In committee chambers, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was scheduled to address Lieberman and his colleagues on home-front progress in the “war on terror.” On the Senate floor, his colleagues were beginning debate on a bipartisan port security bill that Lieberman had nurtured for months. And in the afternoon, Lieberman was scheduled to unveil a new painting to commemorate the Connecticut Compromise of 1787, when America’s forefathers agreed to set their differences aside to hammer out the structure of the U.S. Constitution. At every stop along the way, Lieberman planned to take a moment to praise moderation and compromise, his campaign theme as he runs an independent campaign against the liberal upstart Lamont.

The day started well enough for Lieberman, with the senator squarely on message and Democrats and Republicans both playing nice. Just before 10 a.m., Lieberman took his place as the minority leader of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He congratulated his colleagues for their ability to “forget party labels and work together as Americans.” “In a capital city which has become all too partisan,” he said, “on the question of homeland security  this committee has acted with a real sense of unity.”

But such positive talk does not go far these days in Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans have been ratcheting up their rhetoric in anticipation of November’s election. Just minutes after Lieberman finished speaking, Democratic senators began a press conference across the street, on the second floor of the Capitol Building, to announce a proposal to amend Lieberman’s bipartisan port security bill. Sen. Charles Schumer, the New York senator who is leading Democratic 2006 election efforts, took the opportunity to warn against a continuation of the Bush administration’s “grossly mismanaged and underfunded” efforts to protect the nation against terrorist threats.

“This past week everyone has been asking, are we safe?” Schumer announced in a press release handed out to reporters. “Well, if you look at the area of port security, the answer is a resounding no.” He proposed an amendment to require a four-year timetable for every cargo container entering the United States to receive a scan for nuclear materials. The proposal had all the trappings of a political gambit. By proposing a strict timeline for 100 percent screening, Schumer and other Democrats could paint Republicans who opposed the amendment as soft on homeland security in the coming election. Under the current bill, as co-written by Lieberman, 100 percent nuclear scanning of overseas cargo would be installed as soon as it was “possible” and “practical,” and no timeline is set.

Republicans, for their part, were ready to fight back. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who chairs the Homeland Security committee and works closely with Lieberman, had sent her staff to circulate an opposition press release to reporters attacking Schumer’s amendment. “100% Scanning of Cargo Containers Is a Red Herring,” announced the Collins release, which was printed on committee stationery and quoted from a recent Washington Post editorial and shipping industry position papers. The Schumer plan, the release continued, was a “superficially appealing … recipe for crippling our manufacturing and commerce.”

But the issues aside, by 10:15 a.m., Lieberman was already losing control of the day’s message. Partisanship had reared its ugly head. New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg, who supports the Schumer amendment and sits on the Senate’s Homeland Security committee, grabbed a copy of Collins’ press release from the Capitol and hightailed it back to the committee hearing room, where his colleagues continued to congratulate each other on their bipartisanship. When it came his turn, Lautenberg began reading Collins’ release into the record, implicitly attacking the chairwoman for making such claims on official committee stationery. “If we inspected one out of 20 people going into the White House or coming into this place, would we feel secure?” Lautenberg asked, rhetorically, as Lieberman listened. “I don’t think so.”

Moments later, Lautenberg stood in the hallway outside the committee room telling reporters of the coming showdown. “That’s the first shot across the bow,” Lautenberg said, of the Collins release. When asked if he thought the Homeland Security committee had been an oasis of bipartisanship, as Lieberman suggested, Lautenberg chuckled. “I mean, come on,” he said. “There is a mind-set here that says do it our way or no way.” As an example, he pointed to a debate last year over the formula for homeland security grant funding, when Lieberman had sided with the Republican leadership. “Sometimes the best of us err … Sen. Lieberman agreed with Sen. Collins,” Lautenberg complained. “It’s hard when there is such harmony in the [committee] leadership.”

About an hour later, Lieberman, hoping to keep up his theme of the day, staged a telephone conference call with reporters to discuss his leadership on Homeland Security issues. Again, he praised the committee that he leads with Collins for creating “a high ground of bipartisanship” in a “destructive and partisan” environment. When asked, however, he dodged questions about the Schumer amendment and the ensuing tumult in the committee room. “I want to talk to Senator Collins,” Lieberman said. “I am in the process of trying to educate myself.”

Though it was not yet lunchtime, Lieberman found himself in the middle of a partisan Catch-22, forced to choose between the compromise bill he had brokered with his Republican partners, and a Democratic proposal that seemed designed to paint Republicans as soft on homeland security. “There is a real confusion on terminology here,” Lieberman said of the Schumer proposal.

By the time lunch ended, any semblance of bipartisan cooperation had long since dissipated. Over on the House side of the Capitol, Republican Majority Leader John Boehner had speculated to a reporter that Democrats are “more interested in protecting the terrorists than the American people,” a quote that was repeated by reporters for the reactions of senators in the hallway. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada appeared before the television cameras to denounce President Bush’s Monday night speech commemorating Sept. 11 as partisan “finger pointing.” “We had a wonderful opportunity last night to listen to the president bring people together,” Reid said. “He didn’t do that.”

But Lieberman, one of the last bipartisan champions in the Senate, soldiered on. At 3 o’clock, he appeared as scheduled with other senators to commemorate the new painting of the Connecticut Compromise, an oft-forgotten turning point in U.S. history. The compromise, which occurred before the Constitutional Convention, proposed a bicameral legislative branch, the House and the Senate, a deal that satisfied both agricultural states with scant population and the more populous states. “That work was the work of compromise,” Lieberman told the hundred or so history buffs in attendance, again emphasizing the day’s theme. “In this capital these days, some people speak of compromise as if it were surrender.”

A few minutes later, Lieberman was again surrounded by reporters asking about the hard partisan realities of the current legislative session. A reporter asked if he worried the port security bill would get bogged down by the partisanship he so disdains over the coming days. Though a reception was just beginning to commemorate a harmonious day in the 18th century, the senator stopped to acknowledge the present. “I must say,” Lieberman allowed, “I am a bit concerned about it.”

The loophole, backed by the National Rifle Association, allows the purchase of firearms at gun shows without background checks. The Democrats’ original proposal, an amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill sponsored by Sen Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., would have closed the loophole. Only six Republicans supported the Democrats’ original measure, however, and it lost in Wednesday’s vote, 51-47.

Thursday, after taking a drubbing from President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno, the media and many of their constituents, a dozen or so Republican Senators — including Oregon’s Gordon Smith, Illinois’ Peter Fitzgerald, and Maine’s Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe — converged on the floor of the Senate. They angrily told Republican leaders that they wanted to see a Republican solution or were considering switching their votes to the Democratic proposal. Smith went so far as to complain that he had been “misled” on the vote.

In response, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., quickly began working with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah, and Larry Craig of Idaho, an NRA board member, to close the loophole with a compromise amendment.

The Hatch-Craig-McCain amendment passed, but Democrats argued that it still had numerous loopholes with which they could not go along. Seven Republican senators — Smith, Fitzgerald, John Chafee of Rhode Island, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Craig Thomas of Wyoming, Fred Thompson of Tennessee and John Warner of Virginia — also voted no. Some thought it went too far; others thought it didn’t go far enough. But most Republicans backed the amendment, and the Republican leadership charged that the Democrats were “politicizing” a sincere attempt to close the loophole.

The Democrats plead guilty as charged — off the record, of course. The Republicans “have to be publicly shamed off of their extreme position,” says one Senate Democratic leadership staffer. “This is the only way we have to effect some change here. Their position is indefensible; it’s a position the vast majority of Americans don’t share.”

For the first time in a long while, the Democrats in the Senate feel like they have the Republicans on the run, and they’re not about to let the moment pass easily.

“If you’ve got to eat crow,” Lautenberg said on the Senate floor, “you’ve got to eat it when it’s warm.”

“You see them on the Senate floor, running around with their tails between their legs,” says the Democratic staffer. “They’re getting the shit kicked out of them in the media and they know it; they’re in complete disarray. Basically, the country is seeing just how beholden the Republican caucus is to the NRA. That’s an important lesson for the country to learn.”

Images of Littleton have been looming large throughout this debate. All four firearms used in the massacre at Columbine High School are said to have been purchased at gun shows, where, if you have the cash, such guns are as readily dispensed as Twinkies. “For the sake of our children, I hope the Senate changes its mind and does the right thing,” President Clinton had said.

The momentum in support of gun control seemed to strengthen late this week. On Friday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., won support for her amendment banning the importation of large ammo clips for assault weapons.

The Republicans are still in charge, however, and the GOP pushed forward a provision safeguarding Internet sellers of explosives and guns from criminal investigators as long as the sellers didn’t know that buyers meant to commit criminal acts.

The whole bill might still vanish altogether anyway. Majority Leader Trent Lott is rumored to want to remove the Juvenile Justice Bill from debate. Lott has scheduled a “cloture” vote for Tuesday morning, to proceed with the bill on Y2K litigation liability reform. Democrats fear that, if the Senate proceeds with debate on Y2K, they’ll never return to juvenile justice, which is one loser of an issue for the GOP majority. For that reason, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle is said to be whipping each and every Democrat to oppose Tuesday’s cloture vote.

“I think the issue still has some legs,” says the Democratic staffer.

But besides Sensenbrenner’s amusing performance, there was almost no reason to watch the proceedings. They provided little clue to the only real question at issue: When will the acclaimed bipartisan agreement on trial proceedings last Friday break down? The truly significant event of recent days — and the one that points to the direction of the rest of the proceedings — was Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott’s decision earlier this week to sidestep the original agreement by coordinating with House Republicans on the issue of witnesses.

In a move that many Senate Democrats see as a violation of the bipartisan agreement, Lott appointed a three-man committee made up only of Republican senators to coordinate standards for deciding how and when witnesses should be called. The committee is made up of Jon Kyl of Arizona, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Jeff Sessions of Alabama — each of whom have publicly called for a trial with witnesses. Senate Democrats were later invited to join the committee — as was the White House — but both declined. Both sides may argue over who is to blame, but the important point is that both sides have parted ways.

The reality is that bipartisan proceedings are all but impossible, because the underlying legitimacy of the trial itself is hotly disputed. Stung by Lott’s original attempt to organize a short trial without witnesses, House managers have stepped up their lobbying for a so-called full trial. Anything short of that would hang them out to dry, they argue, and cement the impression that the House decision to impeach the president was a rash and reckless move by a willful partisan House. That argument has gained some currency with Senate Republicans. So the GOP House managers have been pushing the Republican senators ever more aggressively to press for a full trial, not only with witnesses, but potentially with witnesses like Kathleen Willey, the former White House volunteer who was allegedly groped by the president in the Oval Office. The New York Times also revealed that the House managers tried to speak with Lewinsky, but were rebuffed by her lawyers.

Senate Democrats are beginning to realize that getting the votes to dismiss the charges against the president will be an uphill struggle at best, as will efforts to block the testimony of witnesses. John Chafee, the long-serving Rhode Island Republican, is the prototypical Northeastern Republican moderate. And he signaled over the weekend that he believes some witnesses should be called. So do Maine Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and the normally moderate Specter.

This all puts the Senate Democrats in a funny position — similar, but significantly different from that which their House colleagues faced in late December. If the upcoming votes on dismissal and witnesses come down to party-line votes — as the shenanigans over witnesses seem to foretell — there will be little the Democrats can do but grin and bear it. With a mere 45 votes, Democrats can do nothing to affect the course of trial without a half-dozen defections from the other side. They can, of course, guarantee an eventual acquittal for the president — as long they do not suffer massive defections from their own caucus, something that seems unlikely.

That means that while Clinton will almost certainly be acquitted at the end of the trial, the Lewinsky crisis itself will almost certainly drag on. The trial’s legacy won’t be truth for the nation or vindication for the president, but bitter partisan division. The real verdict on this whole sordid mess will only be rendered when voters return to the ballot box.

The devil is in the details, they always say. Upon further reflection, both sides now have to view the details as a map to the river of no return. We should have known. When Ted Kennedy and Phil Gramm are crafting bipartisan treaties, the apocalypse is upon us.

To begin with, the deal stipulates that the House managers have 24 hours to present their case and then the White House gets 24 hours. Sounds easy, but the mind games are getting good. If you start on Thursday, when, politically, do you want to get done? Republicans are playing cat and mouse. Maybe they’ll use their whole 24 hours and maybe they won’t. In truth, they’d like nothing more than to make the Democrats start their defense on Saturday — and yes, right now they’re talking about working on Saturdays — lined right up against the NFL playoffs.

Once the 48 hours of testimony and presentations are complete, the senators will turn to the question of whether to call witnesses. Given the Bible-size Starr Report and its appendices, the House Judiciary Committee’s report, not to mention every major news outlet’s accumulated wisdom for the past year, one has to wonder what nuggets of wisdom the witnesses are expected to reveal. But sex sells, and Republican senators seem determined to bring us Monica Lewinsky, up close and personal.

To get to the witnesses, two motions will be filed. First, a motion to dismiss, and then a motion to issue subpoenas and depose witnesses. We spend our hours now arguing in back rooms and at dimly lit tables about what the motion to dismiss will look like.

Remember this: The wording of that motion, and how many votes it gets, will be the only thing that ends up mattering. Here’s why:

Democrats need to look like they tried to be impartial. Republicans may end up needing a censure framework. So Democrats will seek a motion that says one of two things: First, even if the facts as alleged are true, the president’s acts are not high crimes; or, second, that we’ve taken a look at perjury and obstruction of justice and it doesn’t seem to us that those crimes occurred.

Democrats have got to craft language that gives them cover: We looked at the evidence, and there’s no reason to go on — in words that will hold all, or almost all, 45 Democrats. Clinton’s party could split on how tough on the president their language should be. But if they manage to hold together the caucus, Democrats will say to Republicans: “Look, you’ll never get a two-thirds vote to impeach, and so this should end. Let’s censure.”

Republicans can either make a deal or go to war. And all the evidence indicates they’ll go to war — if war means a protracted trial. All the crowing about how the Gramm-Kennedy agreement built in an escape hatch, which would let the Senate end the trial after the 48 hours of presentations, ignored the fact that the Democrats will never get six Republican votes to end the trial without witnesses. Even moderates like Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who may not ultimately vote to convict the president, are saying they think the matter warrants witnesses.

And conservatives are determined to refuse a deal, and have the long, drawn-out trial. Their party approval rating is already the lowest in recorded history. Their best option may be no conviction, but no censure, either. Then the public would be mad at every politician in Washington.

When the motion to dismiss fails, as it inevitably will, the president’s lawyers will go to war. They will call every witness they can, contest every point and make the trial bloody. It’s what they are trained to do. Democrats can’t want that. They have won the first rounds. They have the public on their side, according to polls. Their elder statesmen will beg the White House to “just hang in there, we have the votes.”

But trained attack dogs don’t play just to stay ahead in the polls. Their job is to go for the throat and bloody the opposition. Then we get to the best part: While the bipartisan agreement was praised because it seemed to force the Senate to vote on a package of proposed witnesses, not judge each witness one by one, that all may fall apart. It’s now possible the Senate could end up voting on each witness, up or down. And that will be a nightmare.

Like everything in Washington, Friday’s agreement amounted to another lawyer and lobbyist protection act. The way I figure it, each potential witness will need lobbyists and lawyers, both for and against. We could see unprecedented campaigns and alliances. The Christian Coalition will mobilize on behalf of calling Monica Lewinsky as a witness, the first time America’s biggest Christian lobby came out behind a purveyor of oral sex. The AFL-CIO could oppose calling Bettie Currie, rising to the defense of a besieged federal worker. The NAACP will attack the focus on Vernon Jordan, whose only crime is helping the president’s friends — Lewinsky, Web Hubbell — find gainful employment.

Meanwhile, we can’t introduce any bills, nor have any hearings, on anything other than impeachment. After Jan. 19, we may be allowed to have hearings in the mornings, but not in the afternoons, meaning nothing will get done. If we do end up in a long, bloody trial, look for the Democrats to object to anything else moving except the trial. It could be a long, hot winter. Or is that spring?

I am canceling my April vacation plans. June looks good.