John Ashcroft made big news with his terror threat warnings earlier this week. The press conference left Americans with several key questions: Why were we being warned when local and state law enforcement officials indicated that they received no updated intelligence or calls to action? Why were Mueller and Ashcroft warning us of something dramatic while Ridge was downplaying the news and while the administration was making it clear that there would be no change in the terror alert status?

And then there was another equally vexing question. Why was Ashcroft making the announcement in the first place? Isn’t that now the job of Ridge and the Dept of Homeland Security?

Update: At first I was tempted to echo many others and suggest this may have just been an election season move. But according the latest reports, it could have be worse than that.

The election to decide whether a first term president will get a shot at a second often comes down to one key factor: The incumbent. Couple that with a few other issues (the media noise focused on Bush, the early stage of the race, the level to which some on the left are consumed with a hatred of Bush that makes Kerry nearly irrelevant, the lack of a Kerry running mate, a somewhat careful Dem campaign so far, and of course, Fantasia) and it’s not at all surprising that many more people are decidedly against Bush than decidedly for Kerry.

Taegan over at Political Wire provides an interesting summary of recent polls:

Percent still undecided on Bush, Kerry:

Zogby: 1%, 21%

Quinnipiac: 2%, 16%

Newsweek: 8%, 14%

Annenberg: 12%, 21%

CBS News: 16%, 35%

At this point (pre-convention, pre-debate, pre-summer), these numbers probably aren’t that bad for Kerry. But it is critical that they change over the next few months. I continue to believe that, while the incumbent is to a certain extent the star of any re-election bid, a just say no vote will not be enough.

As I touched upon in my earlier post On The Fence (scenes from the campaign’s front lines), it’s important that Democrats acknowledge that this definition issue is quite real and quite important.

It’s also worth noting that the undecided numbers in the Kerry column are decidedly bad news for the President’s campaign crew. They’ve spent an unprecedented amount of dough trying to get people to decide that Kerry will not cut it. So far, the payoff has been, I’m sure, less than they had hoped for.

Ultimately, the biggest question facing both sides of the election might be: How could anyone be undecided about anything or anyone at this point?

The true believers were decided at birth. The believers have been decided since Florida. The sort of believers have been decided since Iraq. Even the “I caught a bit of the news while flipping between the WWE and Family Feud reruns on the Gameshow Network” have decided by now.

The handful of people left are the ones who could determine the outcome of this election.

And there’s the rub. In the next several months, political insiders must figure out a way to convince the people who they can’t possibly understand to see things their way. Now that should be fun to watch.

The latest legislative and cultural crisis to hit the Big Apple is a heated debate over the sale of previously worn lingerie and underwear. For example: Someone wears a thong once or twice (or just tries it on in the store), returns it, and then store associates put the used and worn item right back on the sales rack.

The legal debate grew out of a television news piece suggesting that such resales are par for the course at major department stores. A Macy’s spokesperson countered (lesson: never be the one to answer a reporter’s question about underwear, it’s a no-win): “We train our associates to inspect the merchandise upon return and if in salable condition, return it to the sales floor. Any items that are soiled … are not returned to the floor.”

This sounds like some bizarre offshoot of the Patriot Act.

If we can’t soil our underwear and still get full value when we bring it back to the store, haven’t the terrorists already won?

Surprise, surprise. Bernard Law officially got a new gig in Rome. Maybe there’s an opening for Spanky the Clown as well?

E!’s CEO Mindy Herman may be on the way out thanks to the creation of a fearful environment for employees, brawls in parking lots and baby showers at the company’s expense (and for which employees felt compelled to buy items for her off of her baby registry).

Pay close attention to that combination of behavioristics. She’s likely to get booted out the door along with a sack of cash to the tune of about $20 million.

Suddenly that exclamation point makes perfect sense.