Over the last few days, it has seemed that nearly everyone in Washington has a Tim Russert story. The ubiquitous Meet the Press moderator was a presence in thousands of lives in the political and policy worlds. His untimely death is a profound loss in the capital.

I, too, have a Russert vignette. Our paths crossed a couple times, but I did not know him personally. One spring Sunday morning in 1996, however, I thought he was going to change my job status.

Like Russert, I began my career in politics and later crossed over to journalism. When I worked on Capitol Hill, I was press secretary for Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana. At one time, Lugar held the record as the most frequent guest on Meet the Press. He may still be in the pole position for the show, which is his favorite.

But Meet competitors are also good “gets.” In 1996, Fox News Sunday had just launched. On that spring Sunday, the show made a guest offer to Lugar. I accepted. Later in the week, Meet made an offer. I played it straight and declined because Lugar had already been booked.

On Friday, the Fox appearance fell through. I scrambled to get an offer from MSNBC, another fledgling cable channel at the time. So, everything seemed to work out—until Sunday.

The MSNBC show and Meet both used the same greenroom at the NBC studios. As Lugar was preparing for his MSNBC spot, Russert walked in. I slipped out, in reflexive self-preservation. I knew what was coming.

“Hi, senator,” Russert said in a booming voice that audibly conveyed his infectious smile. “I tried to get you on my show today, but your press office said you weren’t available.” My heart sank. Updating my résumé became a priority for the afternoon.

Lugar knew that his weekend TV booking had undergone some changes throughout the week. I just hadn’t filled him in on the gory details. Russert did that for me.

Thankfully, the senator was his usual reassuring, magnanimous self as we walked out of the studio after his MSNBC spot. I didn’t suffer a job setback over my error in the biggest-stakes game in Washington media—Sunday morning TV.

Tim Russert is the reason that Sunday public affairs programs have become central to American political life. His rigorous research and probing but respectful grilling of guests set a standard that may never be met again. Russert made news almost every Sunday—and most politicians longed to be seated across from him in what was the holy grail of TV appearances.

Those political leaders also were quick to issue encomiums when Russert died Friday, June 13. Two of the most prominent of them framed the debate that is engulfing Capitol Hill—and the presidential campaign—when it comes to workforce issues.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, both highlighted Russert’s Buffalo, New York, background.

“His rise from working-class roots to become a well-respected leader in political journalism is an inspiration to many,” Reid said.

McConnell said: “Yet for all his achievements, Tim Russert always remained tethered to his middle-class upbringing and the good and decent people who made him who he was.”

Reid calls Russert’s background “working class,” McConnell defines it as “middle class.” The divergent definitions speak to divisions between Democrats and Republicans on workforce issues.

You see the divide in the debate over extending unemployment benefits. The Bush administration and many Republicans want to make such a move only in states that have the highest unemployment rates. Democrats argue that economic difficulties afflict workers across the nation and the benefits should be expanded everywhere.

Republicans say that even with the recent jump in the unemployment rate to 5.5 percent, it’s still at a historically low level. Democrats assert that “the rising costs of living and rising unemployment make middle-class life less affordable,” in Reid’s words.

An April poll of 1,125 employees by the nonpartisan Employment Law Alliance shows that 87 percent of Americans “want their next president to focus on increasing the proportion of the workforce earning at least a living wage.”

That would imply that many people either don’t believe they’re making a living wage or they know someone who they believe is not making a living wage. They see themselves as working class, not middle class. But many economists say that Americans are making more money and living better than they ever have.

How people define themselves is influenced by the signals they receive at work. Are corporate executives explaining to employees the dimensions of business performance and profitability that affect pay? Do employees feel that they and company leadership are pulling in the same direction and making reasonable salaries?

Maybe things really are as bad as the Democrats say. Or maybe problems are being suffered in pockets of the country, as the Republicans say. Setting these definitions and proposing policies around them may well determine who the next president is.

If only Tim Russert were here to help us sort it all out.