The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, our summary of the news; two Spanish views of terror and politics; the latest on the attacks against civilian aid workers in Iraq; and some long campaign history from Michael Beschloss and Richard Norton Smith.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The investigation into the Spain bombings widened today, as the death toll rose again to 201. Police hunted at least five Moroccan suspects and detained another North African man. We have a report from Sarah Smith of Independent Television News.

SARAH SMITH: One Algerian who threatened deaths in a station two months ago has been arrested today. But five of the men identified by train passengers are not yet in detention. Although two are suspected of links to a known al-Qaida cell. Two Indians arrested on Saturday in connection with the mobile phone planted an unexploded bomb have now been released. The number one suspect arrested less than 48 hours after the train bombing. Police then emptying his shop of documents and computers looking for leads to what they believe is a much wider terrorist network. Despite the black mourning ribbon on the shop's door. Police are now investigating the possibility that the bombs packed into sacks and left on the train carriages may have been much smaller than they previously thought. They could have been as light as 5 kilograms each and what that means is that one person may have been able to plant several of them. There could be far fewer bombers the police are looking for than they previously understood. Eyewitnesses who traveled on the bombed train have now identified six suspects seen just minutes before the attack, including Zugam, who is leaning against the door. His link to Abu Dabu, who is currently awaiting trial for his part in the September 11 attacks is already known to police. But neither his shop where he worked with the two other Moroccans currently under arrest nor Zugam himself was subject to a surveillance order. As Spanish authorities continue their investigation here, across Europe security services know the next attack could be anywhere. Threats made against France tonight. At a special EU summit on Friday they'll focus on the very real danger now facing the whole of Europe.

JIM LEHRER: Also today, the U.S. commander in Iraq played down a threat by Spain's new leader to pull 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq. Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said even if that happened, it would not be a "significant military problem." The Australian foreign minister today urged Spain not to take that step. He said it's vital to show resolve against terror. Australia took part in the Iraq war, and still has 850 troops there. In Washington, President Bush met with the Dutch prime minister, and promised again to stand firm against terror.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: They'll never shake the will of the United States. We understand the stakes. We will work with our friends to bring justice to the terrorists. It's essential that the free world remain strong and resolute and determined.

JIM LEHRER: The Dutch leader said his troops would stay in Iraq, at least through June 30. That's when the coalition transfers power back to Iraq. We'll have more on Spain right after this News Summary. Gunmen in Iraq targeted foreign civilians again today. An attack south of Baghdad killed two engineers, one Dutch and one German, plus two Iraqis. The Europeans had been working on a water project. Yesterday, in Mosul, four American missionaries were shot and killed. Today three Iraqi policemen were killed there. We'll have more on the attacks on foreign civilians in Iraq later in the program. Saudi Arabia announced today police have killed the top terrorist on the Arabian Peninsula. The interior minister said the man was suspected of being al-Qaida's chief for the region. He was killed on Monday in a raid by security forces. Israeli helicopters killed at least two Palestinians in a missile strike in Gaza today. At least 14 others were wounded, including a two-year-old girl. Israelis said the attack targeted a building where Islamic jihad militants were hiding. They said it was retaliation for a suicide bombing on Sunday that killed ten Israelis. Earlier, Israel's security cabinet decided to step up military action in Gaza before a possible pullout. Police in Columbus, Ohio, searched today for a man wanted in two dozen highway shootings. The suspect was identified last night as Charles McCoy, Jr. The local sheriff's department said he had a history of mental illness. Since last May, the shootings have hit vehicles and buildings around Interstate 270, and other highways near Columbus. One person has been killed. The largest labor organization in the U.S. asked the Bush administration today to impose economic sanctions on china. The AFL/CIO filed a petition accusing china of violating workers' rights to gain trade advantages. The group said that's led to a record U.S. Trade deficit with china, and the loss of thousands of U.S. Manufacturing jobs. The Federal Reserve left a key U.S. interest rate unchanged today. The Federal Fund's rate stays at 1 percent , the lowest since 1958. It applies to overnight loans between banks. The Fed cited the sluggish job market for its decision today. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 81 points to close above 10,184. The NASDAQ rose nearly four points to close at 1943. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to what now, what next for Spain; targeting civilian aid workers in Iraq; and Beschloss and Smith on long campaigns.

FOCUS - TERROR AND POLITICS

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has our Spain story.

RAY SUAREZ: It's been a time of tragedy and political turmoil in Spain, a terrorist attack followed by an election bringing in a new government, one that promises to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. Two Spanish views on that that now. Salvador Sala is the Washington bureau chief for the Spanish network TV3, Television of Catalunya. That's the region surrounding Barcelona. Jose Gijon is a lecturer at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He's from Madrid. Well, Jose, in 72 hours from the time the bombs went off until the time the polls open, something major happened inside the country. What?

JOSE GIJON: Well, what I think is that essentially there was a large majority of people who were not going to vote who decided to go to the polls in order to punish Aznar government. It was particularly due to the voters realized although it was not clear who were those who had committed those atrocities in Madrid that it might have been related to war in Iraq. 90 percent of the Spanish population was against this war and they just -- instead of staying at home -- they decided to vote and to vote against Mr. Aznar. What is interesting to look at the polls from two days ago in Madrid is that Aznar's party support decreased by a little, it only decreased by 700,000 votes. What is very impressive is the increasing total participation which increased by 8.5 percent, giving Mr. Zapatero the highest support in the history of Spanish democracy --around 11 million votes. You can only explain that by people who were going to stay home and decided to vote for Mr. Zapatero considering that they didn't support Mr. Aznar's stance on the war in Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: So this was about Aznar's policy on the war. When you say punish Aznar and the government, punish them for what?

JOSE GIJON: For supporting a war which was... which 90 percent of the Spanish population was against. And although people consider that... many people consider that Aznar was going to vote, there was nothing to do and that's why the polls in my opinion were reflecting that Mr. Aznar had the possibilities to win or Mr. Aznar... Mr. Aznar's vice president who was heading the ticket of Mr. Aznar's party, Mr. Rajoit. I believe that means there was a long shift of people who were not going to vote that supported finally the socialist candidate. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the socialists carry out a very, very, very good campaign. That also... that means that Mr. Zapatero which was a relatively unknown figure, he was the new leader of the Socialist Party although he was there for four years and he attracted a lot of people. It is true that maybe before Thursday there was a slight advance of... a slight advantage in terms for the popular party but it's true that also voters were already attracted by Mr. Zapatero's message.

RAY SUAREZ: Salvador Sala, a lot of attention and a lot of the things that voters themselves have told reporters go to the behavior of the government in the hours after the bombing. What was the government doing that made them... public opinion break so sharply in 72 hours?

SALVADOR SALA: I think that that was really the key point of this election. I think that the Spanish people have the suspicion that the government doesn't explain the real things to the real people who were behind those attacks. They finger pointed at the first moment ETA. Of course we have a long story of attacks in our country by ETA, the Basque terrorist organization. But they don't... there are so many evidences that are not so clear and for that reason the people, well, there is a huge suspicion. I remember here in the United States the same day after the bombings there is one official quoted by writers here, an official of the American intelligence agency, who said, well, the multiplicity of these attacks the modus operandi, the way that that this... the coordination of this attacks remind us a lot of what happened in this country in Sept. 11. That means that there is a huge possibility in the first moments of these attacks for the main international intelligencia that were the work of al-Qaida or something under the umbrella of al-Qaida, could be the possibility of one of those parties from al-Qaida under the umbrella of al-Qaida.

RAY SUAREZ: But the government stayed with the ETA-Basque collection longer than the public believed them.

SALVADOR SALA: Yes, of course. I remember in explain where the last hour of the day before the election the Saturday night later when the minister of interior was in front of the press and he said, well,... hours before, he said, "we have some members from the two Morocco's and two Indians, but just before the Sunday he said al-Qaida could be a possibility that there is an Islamic group behind those attacks. I think it was the key point for the people the next day, the next hours went to the polls and cast its vote against the popular party.

RAY SUAREZ: The reaction outside of Spain to the prime minister designate's threat to remove the Spanish troops from Iraq has been very sharp and Jose Gijon, some commentators have said that basically the terrorists have been able to set Spanish policy in this regard.

JOSE GIJON: I don't think so. I think the socialists had already shown in previous governments a strong loyalty in this case to the U.S. policy as Felipe did in the first Iraq war and also in the Kosovo War where Mr. Javier Solano, who was the secretary general of NATO and also former socialist foreign minister also had a leading role in the Kosovo campaign. I believe that the new government which is entering now in Spain will be responsible and the only thing that-- and it will be loyal to its commitments until June 13. Then depending on the mandate, on the U.N. mandate, they will consider to withdraw the troops, but I don't think that the government right now will take the troops out immediately.

RAY SUAREZ: Was this part of the socialist campaign all along? Is it any surprise that this is what Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is promising to remove the troops?

SALVADOR SALA: No, it's not a surprise. This was one of the several issues in his campaign to pull out the troops from Iraq. But I try to put here on the table one thing. Imagine it never happened here in the United States, an attack just before the coming presidential elections. If Kerry wins these elections, what will be the headlines in the newspapers or in the broadcast news? Will it be the terrorists win the elections in the United States? I don't think so.

RAY SUAREZ: Well today the presidential spokesman Scott McClelland said terrorists must not be allowed to think that they influence elections or that they influence policy. That would be a terrible message to send. Is it clear that that message... that that is not the message being sent?

JOSE GIJON: I don't think so. This is my feeling. In my case as a Spaniard maybe this is the message that is given out in the rest of the world but the message on my feeling and the feeling of people that are around me in Spain is that the feeling was that the Spaniards wanted to in some ways punish an intervention which was unpopular and it didn't matter. Spain has been always sticking very highly to a fight against terrorism. We've been fighting both domestically and internationally. I don't think that the new government... that the new government has to be seen as someone that has been elected because there are some... there have been some influences due to terrorism. I don't think so. I think that the feeling in Spain is that it was a clear message to send to the popular party in Spain saying that they didn't want to follow... to continue with Mr. Aznar's policy. Maybe when you are... when you are abroad you may... there is a different message that have been taken but that was not the stance of Spanish voters.

RAY SUAREZ: Is the Spanish public clear on the distinction? Are they wedded, loyal to the war on terrorism and don't see that themselves as anti-American?

SALVADOR SALA: Well, in Spain we have in many places I think that there is this kind of feeling. But I think at the end of the day the Spanish people are against the terrorism. If you remember the day after the attacks they were... one- third of the country the people the citizens of the country behind the Spanish government, the Spanish government, and these huge demonstrations against the war. I think that is a clear message that the Spanish people is in this fight against the terrorism. But I think now the question will be how we fight this terrorism. The way as George Bush do: Hitting the enemy? Because there is a shadowy war against terrorism; yesterday I remember there is a general from the French army who was hunting bin Laden in the Pakistan borderline and he said, well, if we capture Bin Laden tomorrow, this war will follow because it's like the idol of nine heads. You cut one head but you have several heads on this war. You have several elections. Normally the elections have every four years an election. That will a long, long, battle, a long, long fight against terrorism. We have seen so many changes because we live in democracy here and many places. We have live in democracy. We will see a lot of changes. We will blame all of these changes, normal changes in democracy to the terrorists? I don't think so.

RAY SUAREZ: Salvador Sala, Jose Gijon, thank you both.

FOCUS - CIVILIAN TARGETS

JIM LEHRER: Now, the new targets in Iraq: Civilian aid workers. Gwen Ifill has that story.

GWEN IFILL: Today's attacks occurred on this road south of Baghdad. Two European engineers-- one German and one Dutch-- were victims of a drive-by shooting. Yesterday, a group of American missionaries came under attack in Mosul, to the North. Three were killed instantly after guerrillas opened fire on their truck. A fourth died later at the hospital, and a fifth remained in critical condition. A spokesman for the Southern Baptist International Mission said their workers understand the risks.

CLYDE MEADOR: Our personnel go in with the realization that there is danger. We certainly discuss that danger in security matters with them. We will continue to evaluate situation.

GWEN IFILL: Outside Hillah last week, two civilians working for the Defense Department and their Iraqi translator were shot dead at a makeshift checkpoint. The gunmen posed as police, and drove away with the victims' car. Polish troops later intercepted the vehicle and arrested the five Iraqis. U.S. officials called for an investigation.

DANIEL SENOR: This was a targeted act of terrorism, and as such, Ambassador Bremer has requested an FBI team be deployed to lead the investigation, working with the Iraqi police service and the coalition forces. But we believe that this act is under U.S. jurisdiction.

GWEN IFILL: The Americans-- Fern Holland, an attorney working to establish women's centers around Iraq, and Robert Zangas, an ex-marine-- were the first U.S. civilians working for the U.S. occupation authority to be killed in Iraq. No exact count exists of the number of civilians working in Iraq, but there are an estimated 100 non-governmental organizations on the job there. After last summer's bombing of the U.N. Headquarters in Baghdad, many relief organizations lowered their profiles in Iraq.

GWEN IFILL: So what does this latest violence mean for the people doing work the non-military work on the ground? For that, we're joined by two people who've been to Iraq in the past month. Zainab Salbi is president of women for Women International, a non-profit organization that assists women who've survived wars, including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. She was born there, and is now an American citizen. And Abdulwahab al-Kibb-Si is a Middle East program officer at the National Endowment for Democracy. It's a congressionally funded independent group, which supports democratic programs around the world, including Iraq. He was born in Yemen, and is now a U.S. citizen. So, how dangerous I guess I'll start because you are on the ground and you worked there, how dangerous is it right now?

ZAINAB SALBI: Things have changed particularly in the last week. That's when Fern was killed. That's when our staff members actually on their way to one of the women's centers encountered a lot of shootouts. At this point we are one of the very few who are still left in Iraq. We try to do a lot of security precautions. We try to have low key presence, grass root communities. We rebuild the grass roots support among... around our office and at this point even us -- even with all of these security precautions and all of these steps that we have taken -- we're at this point getting scared actually. Just half an hour ago I got a call from Iraq in which two of our staff, our American staff, are going to be evacuated temporarily. And we're trying to have a very low key presence at this point.

GWEN IFILL: How dangerous would you say it is there right now?

ABDULWAHAB ALKEBSI: Well, apparently part of the strategy of these terrorists right now is intimidation and fear. They've shifted targets right now to what we call soft targets where they're hitting civilians employees whether the CPA's or NGO's. It is dangerous but these people are a dedicated bunch of people who know that there are risks associated with working in conflict or post conflict areas like Iraq. The way they've approached it is different. We've had organizations approach it with the policy of just blending in, just work with the groups and be one of them and you'll be okay while others go with the protection and in humvees with military. Somewhere in between has to be a balance. You can't promote democracy and up can't help the organizations in there and you can't help on the ground when you're heavily protected, always with the military, yet we have to take some... we have to assess the way we protect our employees and the way we protect NGO's in Iraq today.

GWEN IFILL: Well, before we get to an assessment, let's talk about the situation that's still on the ground now. Is it dangerous enough that it's becoming impossible for you to do your work?

ZAINAB SALBI: Not necessarily. I mean, you still have to remember that people have to co-exist with that violence. So you still go about your own normal daily activities. The people who are... to a certain extent the violence is targeted against the people who are working with the CPA, with the coalition forces, with NGO's, and to a certain extent that is not... it's random. Sometimes you drive on a street and there would be a bomb.

GWEN IFILL: I just wanted to define some of the numbers, the letters we're using. CPA is a coalition provisional authority -

ZAINAB SALBI: Correct.

GWEN IFILL: -- and NGO's are the non-governmental organizations that we're talking about here. How do you co-exist with the violence?

ABDULWAHAB ALKEBSI: It's part of the job. When you go for democracy and have humanitarian work in area like Iraq violence is part of the game. It's part of what you expect. You have to adjust for it. You have to prepare yourself for it. You have to have some kind of policy where you're doing your work but at the same time you protect your most important assets. Your employees are the ones on the ground doing the job. You have to adjust for it.

GWEN IFILL: When the United Nations or the International Red Cross came under attack in Iraq their response was to pull back. Has that changed your ability to do your job, the job you're doing and the job you're doing in Iraq?

ZAINAB SALBI: We became more determined to stay. We feel that leave to Iraq is to succumb to what the terrorists want us to do, which is to leave the civilians - the civilians need us in Iraq. They are still optimistic. The vast majority of the people are still very optimistic about the future. Just to leave it right now would be a betrayal in my opinion to their own hopes and optimism about the future. So how can we balance between being true to our staff and protecting them but also not give up on our determination to help Iraq rebuild itself and help Iraqis rebuild their lives?

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Alkebsi.

ABDULWAHAB ALKEBSI: I agree 100 percent. We have four major organizations. We have several Iraqis NGO's who are working today in Iraq; we have not heard from one of them yet, thank God, that they're pulling out. What we hear from a majority of them is a way to look at security differently. They need to again now they're becoming targets. They have the soft targets. They are the target of intimidation and fear. These terrorists want them to leave. They want instability. They want chaos where they can thrive. They want them to leave. They are determined to stay. They knew they were associated with this. Now they have to work with it.

GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about the reevaluation of the security situation that you alluded to before. Does it help or does it hurt ultimately to be aligned closely with the coalition provisional authority?

ZAINAB SALBI: It doesn't necessarily help nor does it necessarily hurt. Two things: From the Iraqi population, and in woman for international we work with the very poorest communities. They really don't care where the money comes in. They really want their life -- sense of normalcy in their lives. They're not necessarily against American money whatsoever. They're more afraid that are you Israelis, are you whatever? In terms of American not at all -- it can hurt because... it can hurt because the terrorists, those who are doing the violence and I have to say they do not represent the vast majority of Iraqis. The Iraqis will tell you these people don't represent us. It hurts any association or affiliation with the CPA because the terrorists are targeting anybody who is a affiliated with that. Everyone is affiliated not only non-governmental organizations -- even local businesses are doing business with the CPA. This is becoming the main source of employment. Ministries are associated with the CPA. Local government affiliates are associated with the CPA. It's a bottleneck. I mean....

GWEN IFILL: In order to do businessyou have to do business with the Americans.

ZAINAB SALBI: Absolutely.

ABDULWAHAB ALKEBSI: These people, like interpreters for example, the ones who work directly with the Americans in the CPA have been targeted. We haven't heard a lot about them in the news. Since the signing of the transitional administrative law on March 8, we've had about a dozen of them who are targeted at pointblank range and shot and assassinated. They know they are the targets but these are the pioneers who want to change the country. Yes, there are dangers associated today with working with Americans, we have the same dangers associated with promoting democracy, there are the same dangers associated with rebuilding the country. We have to remember that these people who are committing these atrocities are a small, small minute proportion of the Iraqi people. Most of the Iraqi people are optimistic. Most of them want to change the country to the better. Again, they know the risks and they're willing to work with it.

GWEN IFILL: Do those risks, Ms. Salbi, involve death threats?

ZAINAB SALBI: As a matter of fact we just received one of our local staff members today just had a death threat in her home. She actually resigned. We were like -- the whole staff were crying. We're very sad about her decision. But we all have to make what we have to make. It's a very... she comes from a very poor neighborhood herself. There is a lot of financial consequences on her decision as well. But she said, listen, I have a family. I'm responsible towards my family. I have to do what I have to do to stay safe. A lot of these death threats are actually acted upon. It's not just threats.

GWEN IFILL: A few weeks ago one of the targets, the targets seemed to evolve from the military to as we saw in Karbala the Shiites and now to civilians. Do you feel caught up at all in the internal disputes going on in Iraq about who gets to rule and in the religious disputes as well?

ABDULWAHAB ALKEBSI: It all comes back, Gwen, to the strategy I was talking of these terrorists. The strategy was first to have these international big organizations leave. Unfortunately, they succeeded. On August 19 when they hit the United Nations headquarters and killed the special representative of the U.N. They succeeded in having them run away. Then they moved to hitting United States military targets and did not succeed in stopping them. They moved into hitting like what we saw in the North and in Karbala to try to form sectarian divisions. Luckily so far they have not succeeded.

GWEN IFILL: That hasn't worked.

ABDULWAHAB ALKEBSI: That has not worked at all. The Iraqi people know and they've told me personally at many different levels and from many different communities, these people want us to have a sectarian war. They want us to have a civil war and fight it. They know it. The Iraqi people understand what's going on. A big majority of them oppose it. We're in for the long haul. This is a dip in our road ahead to democracy. The most important thing is that the Iraqi people realize this.

GWEN IFILL: Is there still the possibility of pulling out at some point in the future? Do you always keep that in your hip pocket as an option?

ZAINAB SALBI: We have to do what we have to, too. We're responsible to both the staff as well as the people we're trying to help. With us, for example, the majority of our staff are local staff members. Security and pulling out and all of that is a daily conversation at this point. None of them want to close particularly after the death of their colleague, Fern, last week. It's like to leave to close our office is to betray what even fern had established with the women's centers and things like that. It's not only our decision from Washington. It's really their decision as well to stay and to cooperate and never give up.

GWEN IFILL: Daily conversation for you as well?

ABDULWAHAB ALKEBSI: I'm sorry.

GWEN IFILL: Is it a daily conversation for you as well?

ABDULWAHAB ALKEBSI: Yes on a daily basis. Of course. Part of the assessment is always whether we should pull out or not. We always talk about it. Is it not time to pull out? Luckily so far none of our organizations, none of our grantees have considered leaving. They know they're in there for the long haul.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Salbi and Mr. Alkebsi, thank you for joining us.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight a long presidential campaign history lesson.

FOCUS - THE LONG CAMPAIGN

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, what history says about long presidential campaigns, like the one that has just begun. First, remarks delivered today by the two major candidates. Senator John Kerry, the Democrat, met with veterans in West Virginia. President Bush, the Republican, spoke to small business owners at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I hope you're as optimistic as I am about the future of this country. The reason I am is because I know what we've overcome. We've overcome a lot. We've overcome a recession. We've overcome an attack on our country, an attack which, by the way, not only affected our spirit, it affected our economy. They estimate over a million jobs were lost after the attacks of Sept. 11. We overcame that, those attacks, because of the resolve of the American people. The American people refused to be intimidated by cold-blooded killers. We refused then to be intimidated. We refuse now to ever be intimidated by cold-blooded killers. And then we had a problem in our society in that we've had some people that were in positions of responsibility that didn't tell the truth. You might remember the corporate scandals that affected the psychology of the country. The capitalist system requires trust. There was some citizenry that forgot what it meant to be a responsible citizen, and they didn't tell the truth. But we passed tough laws, and I want to thank the people of Congress here who helped pass those laws. It is now clear that we are not going to tolerate any dishonesty in the boardrooms of our country. People will be held to account and we overcame that. And then, as you know, I made a tough decision about keeping our word and about making this country secure and the world more peaceful. And we went to war. And I committed, along with other nations, brave sons and daughters of our respective countries to deal with a tyrant that refused to yield to the demands of the world. And now he sits in a jail cell and Iraq is free. We marched to war, which affected the economy. And now we're marching to peace. A free Iraq is going to help change the world. A free Afghanistan is changing the world. The world is becoming more peaceful. In other words, we've overcome a lot. ( Applause )

SEN. JOHN KERRY: The president is busy trying to blame everybody except his own administration taking responsibility for what's happening in our economy. They say, "oh no, it was Silicon Valley that had a problem," or, "it was 9/11 that created the problem," or, "it was Bill Clinton who created the problem," even though he left them with a $560 billion surplus. But he's pushing it off on everybody else. Well, just today, either today or yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office came out with a report; 94 percent of this deficit has been caused by George Bush overspending and by a tax cut we can't afford. 94 percent of the problem is George Bush and his administration. (Applause) Second issue where they haven't leveled with the American people: They asked us to pass a Medicare prescription drug bill for seniors last year. They now tell us that that costs $135 billion more. But they wouldn't tell us that at the time, even though they knew it and there was a person who wanted to tell the story, who was ready to testify to the Congress, and they threatened him and told him he couldn't go out and do that at risk obviously of his job. There, they wouldn't tell the American people the truth. And just in the last few days, we have learned that the chief weapons inspector has publicly stated that this administration has misled America and the world with respect to what they said about the state of the weapons of mass destruction as they went through the process leading up to the war. Now ladies and gentleman, those are three major examples. They aren't all of them, at all. But those are the economy, the health of Americans and the question of sending young men and women off to war. And on each and every one of them, this administration has yet to level with the American people and own up to what we deserve with respect to the truth. ( Applause )

JIM LEHRER: And to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: With today's Illinois primary, John Kerry expects to clinch his party's nomination. But in fact, as we just saw, the general election battle has already been joined, a full eight months before election day, with vigorous on-the-stump campaigning and television ads from both Kerry and President Bush. Is there any precedent for such a long general election contest?

Some answers now from two NewsHour regulars and presidential historians, Michael Beschloss and Richard Norton Smith, director of the Lincoln Library and Museum. Welcome back to you both.

Michael, is there any precedent for a general election contest that's engaged this early with this much intensity?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Intensity and early, no. Although four years ago, Al Gore and George Bush clinched the nomination at about this point in the campaign and it didn't start out nicely. It began when Gore sent Bush an e-mail saying "congratulations, let's both renounce soft money." Bush replied with an e-mail saying, "no, thanks for the congratulations." He said, "this Internet of yours is a wonderful invention," referring to Gore's claim to be a father of the Internet. So even then, it started off very badly.

MARGARET WARNER: What would you add to that in terms of precedent here?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: I'd say it started off even worse eight years ago. Remember they had front-loaded the Republican nominating process. Bob Dole sort of stumbled across the finish line in March only to find that he was broke. He was... he had agreed to abide by the federal spending limits. He had no money. Basically, he was a sitting duck for the next three or four months while a lot of negative ads went on the air very effectively portraying him as a clone of Newt Gingrich. He finally, in desperation, as you remember, was driven to just change the subject to generate some free favorable publicity. He actually quit the United States Senate in an effort, a forlorn effort as it turned out, to reintroduce himself to the electorate.

MARGARET WARNER: It's not really new to havenominees necessarily wrap up their party's nomination this early or it has happened before.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Although not this early with the exception of four years ago. You know, Margaret, it used to be the case that you'd have a nomination campaign, usually lasted about six or seven months. Usually went down to something like the California primary or New York in June, and even if a candidate locked up a nomination in June, as perhaps Jimmy Carter did in 1976, Carter still had to go to a convention and make sure that everyone who had lost to him was on the same side and make sure that he had a good convention. What's extraordinary this time is that on both sides not only have Kerry and George Bush gotten these nominations, but they don't have to worry about things like that.

MARGARET WARNER: Richard, Terry McAuliffe, the head of the DNC, arranged this front- loaded schedule on the he said over and over that he didn't want the Democratic nominee... by the time he was selected... if the primary season went on too long that he would be either too beat up or too broke to really go up against President Bush. You gave one example already of Bob Dole clinching it early but being too broke. But was Terry McAuliffe right? Does history suggest that long primaries are necessarily bad for the eventual nominee and short primary seasons are necessarily good?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, national party chairmen, after all, are paid to worry about those things. Actually, there's a lot of history to suggest to McAuliffe that he's right. Michael mentioned Jimmy Carter in 1980 when he fended off the challenge from Ted Kennedy. Four years earlier, Gerald Ford, the last convention that really was a suspenseful affair was in 1976 in Kansas City. It was by no means a sure thing going into that convention that President Ford, an incumbent, although appointed, had the delegates to defeat Ronald Reagan. There had been an intense, some would say savage, blood fighting, ideological bloodletting within the Republican Party. There is no doubt that Ford was seriously, probably permanently weakened as a candidate for the fall. So you go back in '64, Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller or George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey in 1972. It's not hard to understand why party professionals, the party establishment including the money men would like to control this process as much as they can.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: But, you know, we voters need a longer process, I think. I abhor the system we've got because it is so brief because, you know, we really have to learn about these guys. Most Americans knew very little about john Kerry before mid-January. A choice was made six or eight weeks later, as good or bad as he may be as a nominee. The other thing is that people gain from these processes. You know, Richard was mentioning Gerald Ford., although it was a terrible experience running against Reagan and hurt him in other ways, Ford was a much more disciplined effective candidate because he had gone through that experience. Think about Al Gore. Had he had to really fight longer for that nomination four years ago, I think he would have been a better candidate in the fall.

MARGARET WARNER: Richard, there are examples of candidates who had long primary battles and it didn't seem to hurt them.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: No. In fact, the classic campaign against which all others, at least in the modern era, are measured is 1960. It's hard to believe John F. Kennedy announced his candidacy on January 2 of 1960. There were 16 primaries that year. He targeted seven because he knew instinctively the only way he was going to win that party's nomination was to take it away from the king makers who doubted that America was ready to elect a Catholic president. And so he focused on states like Wisconsin and, above all, West Virginia, a state that was 95 percent Protestant. By winning there, he demonstrated that he could, in fact, win. You had two conventions, both in July. Everyone understood what the starting line was for the fall campaign. The Democratic candidate invariably appeared in Cadillac Square in Detroit, usually in the company of Walter Ruther of the United Auto Workers. There were the campaign debates that year. The point is, in 1960 you're absolutely right, john F. Kennedy grew. I mean, the legend, the Kennedy legend predated his assassination. I mean, he really not only introduced himself to America that year, I think he won America's heart as well as the presidency.

MARGARET WARNER: And I'm thinking also, Michael, let's take 1980. Reagan versus the first Bush. I mean, that went almost all the way until June. Didn't hurt Ronald Reagan.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Didn't at all. In fact, it showed that Reagan had support in that party in a way that might not have otherwise and also by choosing Bush who had demonstrated that he was able to command the support of maybe 35 to 40 percent. That was an amazingly strong ticket because they represented the two factions of the Republican Party and it was very effective in the fall.

MARGARET WARNER: So they didn't go to the convention bitterly divided as in some of the other examples you both have given.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: That's right. That's why I hate this idea of these party chairmen so afraid of this long campaign. The cure for democracy is more democracy. We're founded the idea that when these candidates fight with each other, you get better candidates and better governments.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, Richard, history does have examples of when somebody sews up the nomination fairly early but then doesn't do anything between then and the convention, that that can hurt him, are there not? I mean, I'm thinking your Dole example. What about Michael Dukakis in '88?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, that's true. Of course, Dukakis had kind of a continuing in some ways not a rebellion but something of an insurgency with Jesse Jackson. Certainly, it was more than a distraction. Richard Nixon, a lot of folks look at the 1960 campaign believe that he wasted the time before his party's convention. But I also want to say I think Michael has a very good point in terms of the role of the party chairman. There is also something very, very significant we haven't mentioned and that is the risk of this strategy because the fact is, you can wind up buying a pig in a poke. You have been in some ways rushed to choose a candidate in either party on grounds of electability. Well, what does electablity mean? It really doesn't mean anything. And so now we're in the next chapter, which is another kind of race, a race to be defined or to avoid being defined by your opponents.

MARGARET WARNER: Briefly Michael, one thing that is new about this is how quickly an incumbent president, President Bush, criticized John Kerry by name.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Very early on. At the other end of the spectrum, Ronald Reagan in '84, I think, mentioned Walter Mondale in a debate because he had to.

MARGARET WARNER: In October.

MARGARET WARNER: But even more than that Richard Nixon in 1972, when he was accepting victory. The first time he mentioned George McGovern's name was after the election had been won. I think what he said was, you know, you people who supported Senator McGovern should not get out of public life.

MARGARET WARNER: He finally deigned to say it.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: He deigned to say his opponent's name. Very different age from ours.

MARGARET WARNER: Michael, Richard, thank you both.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day. Spanish police said they detained an Algerian man in the Madrid bombings. And a Spanish newspaper reported at least five new Moroccan suspects. And gunmen in Iraq killed two European engineers, a day after another attack killed four U.S. missionaries. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.

5

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Tuesday, March 16, 2004