Monday, October 26, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- A negative ad against D'Amato... a positive ad from Pataki... another negative ad slamming D'Amato for cutting school lunch bucks... yes, it's the height of election season! The especially bruising ads in New York were not restricted to the ugly D'Amato/Schumer senate contest; both the state comptroller and attorney general contests have turned nasty, and Independence Party candidate for New York Governor Tom Golisano has stepped up his anti-Pataki ads.

It added a surreal edge to the Sunday political chat shows, especially given that the breakthrough agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was topic one on all of the shows.

Fox News Sunday

"Four leaders, one historic document, what did the US give up for peace?" We've all come to expect some sort of slam against Clinton and his administration in the opening minute of Fox News Sunday, and Tony didn't disappoint. What did we give up? Well, tensions between Israel and the PLO, for starters. Tony also touted GOP hopes for their "biggest majority ever" in his FNS pre-credits intro.

Tony welcomed as his first guest Dennis Ross, the Clinton Administration's top negotiator on the Middle East beat. In response to Tony's first question, Ross explained that the summit served to implement the "Oslo II" agreements. There was an odd-sounding question from Tony about the CIA's involvement in monitoring: "Is there any timetable for when the CIA will leave?"

Huh? CIA observers are nothing like ground troops in Bosnia -- even though Tony's question implies that. The decision to involve the CIA in monitoring and information sharing will no doubt be controversial, but it should be pointed out that NONE of the Sunday morning prognosticators pointed out comments from intelligence specialists who feel this will have the dual effect of making sure all parties are fully informed -- and the US creates a wealth of intelligence contacts to monitor rogue movements and governments in the region.

Ross also responded to a question regarding Jonathan Pollard from Mara Liasson; he let it be clearly known that Pollard had in fact been an issue in previous talks, that any misunderstanding regarding Pollard between Netanyahu and Clinton was quickly cleared up, and that news reports regarding the contents and tone of conversation regarding Pollard between Clinton and House Speaker Gingrich were not accurate.

Ross's most important comment -- surely aimed at both sides of the dispute as well as the rank and file of Fox News viewers -- was that there is no question that resolving the many issues surrounding Israeli/Palestinian security are in fact the key to not only mutuality but long-term peace.

Tony then turned to Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Shelby claimed that he found the agreed-upon role of the CIA "very, very troubling" as "the implementor of policy." He went on to ask "What is the role... to enforce policy? to be an arbitrator?"

This was partisan pap from Shelby, who surely knows more than he is letting on. He knows their role will indeed involve both arbitration and enforcement -- and that their intelligence work could well contain terrorism by rogue splinter groups or terrorist organizations -- and that the work of monitoring will extend well beyond the immediate area of the west Bank.

Mara pointed out quite correctly that the CIA has been involved for years in diplomacy, but Shelby reiterated his "concern about a visible role" as opposed to an intelligence role. He did say that he wants to hold hearings into the role of the CIA because "this is a real departure for the CIA."

And given the new face of global conflict, perhaps a departure is not such a bad idea.

Tony asked if he was accusing "the CIA of empire building" -- pure pap. Tony did get Shelby to concede that he supports having the CIA "ensure and facilitate the exchange and sharing of information" between Palestinians and Israel.

Shelby also attacked the idea of releasing convicted Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard, saying he deserved and should serve his life sentence: "[He did] irreparable damage to intelligence.... This purported release has nothing to do at all with peace in the Middle East."

But it has everything to do with Israeli domestic politics, where Pollard's desired release is a cause celebre. Pollard was made a full citizen of Israel some years back, and Netanyahu faces anger from both sides of the political isle in his nation; a Pollard release would have mollified many factions and consolidated Netanyahu's support. Shelby was in fact asked about Netanyahu's viability as Israeli Prime Minister; he seemed skeptical that a release would really help Netanyahu's viability, but we have to disagree.

The Ross segment made much of the CIA "flap" at the expense of a far more important issue -- that of the political minefield both Netanyahu and Arafat now must walk with opposition from within their own constituencies. Both have put their lives on the line yet again for the sake of peace, but the rumblings of rebellion from within the purview of each leader are becoming more disturbing by the day.

After the break, Tony opened segment two with the words "Republicans expect to gain a few seats in the Senate." You've gotta love it -- six weeks ago, they were predicting a filibuster-proof majority of over 60 GOPers. Looks like their great expectations went up in a puff of Lewinsky.

Tony said this by way of welcoming Mitch McConnell (R-KY), National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee chair.

Juan asked where exactly McConnell expects the gains; McConnell hemmed and hawed, saying that he expects them from a "pool" of the 34 races across the country. When Tony asked whether McConnell was troubled that the GOP has no single issue, McConnell was only able to reply that "1994 was a wave year."

And therein lies the rub. The Contract On America is a failure. Republicans cannot take most of the credit -- let alone sole credit -- for balancing the budget and generating a surplus. And a wave of hate and violence targeted at gays, blacks and obstetricians who save babies as well as perform abortions seems to be sweeping the nation. Never mind that the seeds for this hate were planted in 1994 when the evangelico-hard-right-controlled GOP won the majority in both houses of Congress and started the wave of hate.

Brit Hume turned the spotlight on California and the Boxer-Fong race; McConnell disputed the LA Times poll putting Boxer ahead by two points. What else could he do -- two points is too close to call in most polls, and McConnell has to put the best spin on a situation where his man is falling behind in most polls.

Hume brought up the vicious New York Schumer/D'Amato campaign and the "putzhead" issue (D'Amato called Schumer a "putzhead" to a group of supporters, lied about it in public, the admitted to the vulgarity when he was "outed" moments later by a witness). "I wouldn't bet against D'Amato," said McConnell, "he's a very skillful campaigner."

But it was McConnell's boast that "we have an excellent chance of having the most seats [] in decades.... We're hoping to have the most Republicans since the 20s" that told the story of the message that not only McConnell but Bill Richardson, Newt Gingrich and the rest of the GOP are trying to spin.

The divisions within the GOP -- with factions of hard-right Christians, anti-regulatory libertarians, anti-tax opportunists, statists and fiscal conservatives -- have come to the fore during this election cycle in the form of open, public wrangling among the factions. The GOP leadership's cheerleading looked like a smokescreen aided and abetted by what almost looked like cheerleading in the questions from Tony and the FNS posse.

McConnell deflected a question regarding not making the Lewinsky flap a bigger issue -- "It has not been an issue in this election" -- and turned to Mideast peace agreements past and present: "Democrats tend to do these deals near the election and they don't affect the elections."

History tells us that Republicans do the same. And as for Lewinsky -- McConnell and every other Repubster is deflecting because they see the word "backlash" painted in big red letters with regard to the President's personal conduct in all but the most conservative congressional districts nationwide.

Tony opened the segment that followed with "Will the impeachment donnybrook influence the election?" gee, Tony, why do you think the GOP is avoiding the subject? Of course it will! You may couch the question in a tone implying it harmful to Clinton when the opposite is proving true, but your spinterpreter viewers know better! The guests: Reps. Jim Maloney (D-CT) and Anne Northrup (R-KY).

Maloney, in response to Tony quoting John Conyers on the impeachment inquiry, said "I voted for the inquiry... [for] all the evidence on the table." Maloney comes from a conservative-leaning district and was one of many Democrats who voted that way to essentially defang the issue -- a strategy that has worked rather well and caught GOP opponents off guard. Maloney, commenting from outside a VFW lodge, mentioned that "the Lewinsky matter comes up occasionally... one person mentioned it this morning," but more people want to discuss education, helping parents save for college and other issues.

Northrup chose to do a little campaigning during her comments; she echoed the legendary comment of Thomas "Tip" O'Neil that all elections are local elections, saying "It's a very localized election." She said that Social Security was a big issue in her district and accused her opponent of "scaring the elderly." She also pointed out that constituents are "very polarized" -- Democrats who agree and disagree, GOPers who agree or disagree.

We're surprised that Tony and the crew didn't jump on this comment -- both parties find themselves "united' around issues and agendas that no longer seem to resonate with most voters; neither party has retrenched and retooled, although it looked as if the GOP had done so some four years ago. but the cracks are starting to show, and none of the pundits seem to want to address the issue. Maybe they're waiting for the Lewinsky to settle.

There was some discussion of the nuts and bolts of each race: Maloney said some mud had been slung his way, "so I've talked about specifics of my record" using old fashioned politicking and telling constituents how he's "bringing home the bacon." When he mentioned his support of programs for crime prevention and safer neighborhoods, Tony chimed in "But everyone's for it." Betcha Tony wouldn't do that to a GOP loyalist! Maloney shot back that he has been supporting specific programs that directly benefit his district.

Northrup then chimed in, "That's a reflection of the Republican perspective, putting money back in the hands of the districts." Well, that's pure pap from Northrup -- both parties have a record of bringin' home the pork... er, bacon. "Tax cuts, we've accomplished a lot of what was reflected in the 1994 elections."

Really? Then why did so much of the Contract On America wither and die on the vine -- or get watered down when GOP power players had to deliver the goods for their corporate contributors?

And talk about hedging one's bets: Northrup predicted a GOP pickup in the House of "somewhere between 8 and 25, we feel like we're really in a strong position."

Strong position? What happened to those grandiose predictions of as many as 50?

Maloney: "Democrats can retake the House -- whether it happens this year remains to be seen." And we seriously doubt that the Democrats will retake the House this time around -- but you can bet that the Democrat leadership is going to analyze the results of this year's elections in minute detail and have their act together for 2000, when they do stand a chance of retaking it.

Before Tony turned to the weekly panel segment, he turned to the Fox Mailbag -- and one letters castigating self-important "Sabbath gasbags." We were rolling on the floor as Tony politely disagreed with the tone and the content.

And then... Panel time! There was a general grudging consensus that the peace deal helps Clinton and Democrats. Juan said it "distracts" from the Monica flap. Hume added, "This deal is so Clinton... like so much he does, it was stained by this Jonathan Pollard stuff." Stained -- nice choice of words, Brit, but this time it was your pal Netanyahu doing the staining. But Hume was right when he pointed out "Pollard is a hero in Israel.... All the press reports are that on Friday he was going around asking if he should release him."

Of course, Netanyahu was trying to get the US to "heel" and pay for peace by throwing him a political victory. It didn't work.

Juan was wrong when he said, "The deal reaffirms the Oslo accords but does not bring us to anyplace new." The situation is very changed -- if anything, more volatile in the short term but more stable in the long run.

Talk naturally turned to "spinning" the CIA angle. Juan: "I don't think that's going to hold unless there's a new role for the CIA." Brit: "I think there's something to the idea that agents may be vulnerable."

Right, Brit -- but think of how much more vulnerable Hamas and splinter groups are going to be as CIA personnel, known or otherwise, "invade" the West Bank. This is the mnature of conflict in the 21st century -- driven by information, flexibility, and localized action.

Talk turned to the Microsoft case -- Hume stated that he believes that the government will lose. Juan pointed out that Microsoft is now pumping a lot of money into GOP candidates. There was some discussion of the idea that Microsoft is a monopoly. Hume said the problem is that Microsoft -- big and ruthless though it may be -- may not be doing anything illegal.

But they all missed the bigger issue -- that the nature of software and hardware changes so rapidly that Microsoft's acquisition of smaller companies is a bigger threat to progress and innovation than bundling a buggy browser with a twitchy operating system.

Once again, Fox just about nuked the Sunday competition by covering a lot of ground -- and blew so many opportunities to analyze and discuss the real issues.

The McLAUGHin Group

Issue One: Peace Breakthrough!! John detailed the agreement and played up the role of CIA honcho George Tennant in the deal.

"Is it a good deal for all parties?" the most baritonal of Sabbath gasbags asked.

Pat Buchanan said yes, including (with a wince) Clinton. He added the Israelis had to "go to the wall for an agreement... it doesn't look like Sharon and Netanyahu were willing to give up more."

Eleanor Clift mentioned the "great human drama of Clinton with an impeachment swirling around him" and "an ailing King Hussein."

Tony "Toady" Blankley -- just where does this guy get those ghastly outfits?? -- predictably called it bad deal for the CIA -- "the head of the CIA does not have the stature of Alan Dulles." To Blankley, the Aussie ex-spokesman for "Don" Newt Gingrich, the Clinton Administration can do no right.

Michael Barone got a laugh from the panel when he mentioned that Netanyahu was referred to as the "Kvetcher in the Wye." Even we laughed. Michael added "Arafat has to stand up more strongly against zealots who want Israel gone." Pat responded that the Palestinians were "holding onto that charter point primarily as a negotiating ploy," an assertion that many analysts agree with -- but mostly being held onto for Arafat's short-term self-protection.

John mentioned that "there was no promise from Israel to stop Jewish Settlements... is that because Clinton is weak?" No, John, it's because Netanyahu is not a softball player -- he's a tough, savvy politician. And both Pat and Eleanor said no; Eleanor pointed out that every other American president in recent history "is weak."

Will it help the elections, asked John? There was general agreement, with for Tony dissenting: "Every time he is seen in public, it does not necessarily help the Democrats."

Well, Tony, his appearances seem to be helping your "New Moralist" GOP pals even less.

Then things got just plain weird: there was mention of Jonathan Pollard and Israel, and John brought up the Rosenbergs, the Soviet Union and the year 1953 -- "were THEY enemies?" John sounded ridiculous when he asserted "the Rosenbergs spied for an ally because they SPIED DURING WORLD WAR II!!"

Uh-huh, John -- Julius started working for Stalin less than two years before we rolled into Berlin, at a time when the Roosevelt Administration was beginning to understand the threat of our good "ally" the Soviet Union -- and Rosenberg worked for them through the first eight years of the Cold War.

We were beside ourselves with yet another of John's ridiculous comparisons -- certainly not the first this year, but easily one of the most laughable.

Issue Two: The Senate. John reviewed the situation -- 34 seats up, 19 "sure bets" as judged by the McLAUGHin Group, reviewed one by one, with the remaining "competitive or very competitive:"

John and the Group went down the remaining 15 races, making some very provocative prognostications, many along party lines (i.e., everyone vs. Eleanor).

Some of the more interesting predictions:
in Arkansas, all but Tony say Democrat Blanche Lambert Lincoln Republican defeats Republican Fay Boozman.
In Ohio, all five say Republican John Voijnovich will defeat Mary Boyle.
In California, all but Eleanor predict Fong will squeak it out from Boxer --- mark our words, this one will be VERY close, and Boxer could pull it off.
In New York, all 5 say Chuck Schumer loses to Al D'Amato; Pat ruefully pointed out a campaign "uplifting in its rhetoric." We laughed. And we'll laugh harder when Schumer wins.
North Carolina the panel was split 3 to 2 against Lauch Faircloth being reelected, with Pat and John predicting the staunch conservative would defeat attorney John Edwards.

Overall, the group predicts a gain of 5 for Republicans -- making a 60-to-40 mix.

We're not so sure.

Predictions!

Pat: Newt and/or Lott will be challenged for the leadership of their respect houses next year.
Eleanor predicts medical marijuana initiatives will pass in five states and DC.
Tony: war in Kosovo again this coming spring when "freedom fighters" return from Albania.
Michael: "Missile defense will be a big issue next Congress." No doubt sponsored by, among others, GE!!!!

John: next year's trade deficit will be over $300 billion.

Meet the Press

Tim Russert, Clinton Antagonist Numero Uno on the Sunday beat, introduced Meet the Press with "Peace in the Middle East... Elections in nine days... Will this election be a referendum on the Lewinsky scandal... Has the Republican revolution fizzled?" Wow -- bash Clinton AND the fractured GOP at the same time. Now that's "fairness' Russert style -- all spin at the top, no depth throughout.

Guest one -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu admitted the peace deal "gave up territory, which is very painful for us" in exchange for monitoring terrorism: "[We] gained for the first time a verifiable process of measuring and ensuring Palestinian compliance and fighting terrorism, in word and in deed... What is at stake is the remaining territory that is so vital to Israel's defense."

The thrust of Tim's first group of questions seemed designed to elicit responses pointing to a continued Palestinian threat, including his question about whether the Palestinian flag will fly over Jerusalem. Netanyahu's response was no doubt tailored to mollify Israelis: "[It will] never happen. Jerusalem's been the capital of the Jewish people for the last 3,000 years, from the days of King David, and only recently... , has it been the haven and worshipping-ground of all three religions without anyone being interrupted."

There are both Christians and followers of Islam who would dispute that last sentence.

Tim reminded Netanyahu of a question he posed in 1994: "Can anyone seriously trust Arafat?" Netanyahu very cleverly invoked the words of Reagan: "Trust but verify... I'm not saying that he can control over every terrorist" but Netanyahu insists that Arafat make a real effort to shore up terrorism.

On prospects of a no-confidence vote: "I don't think the government will fall. I think cooler heads will prevail." Netanyahu said he preferred a political risk to security risks -- certainly a huge turnaround in his thinking and tactics over even two weeks ago.

There were a lot of words between Tim and Netanyahu regarding the controversy surrounding Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard -- and it looked as if Russert were "setting up" Netanyahu the way he loves to set up Clinton allies. This came as a real surprise. Follow the questioning:

Why did Pollard spy for Israel? "I don't know -- I was not running the government back then... I came clean" and admitted for the first time that Pollard was a spy.

Of course, Netanyahu is lying about the "I don't know," and Tim knew he would not admit word one of why, but it does not take a rocket scientist to see this. Tim didn't press this obvious point.

Netanyahu then attempted to mollify opponents of a Pollard release: "Our alliance with the US is so deep.... that I don't think you will find a better ally." He also reiterated Israel's continued provision of intelligence to the US. He added, "I didn't discuss [Pollard] at the last minute [but] I'm not going to get into this discussion... I don't think Pollard is endangering the United States."

Now, the fact that any of our allies is spying on us should come as no surprise to anyone. It happens all the time, and spy "horse-trading" is a fact of international diplomatic life whether or not it happens in public or private.

But Netanyahu did himself no favors when he compared Pollard to spies working for Soviet Union in response to Tim's comment that Casper Weinberger's claim that Pollard endangered American lives with his spying: "Spies who spied directly for the Soviet Union and knew that everything that they were passing was going to be detrimental to the security and safety of the United States and its people. This is not what he did with us."

Tim has made using the words of others to elicit a defensive response one of his trademark tactics, and it worked this time around. Netanyahu knows that he's dealing with some in the American viewership who continue to question even our best allies' motives; his "assurances" only serve to make him less credible to the skeptics. Better to have said nothing.

Why is Netanyahu so interested in getting Pollard to Israel? "I saw with admiration the way you strove over many years to find every MIA, to get the people who served, who worked on behalf or fought on behalf of the United States or even spied on behalf of the United States to get them home. And this is a very deep value for Israel... I'm doing my damnedest that that will happen."

Again Netanyahu undermines his argument by saying that Israel wants to do with Pollard what we did with getting our people "in from the cold" of ENEMY states. You could see Russert smiling -- you just knew he was succeeding at making Netanyahu look hypocritical.

Finally, Russert turned to his favorite topic -- Clinton's scandal "trouble." Will Clinton's participation make him appear a strong leader? Netanyahu complimented Clinton's hard work as a facilitator, negotiator -- and then said he would "not delve into the internal affairs of America... you have your Sunday shows!!"

In other words, conservative Netanyahu (who has cozied up to the hard-right of the GOP and evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell) will leave the damage-doing to the Sabbath gasbags!

The second segment followed the one-questioner-multiple-guest format Russert prefers. It also gave Russert more chances to bash Clinton. To his first guest, New Jersey Governor Christine Whitman, went a high-handed question about her calling for the President to resign; "are you rethinking your position?"

Of course, Russert isn't asking Whitman for an answer, he's inviting her to spin get-Clinton rhetoric, which she gladly did: "I do think he has let the American people down. He's had significant damage on the office of the presidency. I mean, it's wonderful that this peace accord's taken place.... These elections aren't going to be decided on [the peace accords] if that's what we're talking about. These elections are going to be decided on the local issues."

Oh... we see... it's NOT a referendum on the President, then... even if he's "let the people down."

Talk about trying to have it both ways!

So Brother "New Moralist" Russert stayed on theme: "The election a week from Tuesday will not be a referendum on the character of Bill Clinton?"

"...Every election since [1994] has seen Republican gains, and that's been a referendum on the policies of the president, not the character."

Of course, she neglects to mention that off-cycle elections tend to go against the president's party, making her answer far less meaningful than she'd want it to appear. But she is staying on GOP "theme," which IS important to her hopes of a vice-presidential nod in 2000.

Brother Russert turned to Rev. Jesse Jackson and asked him what the elections were a referendum on; Jackson first complemented Clinton on "a great step forward" in the Middle East. "President Clinton had one of his finest hours." He then lit into not what the GOP is running on but "in the field Republicans are running FROM two things: the Contract On America and this idea of impeachment, because in the real world 1,500 Americans a day are dying from cancer, women dying from ovarian and breast cancer, prostate and testicular cancer for men, and [the GOP] are still supporting the tobacco lobby!"

Jackson touched on more topics in one answer -- schools, health care, even poor people whose communities have not been wired for phone service -- than Russert usually allows in one segment of MTP!

Tim then turned to Presidential wanna-be Gary Bauer, head of the "Family Research Council" and an ultra-Right talking head who has been given far too much attention by the broadcast media. Believe us: the real story in the next Presidential election may concern how zealots like Bauer and James Dobson got such disproportionate media access on "public affairs" programs.

Tim's question: what are people voting about? This was a free pass for Bauer to espouse his New Moralist views: "You get a lot of talk now about the virtue deficit that I've been talking about for a long time."

Right... a lot of talk from William Bennett, William Kristol, and you -- all of whom have financially benefited off the back of a trumped-up attempt at an impeachment coup.

"I think that's going to motivate millions of voters that get out to vote because of issues of reliable standards of right and wrong."

We think it will motivate hundreds of people to buy Bill Bennett's latest neo-Fascist tome -- and millions of voters to determine that having political spin doctors like you shoving "right' and "wrong" down their throats is not their idea of Democracy!

When Tim brought up James Dobson chastising the GOP for abandoning policies, Bauer's response was tailored to motivate hardcore GOP voters: "The real roadblock here is not Republicans in Congress -- it's the president that blocked tax cuts, that made it impossible to deal with the marriage penalty, that vetoed educational choice provisions..."

The problem for Bauer is that more and more voters are learning that buzzwords like "educational choice provisions" are code for stealing money from public school systems -- that most Americans overwhelmingly support in principle.

God bless Jesse Jackson, when he asked Bauer "Is not the issue in Appalachia of a coal miner dying every six hours from black lung disease and can't get black lung benefits a moral issue, too?"

Jackson made Bauer look like a fool on the REAL moral issues -- those of public responsibility versus private conduct.

But it took Tim turning to Roy Romer, DNC Chairman and Colorado Governor, before there was any talk of nuts-and-bolts issues that face the electorate: "We have the Democrats in Congress and the president trying to help education. The Republicans were trying to kill it. They tried to kill those funds for teachers. You know, we had in that bill afterschool programs, child literacy programs, and it was only Democrats who fought for that. You go to health, HMOs -Ñ Republicans killed our ability to have an HMO bill of rights. They killed our ability to have some progress on tobacco legislation. I mean, it was only the president and the Democrats who really saved that surplus so that we could have it for Social Security! So, Tim, I think we got a real, real good chance in picking up some gains this year in the election because the issues of education, health, saving Social Security are on our side. I tell you, it's a very clear contrast. People aren't going to forget that."

We have to agree with Tim's skepticism that the Democrats will pick up anything in Congress, but we also have to point out that Romer didn't mention that as of now those look to be the big issues in 2000, and Democrats have taken the early lead on pushing those issues. Romer said, toward the end of the segment, that the GOP "has money and history on their side, we've got the issues."

Two other great moments in the segment: Tim asking Jackson about Farrakhan's comment from last week that "you recruit and turn over voters to others." Jackson: "We don't share the same values, nor do we share the same analysis." Jackson was a bit less specific on whether he plans to run in 2000, but made no bones about being "determined to set the pace, to set the priorities, and I can say to you because of our numbers, our loyalty and our public policy issues, there should be a black on that ticket in the year 2000."

Make a note of that, politics fans!

And pity poor Gary Bauer: "It drives me to distraction that people say this is private conduct." Good -- we love to see Bauer whine.

Following the break, we got treated to Carville for the second time in a month -- this time with his "better" half (or is it half-crazy), Mary Matalin!

Tim asked Carville about his book And the Horse He Rode In On and the lovely frontispiece photo of Starr next to a dumpster: "That's the only photo you could find?"

"That sort of summarizes my feelings about Ken Starr and his report," replied Carville. "...I don't like the man at all, I don't like the people that work for him, I don't like nothing about him, and if you don't like him, you ought to go out and buy this book!"

We agree -- Carville's "Referral Report" on Starr misses a few revelations of the last weeks but builds a strong case for seeing Starr fired, disbarred and probably indicted.

And Carville was feeling his oats in a big way.. Tim: "Has the Clinton White House not put some trash in that trash bin?"

Carville: "I think Ken Starr has put out most of the trash! Now if people want to say the president put trash in, let them do that -- he's my buddy. It is a GREAT day to be a Clinton person, man! When you see what King Hussein has said about this president, you see what Nelson Mandela said about this president -- and on the other side, you got Bill Bennett and Jerry Falwell -- who you believe's got more integrity and character? King Hussein and Nelson Mandela, or Bill Bennett and Jerry Falwell?"

Matalin: "Clearly, I didn't give him his drugs on his birthday morning! Vaclav Havel also said 'In a nation of laws, everybody must pay attention to the laws.'... [Hubby's book is] a screed, it's a polemic, and I think it's sad on two grounds -- one, that you have taken and your party has taken a good man like Ken Starr and denigrated him the way that you have, and secondly, that this party is nothing but hate. We hate Ñ- we're turning out our voters this way."

Honey, if you want hate, take a good look at some of the luminaries in your own party -- Dan "Scumbag" Burton, Bob "Lock'n'Load" Davies, Randall "Intolerance' terry, and dozens of other loons who have hijacked the once-great GOP to foist hate on America.

Carville roared back: "I'll tell you what we hate. He's a cigarette lawyer. We HATE tobacco companies rolling over people, we hate the fact that the Republicans killed the tobacco bill, we hate HMOs running over patients."

"Brother" Russert asked once again: "So this election a week from Tuesday is not a referendum on the character of Bill Clinton?"

Maybe he was just trying to be "fair" by inviting a typically Carvillian reply: "I tell ya what, I wish it WOULD be a referendum on the job that he's done. I wish it would be a referendum on peace in Northern Ireland and peace in the Middle East, about unprecedented prosperity, about low crime rates, about the magnificent job that this president's done and about the unbelievable esteem that he's held in by world leaders. [Turning to his wife] Speaking of Mr. Havel, Mr. Havel basically put the President up for canonization, if I remember what he said right!"

There was plenty of riffing on Social Security, Democrat losses in Congress, and even Mary's "spin" on GOP "retreating" on the budget:

Tim: "So the Republicans..."

Matalin: "We are the millennial promise."

Tim: "The Republicans..."

Matalin: "Get used to it."

Tim: "You will acknowledge, Mary, the Republicans did retreat and surrender and give Bill Clinton..."

Matalin: "A tactical retreat. Sherman used to do it, Grant used to do it..."

And we're sure you're getting used to it, Mary!

And speaking of retreats, Carville on his targets: "I declared war on Gingrich -- HE'S RETREATING!!! He's not talking.... I went after Ken Starr because he's the wrong man at the wrong time." Even Matalin now admits she wants to see the Independent Counsel statute revoked.

The going was so fast and furious -- and we were laughing so hard -- that it was impossible to take notes at some points. Believe us when we say that any appearance by Jim and Mary on the Reverend Russert Gospel Hour is true political must-see TV.

Russert kept trying to push the conversation back to "Why isn't the issue the President's conduct?" but Carville kept hammering key Democrat issues, and Matalin kept spinning the Top 40 GOP Spin Platters.

The segment ended with Carville saying "And Bill -Ñ can I -Ñ please, honey, you know, it's my birthday, can you let me finish just on my birthday, please?"

At which point Mary started singing "It's my birthday and I'll whine if I want to." We almost busted a gut.

OFF THE RADAR

There was little or no mention of the fallout surrounding the previous week's murder of Matthew Shepard and the many comments, protests and debates the murder of the gay college student sparked. Likewise, Clinton's signing of the new federal budget was greatly overshadowed by Middle East negotiations. And the murder of an obstetrician and abortion provider in Buffalo was too late in the news cycle for mention on the Sunday gabfests -- but will likely merit mention a week from now.

LINE OF THE WEEK

A dead heat between Michael Barone's "Kvetcher in the Wye" and Jesse Jackson's assertion that the time may have come for a black on a Presidential ticket.

-- The Editors