The Nation

You never know who you'll meet in the "green room."

Recently,while waiting to be grilled by Chris Matthews on MSNBC I ran into the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had just come from Harvard University where he delivered a speech marking the Rainbow Coalition's 20th anniversary. The Reverend was about to join Pat Buchanan and Jerry Brown on a "Hardball" segment that should have been billed "The Contenders." (Jackson ran for President in '84 and '88; Brown in '76 and '92 and Buchanan in '92, '96 and 2000.)

I'm posting a transcript of their conversation--with Matthews's inevitable Saturday Night Live-styleinterventions--because it was one of the better TV moments I've seen in these last months. And the transpartisan bonding, particularly between Brown and Buchanan, is worth noting.

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination is not over. In fact, it's getting a lot more interesting. Here are some notes on where the contest now stands:

EDWARDS HAS A WAY WITH WORDS: Much is made of North Carolina Senator John Edwards' populist stump speech, with its emotional call for closing the gap between "the two Americas" -- one for the wealthy recipients of George W. Bush's tax cuts, the other for working families that struggle to meet health care, housing and education costs at a time when their jobs are threatened by free-trade policies. But Edwards is actually at his best when he tosses off one liners that seem to sum up the political moment. "Wisconsin does not want a coronation," Edwards declared February 11, as he began what then looked like an uphill campaign in the state that six days later handed him a strong second place finish and a chance to compete one-on-one in the March 2 "Super Tuesday" primaries with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. When Kerry seemed to be claiming the nomination in the final debate before the Wisconsin primary, Edwards got off the best line of the night with his jab, "Not so fast, John Kerry." And after Wisconsin voters moved him to within six points of Kerry -- for one of the closest primary finishes so far in the campaign -- a jubilant Edwards took the stage at Milwaukee's Serb Hall and declared, "Today, the voters in Wisconsin sent a clear message. The message was this: Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear."

KERRY HAS NO WAY WITH WORDS: Shaken by the close race in Wisconsin, which required him to deliver his victory speech almost an hour after he had planned to do so, Kerry played rough. The Massachusetts senator waited until Edwards took the stage to celebrate his showing, and then strode to the microphone at his own party. Television networks make it a rule to go to the winner when he appears to give his victory speech, even if that means cutting off another candidate. Kerry aides knew that and took full advantage of the opportunity to block Edwards. But they were not well served by the decision. Kerry's speech was long, unfocused and deadly dull. It lacked even the enthusiasm that the senator showed after his important wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. One reporter who has covered Kerry for two decades said as the address dragged on, "This is the worst I've ever heard him." In fairness, that was an extreme statement. Kerry is a famously uninspiring orator, whose speaking style has improved only marginally during the course of the campaign. But his speech Tuesday night, at a time when he should have been rallying the troops with a passionate call to close the deal and make him the Democratic nominee, instead provided a good explanation for why many Democrats will take a second look at Edwards.

SECOND PLACE WON'T CUT IT ANYMORE: The Edwards campaign denies that they are cherry picking primary contests in which to compete with Kerry on March 2. But the truth is that Edwards has skipped a lot of contests so far. And it looks like he is preparing to skip a lot more between now and Super Tuesday. As of now, the North Carolina senator's campaign is clearly focused on Ohio, Georgia and upstate New York -- areas where the candidates anti--NAFTA message ought to play well. Unfortunately, a lot of other states are voting on Super Tuesday, including California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Vermont. Additionally, caucuses will be held in Hawaii and Idaho on February 24, as will a primary in Utah. It gets harder for Edwards to claim to be seriously competing for the nomination if he cedes Hawaii, Idaho and Utah to Kerry on the 24th and then skips delegate-rich states such as Maryland and Minnesota, and potentially California, on March 2. If he sticks to this strategy -- which is dictated, at least for now, by a lack of funds to run the sort of intensive television-advertising campaign that he did in South Carolina and Wisconsin -- he runs a huge risk. If he concentrates on Ohio, Georgia and New York, he will need to win them. It will no longer be possible to spin second-place finishes as "moral victories."

THE SHARPTON FACTOR: The Edwards strategy for focusing on upstate New York is rooted in the theory that Al Sharpton will win a lot of votes in New York City. Sharpton has not mounted a particularly serious national campaign, but he has still secured some respectable finishes in urban areas where he has concentrated his time and energy. He ran a strong second behind Howard Dean in the District of Columbia's non-binding primary, and finished second behind Kerry in Detroit and Wilmington, Delaware -- winning Democratic National Convention delegates in both cities. Sharpton is exceptionally well known in New York City, where he has run for the U.S. Senate and mayor, securing solid vote totals in each contest. The evidence from around the country is that Kerry runs strong among African-American voters in northern urban areas. But if Sharpton holds Kerry's total down in New York City, Edwards aides think there is an outside chance that their man could finish first on the basis of a credible third-place finish in the city and a strong upstate vote. But Sharpton's role in the race has grown increasingly controversial. The Village Voice, which does not circulate much in Detroit or Wilmington, but is a serious factor in New York, has exposed the fact that Sharpton has been taking campaign cues from a nefarious Republican operative. In a piece titled, "Sleeping with the GOP," the Voice's Wayne Barrett writes, "Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton." This story deserves the attention the Voice has given it, particularly because Sharpton has played on anger over the Florida recount fight to pump up his prospects. If Sharpton becomes a player in a competitive New York primary, as is possible, he should be pressed to address the issue of his ties to Stone -- at least as aggressively as Sharpton pressed Howard Dean on the former Vermont governor's minority hiring record in a critical exchange prior to the Iowa caucuses.

THE DEAN FACTOR: Howard Dean had a lot of supporters in the March 2 primary and caucus states. To a greater extent than the other candidades, Dean developed a 50-state strategy that saw him courting key officials and pouring money into grassroots organization is states that he and his aides fully expected his campaign would reach. As a result, even as his campaign stumbled badly after Iowa, he was able to keep winning delegates -- 24 in Michigan, 29 in Washington, 11 in Maine, 13 in Wisconsin on Tuesday. Dean ended his campaign on Wednesday, but that does not mean that he will cease to be a factor. If Dean does nothing, his supporters could actually keep campaigning and win some delegates -- just as backers of Paul Tsongas kept adding to his delegate totals after he quit campaigning in 1992. Some Dean backers have indicated a desire to carry on, and they could be a factor in New York, where the campaign filed full slates of delegate contenders in every congressional district. There is a great deal of speculation about the prospect that Dean might back Edwards. The former governor made it clear before the Wisconsin primary that he preferred Edwards to Kerry, telling CBS News, "I think that Sen. Kerry has an enormous advantage. My fear is that he won't be the strongest Democratic candidate. I've actually said on the record that I think Sen. Edwards would be a stronger candidate against George Bush than Sen. Kerry because when Sen. Kerry's record is examined by the public at a more leisurely time when we're not having primaries every week, he's going to turn out be just like George Bush." Edwards says that he has had friendly conversations with Dean in recent days, but there is no guarantee that Dean will choose to endorse. Former Dean aides explain that, if he goes with Edwards and then the North Carolinian quits on March 2, Dean could further marginalize himself. And, since Dean is serious about turning what was his campaign into some kind of force within the Democratic party, he will want clear evidence that Edwards is a long-term contender before he puts his name on the line. Note also that many people who are -- or have been -- close to Dean also have ties to U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, who will continue to pull with all of his considerable might for a Kerry endorsement.

THE LABOR FACTOR: The AFL-CIO has endorsed Kerry. Labor has taken some hits on the campaign trail this year, but the race is now moving to states, such as Ohio and New York, where the union movement retains a great deal of strength. But labor is not completely united behind Kerry. There's a good deal of grumbling about the fact that Edwards is running hard on a labor issue -- opposition to free-trade pacts -- that has never been one of Kerry's strong points. (And there are still some union activists who note that Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich, who remains in the contest, is a far more passionate advocate for fair trade than either Edwards or Kerry.) In New York State, Edwards will continue to have the support of UNITE, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees. UNITE has 90,000 members in New York state, and the union's political director, Chris Chafe, says, "We're absolutely, 1,000 percent behind John Edwards. It is unlikely that he will do an event before March 2 where UNITE is not there to back him. We will be organizing upstate, downstate, wherever he needs us." Kerry's AFL-CIO endorsement will help him, but Edwards will be able to point to UNITE's backing and claim a good measure of labor legitimacy, especially in New York, where the union has a long history of political activism.

What planet does Rich Lowry live on? National Review's editor--someone I've sparred with on TV many times--recently weighed in on the causes of poverty. It "has nothing to do with corporations," he argued, "and little to do with other, more-relevant economic factors, such as wage rates."

In fact, Lowry lives in New York City, where hundreds of thousands of hardworking people--dish-washers, clerks, factory workers, security guards, salespeople--live in poverty. As Andrew Friedman of the Drum Major Institute recently noted in New York's Daily News, "New York is full of people who face the daily indignity of struggling to survive."

More than thirty million Americans currently earn less than $8.70 an hour, the official US poverty level for a family of four. (And most experts estimate that it takes at least double this level for a family to provide for its basic needs.) But for Lowry, "Poverty in America is primarily a cultural phenomenon, driven by a shattered work ethic and sexual irresponsibility."

Forget the low wage, no-benefit jobs which translate into billions of dollars in profits for the corporations Lowry holds blameless. Forget that the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has fallen by 40 percent since 1968. For Lowry, poverty is a "cultural phenomenon."

Fortunately, not everyone reads National Review and legislation pending in the New York State Assembly would raise New York's minimum wage by almost $2 an hour. Such a change would help more than 500,000 New Yorkers. Lowry should stop whining about sexual irresponsibility, get a conscience and support efforts to improve the lives of his fellow New Yorkers--several of whom keep his office digs clean and secure.

Okay, we were wrong--the we being those who called on Bush to honor his promise to release his entire Air National Guard records in the hope it would clarify the mysteries surrounding the last eighteen months of his service. After trying to back away from that promise, the Bush White House finally did relent. Last Friday, it handed out packets of hundreds of pages of Bush's Air National Guard file. Yet these records contained not a single sheet that that can be used to resolve the controversy. In fact, the file only reinforces the existing questions.

To recap, here are the three key issues.

* In May 1972, Bush moved from Texas to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of a family friend. He still had two years left on his Guard obligation. He requested permission to continue his Guard training in Alabama. But did he show up?

* Sometime after the November 1972 election, he returned to Houston. But his immediate supervisors at Ellington Air Base in Houston--his home base--noted in a May 2, 1973, annual performance review that Bush "has not been observed at this unit" for the past year. After that report, he put in several intensive stints of duty. But had Bush ignored his Guard responsibilities for months once he was back in Houston?

* In September 1972, he was grounded for failing to take a flight physical. Why did he not go through this simple step to preserve his flying status?

The new records provide answers to none of this. Although they detail much of his first years in the Air National Guard--his assignments, his training, his drills--they contain no specific references to duty he might have done in Alabama or Houston in the May 1972 to May 1973 period. Let's look at the three pieces:

AlabamaOn May 24, 1972, Bush filed out a form requesting a transfer to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Alabama. But according to this application, he was already in Alabama at work on that Senate campaign. On May 26, the commander of the 9921st wrote Bush to tell him that his application had been accepted. This suggests that Bush moved to Alabama before he had arranged for any Guard reassignment. Was that SOP?

In any event, two months later, on July 21, 1972, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver nixed the reassignment, noting that Bush, "an obligated Reservist" could only be "assigned to a specific Ready Reserve Position." Bush, the ARPC said, "is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."

There are no records indicating Bush did a stitch of work for the 9921st. Even the pay sheet summaries and attendance point records that the White House released earlier do not contain a single entry for the entire May to mid-October 1972 period.

After Bush's reassignment was turned down, he waited six weeks to request another assignment. On September 5, he requested permission to "perform equivalent duty" at the 187th Tac Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October, and November." He quickly received approval to do so. He was told that the "Unit Training Assembly schedule" for the 187th called for drills on October 7-8 and November 4-5 and that he should report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the base commander. During the 2000 campaign, Turnipseed said that Bush had never reported in. He repeated that assertion recently, but then noted he was not completely certain. The Bush records do not list any service on the days of these training assembly drills. The pay sheet summaries note that Bush was paid for two days of service on October 28 and 29. But they do not specify what service was performed or where. After doing no work for the Guard from April through early September, did Bush wait another six weeks before reporting for duty?

An unnamed Republican close to Bush did point reporters to a former Alabama Air National Guard officer who had served at the Dannelly Air Base (the home of the 187th) who claimed he had seen Bush report for duty eight to ten times between May and October 1972. But Bush's file shows that Bush did not even apply for reassignment to the 187th until September. And those pay sheet summaries only suggest Bush put in two days of service late in October. His file records contradict this person's account.

HoustonFor the stretch from early January 1973 to early May 1973, the pay sheet summaries indicate eight days of possible service: January 4-6 and 8-10 and April 7-8. The summaries also note days of possible service on May 1-3. Presumably, the April and May service occurred at Ellington. But there is nothing-- nothing--in the files that correspond to these days. Moreover, if Bush did put in time in April and early May 1973, why did his immediate superiors--who were buddies of his--sign a form on May 2 saying that Bush had not been seen at Ellington for a year? (Both men are deceased.) Could this mean that the pay sheet summaries are not accurate? These records--and a one-page document indicating he received a dental examination at an Alabama air base in early January 1973--are the key pieces of evidence for the Bush White House's argument that Bush served during the missing year.

Most of the AWOL controversy has focused on Bush's months in Alabama. But the question of whether he shirked his Guard responsibilities upon his return to Texas is as significant. Perhaps it is possible that his Guard file did not reflect his service in Alabama because he was doing temporary duty away from his home base. But why would his main file--which is loaded with information pertaining to his duty at Ellington before May 1972--have nothing in it about his activity at Ellington in the first four months of 1973? This gap is as suspicious as the Alabama hole.

The flight physicalBush's file also provides no explanation for the flight physical that did not happen. The White House did allow reporters to look at medical records that were in Bush's Guard files. But the journalists were not permitted to leave with copies. Apparently these records contained nothing unusual. In 2000, the Bush campaign said that Bush did not take a flight physical because he was living in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston. But personal physicians did not administer flight exams; military surgeons did. More recently, the White House has said that because Bush was no longer flying fighter interceptor jets he had no reason to undergo a physical. Some military experts have found that explanation unpersuasive; others have called it reasonable. But why the shift in stories?

So the fog of Bush's Guard service remains. The file is no help. Bill Burkett, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard did tell various newspapers recently that in 1997 he was in a National Guard office and overheard Joseph Allbaugh, then chief of staff for Governor George W. Bush, inform another officer that he needed to make sure there was nothing embarrassing in Bush's Guard file. Burkett recalled he later spotted items from Bush's file in the trash. Allbaugh and the White House denied these allegations. Is it possible that Allbaugh--or anyone else--could have rigged files in both the Texas office and the main repository in Denver? Suspicious minds can look at the released file and wonder why an absence in good record keeping happens to match the time period in question.

Still, the story of Bush's missing year is unresolved. It may never be settled. Unless more records somehow materialize, or convincing witnesses come forward. And if the Bush White House has played this episode to a who-will-ever-know tie, perhaps that is, in the end, a win for the former Air National Guard first lieutenant with a file full of riddles.

DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S NEW BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." For more information and a sample, check out the book's official website: www.bushlies.com.

-