The content and tone of the statements from the two sides will be radically different. Republicans will take a judicious tack, arguing only that the allegations against the president are serious if true and merit an inquiry. Democrats will present a much sharper and partisan counterattack. They will argue, as the president's defenders have for weeks, that even if true the charges are laughable and don't rise to the level of impeachment. They will also heap on the anti-Starr rhetoric. So the statements will in essence be a distillation of the last 9 months, a sharply partisan, unified defense of Clinton and attack on Starr from the Democrats, with Republicans standing slightly above the fray.

After the statements come dueling presentations of Starr's evidence from the GOP and Democratic counsels—another study in contrasts. The Republican counsel David Shippers—a Matlock/Columbo-type character who is a life-long Democrat—will give a folksy, straightforward recitation of the facts. His point will only be that facts are in dispute so an inquiry is necessary. His Democratic counter-part, Abbe Lowell, is much more partisan (check out Landmark Legal Foundation's report). He can't argue the facts so he will argue the law, making the best case possible for the White House.

It will be a long day. The committee must vote Monday to keep the process on schedule (so much for the Republicans deliberately dragging their feet). The Minority gets two days to file their response to the committee action before it can go to the Rules Committee. So, a Monday vote is necessary if the Thursday vote on the House floor is to be held as planned.

The vote in the committee will almost certainly be along strict party lines. The crucial question is how many Democrats break ranks on the floor vote. Right now, the smart betting is on 30 Democrats, probably enough for the GOP to argue that the process is bi-partisan. But other external events could affect the atmosphere next week in unpredictable ways. If, as is rumored, Judge Norma Holloway Johnson makes a ruling against Ken Starr in the leak investigation, it could mean more trouble for Republicans. If, on the other hand, Starr moves on indictments, as is also rumored, it could give pro-Starr forces a boost. Stay tuned—it will be a wild and historic week. And one the White House probably won't much enjoy.

Over Before It Starts?
Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Steve Forbes are the big winners in California's decision to move its 2000 primary to March 7. Combined with other states now thinking about moving up the calendar, the result is a much-shortened primary season that will favor candidates who can raise millions on short notice. Although Bush hasn't hit the rubber-chicken circuit yet, he will be a formidable fundraiser when he does. Steve Forbes has signaled to associates that he may be willing to spend up to $50 million out of his own pocket to compete. That leaves Sen. John Ashcroft (R., Mo.), Dan Quayle, and others perilously close to also-ran status more than a year before anybody casts a primary vote. Lamar Alexander has demonstrated remarkable discipline when it comes to raising money, but so far his entire strategy has focused on winning New Hampshire and Iowa and then receiving a media boost that leads to more financial support. With one primary following another so closely in 2000, that plan may not work.

A Bend In the River
Kudos to the Manhattan Institute's Abigail Thernstrom, who delivers a vigorous rebuke to claims advanced in the new book, The Shape of the River. Authors William G. Bowen and Derek Bok purport to show conclusively that racial preferences are good for universities and good for America. But in Friday's Wall Street Journal, Thernstrom picks them apart for sloppy analysis. The media has uncritically accepted Bowen and Bok's work--partly because the supporters of racial preferences have been roundly beaten on questions of hard data and interpretation over the last several years, thanks to the yeoman efforts of scholars like Thernstrom (and her husband, Harvard University historian Stephan Thernstrom). Now, with this op-ed and hopefully longer criticisms to come, the tide is turning against Bowen and Bok.