The Note: At This Point in Time, Part IV

— -- WASHINGTON, May 31

NEWS SUMMARY

It is the last day of May, and President Bush — determined to keep his once-a-month streak alive — is going to come into the Rose Garden this morning and have a good old-fashioned press conference at 10:45 am ET.

Surely, he will get at least one question about John Harris' new book on his predecessor.

Per ABC News' Ann Compton, the president (the current one) will begin with what Scott McClellan describes as a brief opening statement on the economy. The president is expected to touch on these four topics:

1. His desire for an energy bill by August recess.
2. His call for a responsible budget — holding the line on spending.
3. Ratification of CAFTA.
4. Social Security reform — the importance for Congress and the administration to work together.

While we wait for all of the fallout from that event, make like a Midland librarian and read.

What does it take to write two must-read stories in 96 hours?

The analytical clarity of a Ron Brownstein; the legendary status of a Bob Novak; or the Yoda-level wisdom of a David Yepsen.

We read 'em, but you still have to if you want to know what those in the know know.

Ladies and gentlemen and Note readers of all ages, may we present — your Tuesday must-reads:

1. The Washington Post's John Harris adapts some material from his new book -- "The Survivor, the critically acclaimed history of the Clinton Administration (known in the Solis-Doyle household as "42") — and takes a look at the strategy of tenacity and positioning to the center that has come to define the politics of Senator Hillary Clinton. Don't make the mistake of not reading it all (We mean the book LINK AND the article. LINK.

From today's article:
"The strategy, confidants say, has three elements. On social issues, it is to reassure moderate and conservative voters with such positions as her support of the death penalty, and to find rhetorical formulations on abortion and other issues — on which her position is more liberal — that she is nonetheless in sympathy with traditional values. On national security, it is to ensure that she has no votes or wavering statements that would give the GOP an opening to argue that she is not in favor of a full victory in Iraq. In her political positioning generally, it is to find occasions to prominently work across party lines — to argue that she stands for pragmatism over the partisanship that many centrist voters especially dislike about Washington."

". . . Clinton and her advisers are operating on the bold but uncertain assumption that one of the most divisive figures of the past decade can be reintroduced to Americans as a reassuring and even uniting figure in this one."

" . . . In 2000, she repeatedly pledged that she would finish her term without seeking the presidency. Aides say she will not issue such a pledge this time. To emphasize her centrist credentials, her Senate office regularly touts her willingness to sponsor legislation with Republicans, including conservative Sens. Rick Santorum (Pa.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.). In her first years in the Senate, she focused largely on New York issues and carefully rationed national publicity. Now she regularly accepts such publicity and takes assertive stands on national issues."

(Tomorrow must read "The Survivor material in the Post covers Bill Clinton's foreign policy.)

2. The Washington Post's Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei turn in a must-read assessment of where President Bush's domestic and international priorities stand, from stem cells, John Bolton, and the filibuster compromise to Social Security and Iraq, and question whether he's hit a bit of a sophomore skid after expending some of his political capital for a less-than-smashing payoff. With all the partisan drama, some are beginning to kick around phrases like "lame duck," while the president's supporters say he just needs to refocus his approach a bit. LINK

(And Dan Bartlett and some Note writers say: (a) when did Baker and VandeHei become Milbank and Allen?; and (b) You've got to accentuate the positive. Eliminate the negative. Latch on to the affirmative. Don't mess with Mister In-Between.)

3. Bloomberg's Dick Keil looks at the vastly different perceptions of the country's economic health, depending on whether President Bush is characterizing it, or whether the public and even some of his fellow Republicans in Congress are taking a look, particularly in reacting to voters' anxiety over unemployment and job growth. Suddenly the president's push for tax cuts and more individual responsibility for health care and retirement aren't working as well for voters who give him low marks in dealing with the economy, and those concerns will help form the landscape for the 2006 contests. LINK

(Note to Andy Card: maybe you need to start paying attention, some say, to the Gang of 500's intense half-empty attitude … .)

4. The New York Times ' Todd Purdum has the best piece ever written about the political Cheney family, in which he looks at the integration of Mary and Liz Cheney into government and politics. LINK

(We will not excerpt, because you would be cheating yourself if you didn't read every precious word, including and especially the fruits of TSP's phone interview with the wife of the VPOTUS, and the A-level Mary Matalin quotes.)

5. In the Des Moines Register, Thomas Beaumont compiles Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's laundry list of enacted legislation as his time in the state executive branch winds down and he oh-so-softly tiptoes toward a possible 2008 presidential bid. LINK

6. Also in today's Des Moines Register, the man who taught Jeff Zeleny 2/3 of what he knows (David Yepsen) commits blasphemy and reminds Democrats that — regardless of where the starting point is — the ultimate objective is to win the (presidential) race. He also contends that giving other heavily contested states their day in the sun couldn't hurt: "moving other battleground states to early positions in the nominating calendar and spreading out the schedule of caucuses and primaries — could enhance the ability of Democrats to win in 2008 and reduce some of the criticisms of Iowa and New Hampshire without completely eliminating their role." LINK

7. The Los Angeles Times' Ron Brownstein runs both the numbers and the trends in sizing up Democrats' odds of retaking the Senate in 2006, Noting the Republican dominance in the Red States and the rather daunting prospects Democrats have of taking on and winning seats in states won twice by President Bush. LINK

(If you think the Bush-RNC-NRSC 2002 history-defying performance was a fluke, you might need to think again, again.)

As for those of you who took the weekend off, you owe us big time for making sure you saw these must-read efforts from Saturday through Monday:

1. Sagacious Dan Balz of the Washington Post examined the filibuster deal and the dead-central unanswered question of what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances," and what would have to be involved for Democrats to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds. LINK

2. Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times on Monday examined the varying reactions to the filibuster deal, Noting the right's more extreme discomfort with the compromise while Democrats tended to claim victory, and the relatively tenuous space the Democratic filibuster right occupies at the hands of Sens. Graham and DeWine. LINK

3. On Sunday, Herr Yepsen offered 2008 advice for Sen. John McCain: you really ought to give Iowa a try. Running scared from the state's social conservatives won't win votes, and besides, enough people have had their fill of extreme politics, Davo opines. According to Yepsen, with no one anticipating much more than an honorary mention for McCain in the Hawkeye State's caucus, he may thoroughly show up such naysayers — with only Rudy Giuliani's torch potentially beaming as brightly. LINK