on the administration's "'failure of diplomacy of a massive order.'"

LINK

Expressing grave concern over the isolation of the United States from the U.N. ("'We could have moved from a position of strength, in my judgment, and I think it represents a failure of diplomacy of a massive order, and that is what war is: War is the failure of diplomacy'") Kerry nevertheless "said he supports US soldiers as they prepare for battle and plans to mute his criticism at the outset of hostilities. He also acknowledged that if he were president, he may not have been able to avoid war."

Johnson then catalogues Kerry's stance on Iraq: his 1998 plea to the Clinton Administration to encourage the U.N. to enforce the 1991 treaty requiring Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction; his July 2002 criticism of the Bush Administration's diplomacy efforts; his September 2002 New York Times op-ed warning war should be prompted only by necessity; and his reluctant October pro-war vote.

The politics of war:

Frustrated White House reporters could (almost) be forgiven if they grew so frustrated not being able to get a pre-war estimate of the cost of the war and aftermath that they stopped asking.

The The Wall Street Journal 's John Harwood columnizes beautifully with just 85 simple words that lay out motives and risk: "So far, administration officials have obscured the cost of war and reconstruction. Instead of asking Congress to supplement its 2003 budget — by an amount that could approach $100 billion — they are waiting for the start of war to ignite a surge in public support."

"With Americans cranky about their own economic problems, that's a strategy for avoiding near-term political erosion. But it's not the way to lay a foundation for the audacious enterprise Mr. Bush has sent U.S. troops to fight for."

John's big finish is forward looking and big-time geo-political three-dimensional chess: "Mr. Bush's advisers count on victory to strengthen his hand — on Iraqi reconstruction and everything else. 'I wouldn't want to be the Democrat to stand up and say bring our troops home,' a senior White House official says." (Note note: no mere "Bush advisers" for Mr. Harwood.)

"But in this low-margin, party-line presidency, it isn't Democrats Mr. Bush needs to worry about. It's nervous Republicans — the kind who once tried to limit funding for the comparatively tiny U.S. troop deployment in Kosovo three years ago. At the time, the House voted to end the deployment unless others paid more of the tab. Senate Republicans, along with a few Democrats, were poised to pass a similar restriction until a candidate to succeed Mr. Clinton blasted it as ' legislative overreach.'"

"That candidate was George W. Bush, expending political capital to keep Republicans from constraining a peace-keeping mission. To succeed over the long term in Iraq, he'll need to do that again and again."

The Washington Post ed board finds the lack of cost estimates, well, unacceptable: "For the administration, this schedule carries two advantages. No war numbers are released to jeopardize the tax package; then, once war is underway, Congress dares not challenge a spending request. But why should Congress go along with such a charade? … " LINK

"To approve a budget plan including large tax cuts without attempting even to estimate the cost of the war would be breathtakingly irresponsible."

Before we present this next article, we'd like to point out that Justice Scalia hasn't said anything new and hasn't said anything that hasn't itself been chewed over in salons across the fruited plain (and bemoaned about in the New York Review of Books).

But some will find it jarring. Others, sobering. Still others, a mix of the two.

"The government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday." LINK

"'The Constitution just sets minimums,' Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. 'Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.'"

"Scalia, one of the court's most conservative judges, was responding to a question about the Justice Department's pursuit of terrorism suspects and whether their rights are being violated."

"Scalia did not discuss what rights he believed are constitutionally protected, but said that in wartime, one can expect "'the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum. I won't let it go beyond the constitutional minimum.'"

Ron Brownstein writes up the Pew survey about world opinion, conventionally setting Ivo Daalder against Gary Schmitt . LINK

The White House promises to inundate Congress with information about the progress of the war, but some are skeptical. LINK

Lawrence Kaplan uses a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece to cast the Democrats as in full retreat from a Wilsonian tradition of using American might to make the world safe for democracy, complete with Gary Hart reference.

The Hotline's Chuck Todd assess the domestic political consequences of two war outcomes. A clean, quick, efficient war (but voters have short attention spans) … or a "permawar" (the more what-ifs, the worse for Bush).

Even though they concede that Congress at this point is a virtual bystander in the coming war, members are happy to talk to the Washington Post 's Juliet Eilperin about how the constituent calls and mail are going, and the message is mixed. LINK

International tensions, big thematics involving the remaking of America's role in the world, the United Nations, and the trans-Atlantic alliance, partisan tensions in Washington, Blair in trouble — and the most bigger-than-life political reporter of our generation, who has covered more of all this than anyone we know, one R.W. "Johnny" Apple Jr. of the New York Times writes today about … … … … . Dim sum in Hong Kong. LINK

Young reporters who want to hear Johnny's voice for inspiration can (we kid you not) hear him narrate a slide show about dim sum on streaming PC audio. LINK

Big Casino/budget politics:

Both chambers continue to coast along towards Friday, at which point the leaders would love to have budget blue prints approved, but it still isn't clear where the votes are, and those who cherish order and neatness have to contend with the wild card of the looming $100 billion give-or-take request on the war costs. LINK

The Washington Post version of the story focuses on members (mostly Democrats) who are arguing that tax cuts and budget numbers should wait until the war estimate is in hand. LINK And here's one Republican quote that jumps right off the page, like one of those lizard-like creatures in "Men in Black II": "Also skeptical is Rep. Jack Quinn (R-N.Y.), one of 11 House moderates who signed a letter this week opposing the budget bill headed to the House floor Thursday."

" ' The last time we had a tax cut, they said it would create millions of jobs, ' Quinn said. ' I've got news for them: Not one single job was created in Buffalo, New York.'"

OMBee Trent Duffy defends the administration's goal of a cut in funding for a program that aids schools for children of military personnel, in his adopted hometown's major daily. LINK

Legislative agenda

Michael Winerip of the New York Times gets all hot and bothered over Leave No Child Behind, and since Howard Dean was the first political leader to really grab that bit in his well-orthodontiaed teeth, it is fitting that Winerip writes today under a "Montpelier" dateline, saying all sorts of extraordinary things. LINK

Winerip has been doing what the Bush Education Department officials charged with explaining the law's implementation to school officials have been doing — traveling the country and listening to the reaction, and what he hears is no prettier than Steve Martin finds comedy to be.

"And how do you defend a law that gives the federal government unprecedented control over 'failing' schools — that tells local school boards when they must fire their principals and teachers — even though it pays a small fraction (7 percent) of public education costs? … "

"As I travel the country, I find nearly universal contempt for this noble-sounding law signed last year by President Bush. Tom Horne, the Republican state education commissioner of Arizona, and Tom Watkins, the Democratic commissioner of Michigan, sound virtually alike in their criticisms. The only difference is that Mr. Horne emphasizes that he admires the president and supports his intent, it's just that many of the details are bad."

The Wall Street Journal ed board, on the eve of war, still wants desperately for ANWR to pass.

The United Auto Workers are urging members to call their Congresspeople today and tell them to oppose the Bush tax cut.

Bush judicial nominees:

For those keeping score at home, there was a third Estrada filibuster vote yesterday.

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary:

Here's Kerry communications czar Chris Lehane's response to yesterday's Note-published barb from Edwards' communicator Jennifer Palmieri regarding the latter's claim that the candidate of the former was late to the game on a new homeland security agency:

"Responding while drinking his high octane Italian roast and morning fat-laden pastries from the patio at Cafe Trieste in North Beach, (Lehane says) 'John Kerry is the only candidate who has proposed some big ideas when it comes to homeland security, including 100,000 new firefighters and a new Community Defense Corps, in addition to the smaller ideas that have been proposed by everyone running for dog catcher on up — we'd have been more than happy to have our senior policy staffer walk the Edwards campaign through these ideas but for some reason the Senator wasn't speaking before the firefighters.'"

Two law firms, six Democratic presidential candidates and a heckuva lot of Chinese walls. <>

The Orange County, Florida Democratic Party is promoting its May 17 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, and says that Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman will attend.

IOWA

A friend of The Note's was browsing the Iowa Democratic Party's web site and noticed that the Jefferson County Democrats have scheduled a "Meet Your Next President" banquet for April 26. And then there's a Jasper County Democrats event on May 24 in Newton.

LIEBERMAN

Senator Lieberman keeps his lead in South Carolina, according to Zogby. LINK

GEPHARDT

Kind of fine that this came out right before the war … .

"Steve Elmendorf, a top political strategist to presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt (Mo.), filed papers late last month to lobby Congress on behalf of the nation's largest union of trial lawyers." LINK

"Elmendorf, who served for five years as Gephardt's chief of staff, registered to lobby the House on behalf of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, one of the steadiest supporters of Gephardt's political career. He is simultaneously serving as a paid outside consultant for Gephardt's presidential campaign."

"The revelation comes just days after the Federal Election Commission ruled that a similar situation involving GOP consultant Ralph Reed, who was working for the Enron Corp. at the same time that he was advising the presidential campaign of George W. Bush in 2000, was perfectly legal."

The question naturally arises: did the Roll Call folks find this themselves, or did someone shove it over the transom?

( Roll Call 's Brody Mullins does double duty, noting that unlike the weeks after September 11th, lobbyists won't stop work for the Gulf War. LINK )

On Monday, Rep. Dick Gephardt is expected campaign in Columbia and Sumter, South Carolina. He'll be accompanied by Rep. Jim Clyburn. One event is sponsored by the South Carolina chapter of "Black Mayors for Gephardt."

Now that's coalition building!

KERRY

While many of our colleagues are risking their lives overseas covering the war, we don't want you to think that chasing the candidates around and listening to 10-point plans isn't dangerous too.

Yesterday, the New York Times Adam Nagourney was interviewing Senator Kerry on the escalator up from the bowels of the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill after the IAFF speech when the scribe's bag got caught up a wall as they ascended, nearly ripping Adam's shoulder off.

Kerry grabbed him, a trailing party recovered the bag, and the all-comedy-all-the-time Senator proclaimed a mock headline to all amid the laugher: "Senator Rescues New York Times Reporter."

Senator Kerry released a list of 73 New Hampshire supporters.

More jokes from Kerry via the Boston Globe , which Notes "You can tell Senator John F. Kerry is back in good spirits after his recent prostate cancer surgery because he's using the operation to loosen up crowds before his speeches — and the jokes are getting increasingly racy." LINK

To wit: "'For those of you asking the pregnant question, 'Can a man be president without a prostate?,' the answer is yes. We've had a number of Republican presidents who haven't had a heart or a brain."' (ba dum bum)

"'I know the health issue is on many of your minds: Can he handle the rigors of the campaign trail, two years on the road, all that travel? And the answer is yes, my friends. I saw him yesterday, and Dick Cheney will be fine."' (crashing cymbals)

And, "Yesterday, Kerry moved even closer to landing outside the realm of a family newspaper. Speaking to the International Association of Fire Fighters in Washington, he referred to his surgery and said, "'My wife calls it my own Big Dig."' Apparently the remark caused a stir at one of the front tables, where some Boston firefighters were seated, because Kerry quickly added: "'I said 'Dig."' (hollow coughs)

We're not so much seeing the Oval Office as we are a smoky, basement comedy club in Tulsa, but it's nice that the Senator is in such high sprits.

In addition to performing stand-up and running for president, Kerry also "underwent minor surgery to remove a benign, dangling wart on his upper left eyelid, leaving him with a black eye but no expectations for further treatment," Boston Globe medical reporter Glen Johnson reports. LINK

Kerry had the wart removed Monday; a similar growth on his hand was removed last year. Go, on, finish your breakfasts!

The South Carolina Republican Party interrupted our war preps yesterday and suggested to us that Senator John Kerry had skewered the president's homeland security strategy.

"It is disappointing that at this hour, on this day, John Kerry would try to belittle the president and federal employees responsible for our homeland security. During this solemn time, Senator Kerry's words have set a negative and divisive tone. Instead of trying to lift Americans up by coming together and uniting behind our President, John Kerry has chosen to play politics," Katon Dawson, the party chair, wrote in a statement.

Far be in from us to wonder why the South Carolina Republican party rose to the occasion, but could the vast veteran contingent be their target?

Incidentally, we received a South Carolina GOP press release on the Dixie Chicks just moments later.

DEAN

The Washington Post 's Mark Leibovich measures the mileage "upstart" Howard Dean has gotten from being an anti-war Democrat, who unlike "his chief opponents" Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman, with their pro-war votes in Congress to answer for, "has no qualifiers to finesse, no votes to explain." LINK

Of course, according to Leibovich, Dean bristles at being labeled an antiwar candidate.

Even so, as Leibovich writes, "This is the first wartime presidential campaign since Vietnam. The environment is rousing the sleepy pre-primary season. And as long as Iraq looms, Dean has a sheen."

Leibovich suggests Dean will be a national star, regardless of how his presidential aspirations pan out this cycle, and despite comparing him to, ahem, another former governor from the Northeast:

"He has sunny blue eyes that belie a cranky certitude. He does outrage well — fast-paced rants, curt cadences and a nasal air of self-satisfaction that's reminiscent of — sorry, dude — Michael Dukakis." Leibovich also describes him as "quick to get agitated, if not angry," and amazed at the flurry of positive press and momentum in recent weeks.

Leibovich points out that while Dean "says he doesn't do things for political reasons" he can behave in a mighty political way; Leibovich cites Dean's dicey relationship with the National Rifle Association, unpopular with the governor's true blue Democratic fan base, and quotes Dean's defense: "'But it's also a position that will allow me to win the presidency … If Al Gore had my position on guns, I wouldn't be here and he'd be in the White House.'"

Taking up a slightly less controversial issue, Dean chooses, while en route to St. Anselm's College in Manchester, to chew up a lollipop on the record, despite his rejected plea: "'If you promise not to put this in the newspaper … I'd like to eat a lollipop during this discussion." (Note to Mark: let's hope Howie doesn't read that part.)

The Doctor also gets into a bit of a cat fight with Jim Jordan, after being read Jordan's quote that "Dean wanted to give the U.N. 'veto power over national-security decisions.'" Dean's response: "'First of all, the position is ridiculous … and second of all, I don't respond to campaign managers.'" (That's the smartest tactical thing we have heard Dean say in some time.)

Leibovich writes that Dean calls Jordan's statement "'political silliness,'" and blames the comment on Jordan personally: "'I think he just said some catty thing … That's what all campaign managers do. Kerry speaks for Kerry.'" (It WAS the smartest tactical thing we had had heard Dean say, but we can't give him that many points, since he doesn't seem to be following his own advice!)

Leibovich gets Jordan's response: "a bizarre overreaction." Meow.

The brash Dean reminds us all: "'What those guys don't understand about me is that getting me mad is a bad thing to do … My instincts are not to take off the gloves. And the reason I do is that people say things like that and it gets me mad.'"

Spoken like a true anti-war candidate.

Dean is spending the day in South Carolina. He's expected to speak at the Brookland Baptist Church in West Columbia. Please, oh please, members of that flock, ask him about gay rights and report to us what he says!

The Hill reports that Rep. Tom Delay is strategically calling attention to Howard Dean, hoping to force other Democrats to match the Dean standards in terms of war talk. LINK

Note to Dean web staff: We received a Dean For America alert on the Governor's response to Bush's speech at 5:49 p.m. In Saddam deadline time, that's about 26 hours and 50 minutes … .

GRAHAM

Karl Struble, a thirty-year veteran of Democratic politics, is expected to sign on with Senator Bob Graham's nascent presidential campaign to do media, campaign and Democratic sources tell The Note.

Struble, like Graham's campaign manager, Paul Johnson, has deep connections to Senator Tom Daschle.

Struble's expected hiring means that the firm of his long-time, late, truly great ad guy, Bob Squier, won't be taking the lead on shooting those upcoming work days and making them into paid spots.

Graham is staffing up, having snagged a scheduler. No word on yet on who will do his press. He's relying on a network of friends to help him with fundraising.

And Graham is expected to formally announce something in Florida at the beginning of April.

Look for his television return, shortly.

HART

Gary Hart sat across from Paula Zahn this morning, and chatted up a storm about security.

The interview concluding with a hearty on-set handshake, and Paula saying, "We'd love to talk to you about your presidential aspirations, but that will have to wait until another day," and Hart didn't appear to mind at all.

The busy Mark Leibovich catches up with Gary Hart, musing " Funny how it goes: The onetime Mr. Monkey Business is now addressing the gravest issues in America before rapt audiences." LINK

Describing the wispy-haired 66-year-old as looking "like a cloud in a school play," Leibovich has Hart older, wiser, graver, and yet more accessible--"actually beaming," as he garners good reviews, new fans, and a "fresh mantle of credibility."

Alternately impressing and frightening the crowds who digest Hart's warnings about the dangers of anti-American sentiment, lax homeland security, and the Parisian-sized Baghdad, Hart is planning "'major policy addresses'" around the country and acknowledging a "'Rip Van Winkle'" feeling to his return to the national stage, prompted by the events of September 11.

Referring to the Donna Rice scandal as "'1987,'" and expressing a desire to avoid the topic, Hart unfailingly drifts back to the issue, offering the defense "'Are there people who care? Sure. Are there people who care that George Bush drank? I suppose. Are there people who care about Clinton, are there people who care about Gingrich, are there people who care about all these things? Are there people who care that we're all human? I suppose.'"

Hart rejects the notion that he has been biding his time in obscurity, having written seven books, lectured, taught, mentored, practiced law, and earned a doctorate in politics at Oxford since, uh, 1987.

Despite a flurry of skepticism by unswayed observers about the prudence of pursuing the presidency, or even considering the race (Democratic consultant Dan Payne says: "'He seems to be running because he has nothing else to do'"), Hart comes off as pretty hungry for the job.

Leibovich was able to witness Hart's incessantly-performed-always-popular bit: "'Tonight I am announcing my candidacy for the presid — oh, sorry, wrong speech.' Hart, pulling papers from his pocket, feigns mortification and explains, 'It's an old suit.' You can't go wrong with the 'wrong speech' gag."

But a "profound motivation'" for public service still comes with a touch of haughtiness: Leibovich writes Hart has "no interest in returning to the Senate, he says. Or running for Congress, or mayor, or governor. Nor will he be anyone's running mate. 'Talk about fear, that's my worst nightmare,' Hart says, laughing. 'To be vice president of the United States.'"

Man, Leibovich is not-so-quietly becoming a VERY dominating figure in this cycle.

KUCINICH

Rep. Kucinich's progressive caucus will join with the Congressional Black Caucus to introduce an alternative budget resolution today.

Members worked late into the tonight to finalize details. We can tell you that a signature of the plan will be a "Medicare For All" proposal. It'll also appropriate money for school construction, lots of it to fight AIDS, and will freeze most of the Bush tax cut.

Yesterday, Kucinich issued a war statement of his own: "The president's war is unnecessary, illegal, and dangerous. In the name of protect our nation, the president is pursing a course which will make our country less safe."

The Dayton Daily News reports that Kucinich will decide in June whether to fully pursue the Democratic nomination. LINK

Politics

We've heard that The MWW Group, a P.R. firm based in New Jersey with an active lobby arm in D.C. earns bragging rights for landing the 'First Frist' (??) person to cross over to the dark side. Jim Neill, who just finished his stint under the Majority Leader at the NRSC this past cycle and had been 'entertaining offers' (The Note believes he actually may have become hooked on the "New" Hollywood Squares) will apparently lead Senate lobbying for the firm. Neill, who in the past also worked for current cabinet secretaries Spence Abraham and Tommy Thompson, is alleged to be as wired with GOP Senators and their staffs as one Vito Corelone of New York City was described in the past "like so many coins in his pocket."

The AP's Theme looks at party fundraising on the eve of war. LINK

The New York Times ' Clymer has a quick write-up of some aggregate FEC figures. "Federal Election Commission statistics show that all national Republican committees raised $441.6 million, as against $217.3 million for the Democrats, in contributions subject to limits — the so-called hard money that is the only kind now permitted to national parties under the McCain-Feingold law that took effect after Election Day 2002." LINK

Coming to this Sunday's New York Times is Matt Bai's searing profile of Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee. Not that the content itself sears Senator Chafee; it sears the reader's sense of comfort and stability by refusing to treat its subject in black and white. (In other words, Matt, it's really interesting).

This paragraph, which will make the entire Senate, for two different reasons, roll their eyes and say, "Well, duh."

"After a while, I asked Chafee if there were any major pieces of Bush's agenda with which he could wholeheartedly agree. He paused for about 10 seconds, with his hands pressed together prayerfully. 'It's difficult,' he said finally. "Because he's chosen a divisive path, and it is working for the administration. On so many issues, they just pound the wedge in." In other words, I suggested, he has a hard time finding even one point of agreement.' 'Yes, I do,' Chafee answered, looking embarrassed."

But lest Senator Chafee think the profile will embarrass him: it won't. It's quite complimentary at times.

"Inevitably, Republican insiders compared Chafee with his father and came away baffled. Two theories took hold and are often repeated: either the younger Chafee is a few votes short of a quorum or he's actually cagier than anyone realizes and enjoys being inscrutable. In fact, after you spend some time with Chafee, neither analysis seems right. He's not dim, nor does he have much capacity for guile or irony. He is, instead, a slow starter who learned early in life to ask questions, persevere and wait his turn. 'He's not a giver-upper,' is how his mother described him to me."

The New York Post 's Page Six harrumphs over Rep. Patrick Kennedy's no-show at his D.C. St. Patrick's Day fundraiser, despite the presence of a jingle-singing Sen.Ted Kennedy. LINK

Jeremy Bash, Cuomo-style, continues to keep the airplane warmed up on the tarmac, as he ponders the Note-rocking decision about whether to challenge Jim Moran not.

Complete Basharama coverage: LINK and LINK and LINK

AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, announced the details of its annual legislative conference, slated to begin on March 30.

The meeting will give liberal and isolationist op-ed writers another chance to whack at what they think is a neoconservative cabal at the fore of the Bush Administration and provide plenty of fodder for Pat Buchanan's "You've Got 60 Seconds," segments on MSNBC.

Does AIPAC control the world? Here's the first sentence of their press release: "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual Policy Conference is the most important event of the year for America's pro-Israel community. "

They're not boasting, so much as stating a fact. (Proof: Guest speakers include Sens. Frist and Daschle, appearing TOGETHER, Reps. Hastert and Pelosi, appearing TOGETHER, Condoleezza Rice and a who's who of the Israeli military and political establishment.)

Rumors about a presidential cattle call are apparently unfounded.

Bush Administration strategy/personality:

Karen DeYoung must-read alert (and we should say: the person is doing amazing work day in and day out): today, she looks at how the Bush communications team (many with political experience) are going to try to control the message worldwide during the war. LINK

The piece is chock-a-block filled with the kind of process data only a Note reader could love: "Once the war starts, the administration plans to fill every information void in the 24-hour worldwide news cycle, leaving little to chance or interpretation."

" At dawn, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer will brief the television networks and the wire services in a conference call before the morning news programs. A conference call will follow among Fleischer, Bush communications director Dan Bartlett and White House Office of Global Communications Director Tucker Eskew, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke and British Prime Minister Tony Blair's senior spokesman, Alastair Campbell. During the call, they will set out thematic story lines for the day and deal with pending problems. "

" An afternoon briefing at Central Command headquarters in Qatar will be held most days, timed to hit the news at noon in the United States. Supper-time television news in the United States and late broadcasts in Europe will be fed by the Pentagon's afternoon briefing in Washington, where military officials will utilize the video images from targeted bombs that all agree worked well in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and in the Afghan campaign. "

"Broadcasts on the government's Radio Sawa and on other Voice of America regional outlets will carry the U.S. message to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region. A daily grid of senior officials available to be interviewed by Arab and other media will be prepared and coordinated. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, will be available for regular background briefings with selected small groups of print reporters, officials said."

"Every night, the Office of Global Communications will distribute its ' Global Messenger ' via e-mail to government offices in Washington and to embassies and other U.S. facilities around the world. Already in operation, the Messenger supplies U.S. diplomats abroad with talking points and key quotes from Bush and senior officials to prepare them for the day ahead."