Thomas has put his leadership in the position of trying to pretend there was a different reason for putting off the talks when it was really all about Bill Thomas raising political money.

It's a battleground state for them. Bradley went there two or three times for Clinton in 1996. There are a lot of Perot voters up there who Bradley could appeal to.

Bill Thomas turned his backs on America's working people to go home and raise money.

Once again, the vice president has acknowledged that he dares to follow where Bill Bradley has boldly led. ... The only consistency in Al Gore's positions is that he has consistently been less willing to lead with bold proposals of his own, but consistently followed in the footsteps of other leaders.

I think it raises the stakes significantly for the next one, whoever that might be. I think right now there's disappointment. If there were another vacancy [filled by a white man], there would be anger.

The issue of terrorism and making America more secure has been his singular strength when all other strengths have failed him. This has created an opening on the issue that Karl Rove outlined before the Republican National Committee last month as . . . a key electoral issue in 2006. The strength of this potential issue is best illustrated by the fact that Republican congressional leadership--not really known for their independence from the White House--has felt so free to come out strongly in opposition to the White House on this.