The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a Newsmaker interview with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; a sampling of presidential campaign TV ads; some last week election thoughts from David Broder, David Brooks and Tom Oliphant; Bush and Gore campaign speeches; and a one-on-one debate about the Gore versus Bush choice between Robert Woodson and Michael Eric Dyson. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The presidential campaign went into its final full week today. Vice President Gore wrapped up a bus trip through the battleground states of Michigan and Wisconsin. At a rally this morning in Muskegon, Michigan, he said the country faced a big choice in a close race.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: This election, as I say, represents a fork in the road when it comes to our economy. We can build on our prosperity and make sure it enriches all of our families and not just the few, or we can squander this moment and lose the best chance in a generation to secure the next American century.

JIM LEHRER: Governor Bush said he was excited and energized today as he campaigned in another close state, New Mexico. At a stop in Albuquerque, he also said the nation had an important decision to make. He said he offered something positive.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: My opponent can fought bring America together, because he practices the politics of division. Hetalks of ripping the lungs out of political opponents. He scares the elderly for political gain. If you try to win at any cost, the price is high. You lose your ability to inspire our people and lead a nation.

JIM LEHRER: Bush later headed to California. There he'll try to rally votes in a state Vice President Gore is expected to win. We'll have excerpts from speeches by both candidates, later in the program tonight. The US Supreme Court turned away a challenge today to the National Tobacco Settlement. It refused to consider an Oklahoma case that accused cigarette makers of illegally charging higher prices to pay for a 25-year, $246 billion settlement with states. That deal was reached in 1998 to compensate for the cost of treating sick smokers on Medicaid. In the Middle East today, Israeli Prime Minister Barak said the window of opportunity for peace with the Palestinians was closing. He said so in an address to parliament. He spoke after an Israeli security guard was shot dead in East Jerusalem. Elsewhere, the street fighting continued. The Israeli army said it planned to send specially trained guerrilla units after Palestinian gunmen, a new tactic. We'll talk with Secretary of State Albright about the Middle East and North Korea right after this News Summary. In New York City today, the Yankees were honored with a ticker-tape parade. They beat the Mets last Thursday to win their third straight World Series title. Thousands of fans lined lower Broadway as the team traveled to city hall. There they were given keys to the city. It was the first all-New York series since 1956. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Secretary Albright, campaign commercials, Broder, Brooks and Oliphant, Gore and Bush campaign speeches, and a one on one.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: We go first tonight to the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. She has just returned from a trip to North Korea, the first US Secretary of State ever to visit that Communist nation.

Madame Secretary, welcome.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Good to be with you, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: Did you accomplish what you set out to accomplish in North Korea.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I did, because I wanted to obviously meet with Kim Jong Il, a leader with whom no American official had met. President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea had met with him. But I had a chance to meet with him and talk with him, as it ended up, for almost twelve hours -- six official hours and then various dinners and performances. And the point was to try to see how we could significantly reduce the threat from the missiles that the North Koreans have been producing. And I think that we have been, in a step-by-step way, been able to open some doors. The work that I did is now going to be followed up by meetings with technical experts, and we're going to take it step by step.

JIM LEHRER: What did he say about the missiles?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, he's basically prepared to look at some kind of an exchange in terms of this idea that he actually originally had raised with President Putin about if we would launch some peaceful satellites for him instead. But he basically, I think, is prepared to take some important steps. We have to test it. We have to make sure that these aren't just words. But I think it's very important, Jim, to put this into context. You know, we were at war with North Korea 50 years ago. Since then we have considered it among the most dangerous places in the world. We have 37,000 troops on the Korean Peninsula. It's a remnant of the Cold War, and if we have an opportunity to break this last barrier, I think it will be a very important step forward, and we need to keep pursuing on a very careful way.

JIM LEHRER: What's the state of intelligence on the missiles and what North Korea has, what threat they pose to Asia and even to the United States?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think we have pretty good intelligence on it. Obviously I can't discuss that, but....

JIM LEHRER: A serious problem?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think we have thought we had a problem with their potential of the nuclear programs and through the agreed framework that we worked out in '94, we were going to freeze their fissile material programs. And now we have had a missile test moratorium with them for the last months. And we want to now make sure that we can significantly reduce the threat in a more permanent way.

JIM LEHRER: And you came away after these 12 hours with Kim believing that he wants... He will do that?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, this is what we have to test. I mean, I think that the information on him was kind of scattered, and it wasn't until Kim Dae Jung went and said that he had some very important discussions with him and found him to be somebody that he could talk to, that was rational, pragmatic. I found the same thing. Basically, you know, we've had such weird stories about him, but it turns out that we had very good discussions.

JIM LEHRER: Where did those stories come from, that he was an irrational man who you could never have the kind of conversation you just did?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think this is a hard thing to assess, Jim. I think it's conceivable that there were periods that this was what he was like. But it has been six years since his father has died. He is in charge of what is called kind of a hermit kingdom. And we had... he listened very carefully. He didn't lecture me. I went through all my talking points with him. And he gave rational answers. And he seems pragmatic. Now, I think that he clearly has some very serious economic issues, and I think it's worth us probing and testing. I made a big point of saying that these glasses that I have are not rose-colored. And I've spent my whole life studying communist systems, so I know what we're dealing. But I think it's really worth exploring.

JIM LEHRER: Did he seem informed about the United States and the rest of the world?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: He did seem informed. He also told me he had three computers in his office. He watches a different television network -- and stays informed. He says that he reads....

JIM LEHRER: Does he watch CNN?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: CNN. He said he did. And I did find him informed. We talked about regional issues. I can't say I kind of gave him a test, but we did have pretty wide-ranging discussions.

JIM LEHRER: Did you come away with the impression that he really wants to have a good relationship with the United States?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think he would like to above all have a relationship with....

JIM LEHRER: Did he say why?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think basically he sees us as the major power, but we believe it's very important also for us to go in parallel with the South Koreans -- Kim Dae Jung who really started this -- and with the Japanese. So we have had very, very careful trilateral discussions, where we all three of our countries are very careful about taking each other's interest into concern.

JIM LEHRER: How did Kim Jong Il talk about South Korea?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: He talks about it in different ways. I think he feels a certain amount of competition with it, obviously, but he talked about the fact that it was important to think about the future of the peninsula. He was not hostile. And he was not hostile towards the United States - so -- competitive I think is the right word. And he does see, I think, the United States as... he understands from what I got that we have a place in East Asia.

JIM LEHRER: Now, while they've been developing these missiles, two million of their people have died, by most estimates, maybe even more than that, of famine. Did you talk to him about this -- why his people are starving and why he's putting his none in missiles rather than in feeding them?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, we talked about his economy, and I think that here he believes that something needs to be done. He basically talks about the drought and the problems that this has brought for his people and the fact that they need food to feed the people. He does not, I think, take personal responsibility for it: But he certainly knows that the economy is not working, and they submit requests to the World Food Program. I went to a World Food Program place, a kindergarten, where they were feeding children with American food. And that was very heartening.

JIM LEHRER: But he doesn't sit around and say to you, "oh, our Communist system isn't working. Please help us turn into this into a democracy so we can feed our people"?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: No.

JIM LEHRER: None of that?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: None of that, although he does say that he's interested in other economic models. Look, I don't buy... he was non-ideological -- if I could put it that way. The discussion was not an ideological one, but we have a long way to go, Jim. I mean, he hasn't spoken to people openly, and I think that it's... on what we care about, and I raised all the issues with him. I mean, whether it was about human rights or terrorism or POW/MIA exchanges, all the issues that we have on our agenda. But we did focus on the security issues.

JIM LEHRER: I spoke to a reporter who was on your trip, and she talked about this incredible evening that you spent in the stadium. There were 100,000 people on the field, and then another 150,000 watching. What was that like? Was it all a tribute to socialism and all a tribute to the leader, wasn't it?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: It was a repeat of their performance for the 55th anniversary of the Worker's Party. And it was a feat in terms of pulling together people, you know, it's what a totalitarian system can do, make everybody dance in tune. But I think that it was something that he was proud of, that he took me to. I thought it was interesting to watch. But as I said, I wasn't fooled by how he had gotten there.

JIM LEHRER: Were you uncomfortable sitting there?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Sure, absolutely. But, you know, one of the things, when you go to a country and the leader of the country takes over your entire schedule, which he did... I wasn't supposed to see him until the second day, and all of a sudden he said that we would have an appointment that afternoon, and that he had cleared his schedule for me for the next day. We were supposed to go to some circus, and instead he said, "I want to take you to the show." So it's a little hard to say no. And I did sit there. And when I said I was amazed, amazed is kind of a neutral word. It is amazing to see a quarter of a million people all together and, you know, wild applause for him. But the performance was really quite remarkable in terms of people doing everything in step.

JIM LEHRER: Now, one of the things that was said before you went on your trip is that if everything went well, that President Clinton might go to... also go to North Korea before the end of his term. Is that still in the works?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, no decision has been made. I called the President from Seoul, and we had a meeting today actually. I really briefed him in some detail, and no decisions have been made. As my trip obviously was important in trying to clear away some of the obstacles, and now talks with Bob Einhorn, who is the Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation, is already on his way to Koala Lumpur, Malaysia for discussions with his counterparts. We're going to take this step by step.

JIM LEHRER: What would be the point of the President going?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think only if we were - you know, we'd have to see whether we were able to accomplish more. And here, Jim, I think we again, to remember, this has been a major threat to US national security, what's been going on in North Korea. And I think after a very careful process that former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry started a couple of years ago, we have followed this out in a careful way, and if we can in some way significantly diminish the threat of missiles, it's worth doing. And we're just going to see whether they follow through on what they said to me and whether they talk to Bob Einhorn and whether there is a value to the President of going. But no decisions have been made on that yet.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Let's talk about the Middle East. We just reported... as I just reported in the News Summary, Israeli Prime Minister Barak said today that the window of opportunity for peace with the Palestinians was closing. Do you agree with him?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I hope not, but I can understand why he says something like that, because of the violence that continues. We want very much for both the parties to live up to the agreements that they made with the President and President Mubarak and King Abdullah and Kofi Annan at Sharm El-Sheikh. And only the parties themselves can carry out their obligations. And we're calling on them to do that. What I have found interesting about Prime Minister Barak is that he comes back always and says that he would like to try the path of peace. And if you see the future for them is either... for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, it's the kind of horrible pictures that we've seen for the last two and a half, three weeks, or of trying to work out a peace. And so we will work until the last day to try to help them.

JIM LEHRER: Is it conceivable that this time there may not be a way to negotiate their way out of this, that these things are so intractable that you can't bring people into a room and say, "let's work this out"?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that clearly the last couple weeks have been very bad in terms of totally undermining whatever trust had developed between them. And I think when we were at Camp David this summer, and they were talking about these very serious issues, and now they're involved in this cycle of violence, it's a great tragedy: But I don't think we should ever say never. I think the problems have been there all along. There will be a peace ultimately and it will have the elements that we've all been talking about. And I so I think we need to keep pursuing it.

JIM LEHRER: What's the explanation for things to have gotten so close, closer than they've ever been toward peace, and then, boom, more violent than they've been in years?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I actually think one can say that when you actually get closer to peace and you open up subjects that people haven't talked about, that's where the extremists on both sides come out.

JIM LEHRER: Such as Jerusalem, for instance?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, that's clearly a very crucial aspect of this. Yet there's no way to have a peace that really works without talking about those issues. But I think... I don't think this is just kind of optimistic, but the truth is that because we came so close, I think those people who are the enemies of peace then decide that they don't want to follow through.

JIM LEHRER: But is there anything going on now that makes you the least bit optimistic that even the violence is going to stop anytime soon?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I am basically an optimist, as you know after all these years. But I think that the foreign minister of Israel is coming here on Wednesday. I'm going to be talking with him, Shloma Bename, and the Palestinians will be sending someone also later this week. And we will see. I think it just depends if they want to see a future of stones and bullets and rocks and funerals or whether we can somehow begin to look about a different vision. It's tough now, Jim. You know, there's no question. I'm not going to try to fool anybody. This is a very hard period.

JIM LEHRER: You use the word, "if" they see that in the future. Is there any reason to see anything other than that right now?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think the interesting part, and again, when I've listened to Prime Minister Barak, who went very far and was very would at Camp David, deep down he's always saying that he'd like to figure out a way to go to a peace process. And I think that the other side, there are numbers of them who say they want to work it out. I can't say that there's anything particularly hopeful going on at this moment, except that they are talking to us. They're talking to -- you know, they're talking to others who want to help. Other countries want to be helpful. The Europeans and Kofi Annan wants to be helpful. And we all sat together at Sharm el-Sheikh just ten days ago.

JIM LEHRER: What's your reading on Arafat's desires at this point?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that he's been saying some things that are very difficult to swallow in terms of kind of wanting to keep fighting. But I hope very much that he will exercise more control, and he should and he can and that we can get back to a peace process.

JIM LEHRER: There's no question in your mind that he could exercise more control?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I believe that he can, yes.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Madame secretary, thank you very much.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Thanks a lot, Jim.

FOCUS - AD WARS

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the presidential campaign, some TV commercials, Brooks, Broder, and Oliphant, Bush and Gore campaign speeches, and a one-on-one. Media correspondent Terence Smith has the ad report.

TERENCE SMITH: As the presidential campaigns hit the home stretch, their television ads are focusing on two central themes: Trust, and Governor Bush's record in Texas.

AD SPOKESMAN: He trusts government. I trust you.

AD SPOKESMAN: Texas air-- the worst in the nation.

TERENCE SMITH: The Gore-Lieberman campaign is also attacking the Bush proposals for Social Security reform. This ad, released two days ago, features Bob Ball, the Social Security commissioner of the Kennedy, Nixon, and Johnson administrations.

BOB BALL: I've looked over Governor Bush's plan. He takes one trillion dollars out of Social Security for savings accounts. But Social Security is counting on that money to pay benefits. His plan simply doesn't ad up and would undermine Social Security.

TERENCE SMITH: Also, for the Democrats, the AFL-CIO is hitting the Governor hard on health care and his credibility.

AD SPOKESPERSON: When Governor Bush said during the debate that he brought people together to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights, he knew in his heart that that was absolutely false. Nurses worked long and hard to pass this legislation and hold the HMO's accountable for denying medical care to people. He fought it every step of the way. His constituency was the insurance industry. That's why he vetoed it.

TERENCE SMITH: On the other side, the Bush campaign is taking a softer approach with commercials filled with music and smiling children.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: We need to raise standards in cur schools. We need more accountability and more discipline, and we need to stop promoting failing kids to the next grade because we've given up on them. It's easy just to spend more. Let's start by expecting more.

TERENCE SMITH: The race is so tight that in some states Democratic interest groups are trying to blunt the appeal of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. This ad is sponsored by the National Abortion Rights Action League.

AD SPOKESPERSON: Voting for Ralph Nader helps elect George W. Bush.

TERENCE SMITH: But this ad from the Republican Leadership Council uses candidate Nader to

project its anti-Gore message.

SPOKESMAN: Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.

SPOKESPERSON: Ask Al Gore why.

TERENCE SMITH: The group whose ad is getting the most media attention is the little-known Aretino Industries, a not-for-profit organization in McAllen, Texas. It spent a modest $60,000 to air this remake of "Daisy," an infamous commercial that tied Barry Goldwater to the threat of nuclear war in 1964.

LITTLE CHILD: One, two....

LITTLE CHILD: Six, eight, nine....

SPOKESMAN: Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four...

TERENCE SMITH: The original ad was withdrawn after one airing, but like the new version, has been replayed repeatedly by news organizations. The target of this ad, which the Bush campaign says it has not approved, is the Clinton-Gore administration.

LITTLE CHILD: Seven, eight, nine...

SPOKESMAN: Eight... Seven... Six... Five... Four... Three... Two... One. ( Explosion )

TERENCE SMITH: On the other side, the NAACP Voter Fund is also grabbing attention, with this graphic ad in which the daughter of James Byrd recalls the aftermath of his dragging death in Texas.

JAMES BYRD'S DAUGHTER: So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate- crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.

TERENCE SMITH: These ads and others are part of an air war that both campaigns and their supporters are expected to continue through next Tuesday.

FOCUS - ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes it from there.

MARGARET WARNER: And with the campaign heading into its final week, we get an update now from three veteran political reporters: David Brooks of the "Weekly Standard," David Broder of the "Washington Post," and in Los Angeles, Tom Oliphant of the "Boston Globe," who's in California this evening.

So David Broder, put these ads in some context for us in terms of the campaign. Are they reflecting the same messages we're getting from the candidates, or are they on a different track?

DAVID BRODER: They're a little bit harsher in tone, particularly on the Gore side than the candidate himself. But he's been hitting pretty hard. And on the Republican side, Dick Cheney has been doing very much the samething against Gore. But the context, I think, for this, Margaret, is that the country is torn two ways: People really would like to see some change and improvement in the tone of politics in Washington, D.C.. They're not nearly as eager to change policy direction. So Gore is trying to scare people into thinking that Bush would change the policy direction of the country, and Bush is trying to say to the people that Gore is not somebody who as a product of Washington is going to really reform Washington.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you see it that way, Tom? In other words, both of them, even the more gauzy ones, are actually negative in that they're trying to say something negative about Gore.

TOM OLIPHANT: To step back even further and have a much broader context, I don't think that the content in ads this fall in terms of dirty or negative holds a candle to some of the things we saw in previous years, particularly 1988. What I think Bush does is in states where it's kind of close, maybe he has a slight advantage, Ohio would be a good example, that's where you get the gauzy stuff -- bipartisan, bring us together, a little music in the background. But where it's close, he hits very hard on a theme that has worked very well for him, Al Gore will bring back big government. Gore, on the other hand, has, I think, scored very effectively in the last week or two with these ads on Social Security -- the one that ran just after the third debate, and now this new one with Bob Ball. He is, I think, David Broder is right, somewhat more harsh than Bush, but he's trying to raise the stakes, trying to make the choice stark for voters, and so it's natural the tone would be a little bit harder.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you see these ads, David Brooks?

DAVID BROOKS: I think they're much harsher on the Gore side. We have a whole new genre of ads this year, which is my opponent is a murderer. I mean, the daisy ad isn't -- is saying that but the Byrd ad, the NAACP ad is saying that. There is a radio or telephone conversation taped calls from the Gore campaign saying, "... With a woman saying, "you now, my husband died because Governor Bush was not a good Governor, didn't support the right legislation," which was... that's a real stretch. There's one in Michigan, Betty Stabenau, the Democratic candidate there saying, a woman saying, "my daughter died because Senator Spence Abraham didn't support the right legislation." This is a stretch. I'm for distortion and lying in ads, but calling your opponent a murderer really is a real stretch. I'm in favor of shaming. Let's bring back the Quakers. When Kwasi Mfume says, "I'm for civil discourse in our politics, this ad ought to be held up against saying, "no, you didn't practice that."

MARGARET WARNER: David Broder, are you trying to get in here?

DAVID BRODER: No. I was just laughing because I think the further down the ballot you go, as I've been traveling, the meaner the ads are. And I agree with Tom Oliphant that by comparison, these presidential candidates have been rather restrained this year.

MARGARET WARNER: All right.... go ahead, Tom.

TOM OLIPHANT: I am going to throw in one more fact. In a couple of occasions, I have found traveling the country that the presidential campaign has almost seemed to be like a race for Governor or even a further down the ballot race. Michigan is a great example. The Republicans have imported the image of Lee Iacocca, long since gone from Michigan to, read a few quotes from "Earth in the Balance" -- and suggest that Gore would ruin the auto industry. To reply, the Gore campaign in Michigan has put up on radio and possibly on television soon an autoworker from Flynt to come back at Iacocca. So we are seeing some examples of extreme localization in these commercials.

DAVID BROOKS: Another fascinating thing, at Brandon Center study at NYU -- released a report, fascinating thing, for the first time in history, the soft money, which is the party money, overshadows the presidential campaigns. So the idea that we have two organized campaigns of ads all being put out to fight each other is not true. We have decentralized it and privatized it. And we have hundreds of organizations all coming from different directions and totally messing up any sense of coherence that one might have seen.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. David Broder, let's go even broader now. Going into this final week, what's going to be the Gore/Lieberman focus?

DAVID BRODER: Well, their focus is basically twofold: One, trying to energize the Democratic base, which up to this point has looked a little bit slack and a little bit laggard in really getting into this campaign. And as you know, they're even making the big leap for them of allowing President Clinton out this week to try to talk to Democratic voters. The second theme of their campaign is to try to scare the people about the consequences of electing Governor Bush fought presidency. Interestingly, though, what they are not saying is that they are not making the argument that Bush in combination with a Republican Congress might lead to the kind of legislation that many independents would find unwelcome. They don't seem to be playing the congressional card, at least so far.

MARGARET WARNER: Tom, the Gore/Lieberman focus this week, and Clinton is coming your way in California, correct?

TOM OLIPHANT: So is Gore.

MARGARET WARNER: Which is a change.

TOM OLIPHANT: It's so strange. I continue to not believe that California is in play. In fact, I think Governor Bush's trip here today is more an example of his national strategy in the final week of pretending that the momentum is all his, that he's super confident, he's got the election, you know we're going to win -- perhaps to dispirit the opposition somewhat. But I talked to a leading Republican here who thinks that the trip to California for California would be "nuts" -- but that it does make sense in terms of projecting a national image of campaigning in the opponent's backyard. I think David Broder is absolutely right about Gore. It's raised the stakes, raised the stakes. And I think an additional little arrow in Gore's quiver this week has been Nader. I think Nader has been excellent for the Democrats' effort to mobilize their troops.

MARGARET WARNER: But is it damaging Gore's prospects in some of these states?

TOM OLIPHANT: At this point, because Nader has not contested the argument that there is, indeed, a significant difference between Gore and Bush. I think the Gore people have the upper hand. They're driving it very hard, right down to the street level. And I think in the final days Gore really ought to be thankful that Nader is around to prod his, as David put it, somewhat unwilling coalition.

DAVID BROOKS: I think that's kind of... I don't agree with that.... you know, Gore has this double front problem. He's got to win over the whiners in West Virginia who want to protect their hunting rights. He has to win over the Hippies in Oregon who want U.S. energy needs to be met by burning hemp oil And he's got these hippies and hunters - he's got them both.

MARGARET WARNER: The normal Democratic coalition is what you're saying.

DAVID BROOKS: But the only way he can do it... The only unifying thing is hitting Bush, which is what he's doing and which is why we're seeing the tenor of these ads. One of the interesting things, it's traditional to finish positive and to run the sort of ad we just saw of Bush, himself, no tie, dark shirt talking into the camera. Will Al Gore run an ad like that? That will be interesting. One suspects he, will but he's sort of been out of it. And in the ads, the Gore ads last week, it's been like a car ad without the car. Gore has hasn't been in it. I see Tom gesturing, so maybe he is running those ads.

PAUL GIGOT: Actually, the first one of those - exactly like Bush -- that's so standard, David, of Gore alone with the camera, I saw that in Michigan and Washington state last week. And I believe that there are going to be two more.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. David Broder, we haven't heard you on the Bush/Cheney strategy for this final week or sort of emphasis,

DAVID BRODER: Well, Tom Oliphant made one point earlier, which is that they are trying to create a band wagon psychology by being very upbeat in their stump speeches and in the presentation that they now have or would like people to believe that they have the momentum in the closing stage of this race. But the ultimate Bush argument for change in a time of prosperity and peace has to be to go back to that question of character. And that's why he is trying to make the case in his speech today and in the themes of many of the closing ads that he is a healing person. He is somebody that who might somehow apply balm to the wounded and really sort of frayed nerve ends of politics in the nation's capital.

MARGARET WARNER: David Brooks, yesterday both Lieberman and Tipper Gore went after Bush on is he up to the job, is he prepared. Now, how did you read that?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, that was an escalation. Like I'm saying, he's got this two-front war with these people. How does he persuade them to get out to the polls. They've heard the Gore proposal. If they were for the policies, they'd already be there. For those people, it has got to be a long, dark night is coming. This guy really can't handle the job. And that was an escalation of what we've seen. Joe Lieberman went further. He's sort of a more interesting case. He's come a long way in this campaign. He is now attacking Bush personally. He was shown the NAACP ad. He said to me, "that's just a statement of fact." To my mind, all the things that were attractive about Joe Lieberman, the independence, the integrity, have been lost in the campaign.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. David, David, and Tom, we'll leave it there. Thank you.

FOCUS - ON THE STUMP

JIM LEHRER: Now, two more campaign speeches by the leading presidential candidates. First, Governor Bush speaking this afternoon in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Under my proposal, every senior, without exception, will be entitled to the current set of Medicare benefits, but we will give them more options, letting them choose the coverage that is best for them. We will set Medicare on firm financial ground without raising the payroll tax. The Vice President says he believes in health care choices, and he's made yours for you. If you want prescription drug coverage, his plan forces you to join a drug HMO chosen for you by the government. You would be required to pay a $600 access fee each year. He's got a plan, and I've got a plan. But one thing they can't escape from is this: In 1992, they traveled our nation saying, "we'll reform Medicare." 1996, theysaid the same thing. Here we are in the year 2000, they're still saying the same thing. My opponent says, "we ain't seen nothing yet." And he's right. We haven't seen anything yet. We will build the military of tomorrow, investing in research and technology to extend our influence far into the future. My opponent favors outdated treaties over missile defense. My opponent says that any criticism of his unwise policy is somehow running down the military, but I have a message for the men and women who serve our country and their parents and their families and their friends: "Help is on the way." On principle, no one in America should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government. So we will reduce income tax rates for everyone. But my opponent, he wants your tax money for a reason. He wants to spend it on a permanently bigger government. Listen to this. He proposes the largest increase in federal spending in 35 years, three times more spending than Bill Clinton proposed. He proposes over 280 new or expanded federal programs, but claims they won't involve one more bureaucrat. You know what I think? I think he might be exaggerating. The wait has been long, but it won't be long now. We will confront the hard problems of our country with courage and honesty. And it won't be long now. We will apply new creative ideas to the job of helping all people, and it won't be long now. We will change the tone of Washington to get things done, and it won't be long now.

JIM LEHRER: And now, Vice President Gore speaking in Muskegon, Michigan, this morning.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: One week from tomorrow, our country faces a big choice about the future, one of the biggest choices that we have faced in decades. One week from tomorrow, Americans will choose a new direction for our country, a new path for our people. There's a lot at stake in this election. We are truly at a fork in the road. We have to decide. When I look to the future, I am filled with hope for our country. We've got a lot of good things going for Americans right now. There's never been a time of greater prosperity or greater opportunity for our future. But the future is not something that just happens by itself. It is something we have to make for ourselves together. We choose the kind of future that we have, and one day every four years, the people have an opportunity to make that choice, to speak more loudly and clearly, with more power than all of the special interests put together. Eight days from today, you have to decide between two very different visions for the future. Eight days from today, your one vote may well make the difference. Your one vote is more powerful on Tuesday, a week from tomorrow, than the voice of any powerful interest, more decisive than any campaign that can be waged. This election, as I say, represents a fork in the road when it comes to our economy. Let me be clear: Continuing our strong economy is my overriding commitment. Everything else depends on it. So I make this pledge: We will balance the budget and pay down the debt every year. And I will set aside one out of every six dollars of the surplus unspent to ensure that we can keep that commitment. Governor Bush has not made this pledge. He wants to change the very best things about the economic course that we are now on. He squanders the lion's share of the surplus, all that money painstakingly built up by the hardworking American people, in tax cuts aimed mostly at the wealthiest of the wealthy. As a result, he puts off paying down the national debt. His plan endangers the strength of our economy. And the resources are not there to invest in other urgent needs for our families. Consider the difference. For every dollar that I will invest in health care, he would spend three dollars on tax cuts for people who earn an average of $1 million per year. Those are very different priorities, and they'd have a very different impact on our country. For every dollar that I will invest in education, he would spend five dollars on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. In fact, he would give more in tax cuts just to the wealthiest 90,000 multimillionaires than all of the new investments he has proposed to make in all 90,000 public schools across the United States of America.

JIM LEHRER: Tomorrow the Vice President heads to the Northwest.

SERIES - ONE ON ONE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a one-on-one on who should be the next President of the United States. This last full week of the campaign, we'll hear several debates between people with strong views about the candidates. Gwen Ifill has the first.

GWEN IFILL: Joining me tonight, Robert L. Woodson, founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, a nonprofit research organization that supports neighborhood-based initiatives-- he supports Governor Bush; and Michael Eric Dyson, a cultural critic and professor at DePaul University in Chicago. His latest book is "I May not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr." He is backing Vice President Gore.

Mr. Woodson, why do you support George W. Bush?

ROBERT WOODSON: I support him because of his record as Governor in Texas. He has brought people together. He... Last time he ran, 40% of Hispanics voted for him, 25% of blacks did. As many Democrats voted for him, almost, as his opponent -- also for his support of school vouchers. We desperately need some reform in education. Also because of his support of faith-based organizations in his state; the state was about to regulate them out of existence-- Teen Challenge and Victory Temple-- and when this was brought to the Governor's attention, within eight months he signed into law a bill that would exempt faith- based drug- and alcohol- treatment programs from regulation, and so those are the real issues that I think... and Social Security reform, also, because Social Security reform is very important for black Americans because of our high mortality rate. It really represents a net transfer away from black Americans. So reform is needed, and I think the polls in the black community support education reform, vouchers-- 70% of blacks support it-- also Social Security reform, supported by large numbers of blacks. That's why I support Governor Bush.

GWEN IFILL: Okay, professor Dyson, same question to you about Vice President Gore.

MICHAEL DYSON: Well, I think that Mr. Gore possesses the requisite skills, intellectually speaking, in terms of his political acumen, but also in terms of the projects he has before him. He's already had eight years, working with Mr. Clinton, of trying to reform the economic structure of America so we can close the gulf between the have-gots and the have-nots. I think that, unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Gore's aim toward at least redistributing wealth among the middle class, and we hope downwards to those who are poor, in terms of health care reform, taking money out of the pockets of these big businesses, especially the insurance companies, which are gutting the infrastructure of so much of the health system, and redistributing the authority back into the hands of doctors themselves and into patients themselves. Also, I think what's very important about Mr. Gore is his ability to understand the kind of racial profiling issue that has been front and center in America so tragically, especially African-American and Latino people -- so that, not only signing an executive order, but making sure that the racial character of America reflects the true diversity of African American and Latino, native American and Asian American society, along with our white brothers and sisters. And finally, I think that, when it comes to reform of not only the economic inequalities that exist, but also reform of Social Security is very important, but what's also important, I think, is that Mr. Gore has in his mind to continue the unprecedented level of economic benefit that has been had in the last eight years. In that sense, I think Mr. Gore represents the best alternative and best chance for most of America to see a better day.

GWEN IFILL: In this final week of the campaign, we hear both candidates talking so much about why the other guy should not be President. Is fear driving this? Do you worry that Mr. Gore would not be good?

ROBERT WOODSON: Yeah. What bothers me about some of the scare tactics that are being employed by some of his henchmen-- the NAACP-- I think really viciously suggesting through this ad, showing a truck pulling a chain, with the voice of James Byrd, the young black man who was killed, dragged to death in Texas...saying that ..

GWEN IFILL: The voice of his daughter.

ROBERT WOODSON: His daughter saying that with George Bush, "every time I think about him voting against the victims' bill, that I see my father dying all over again." This is horrendous. The other thing that I resent is how the Democrats take the black votes for granted. They almost use them as a doormat. I was incensed to find Mr. Clinton and Gore going to the black church every time the Democrats get in trouble, they go to a black church on a Sunday morning, stand in the pulpit urging blacks to vote Democratic. They would never go to a Catholic church and interrupt Mass. They would never go to a Buddhist... I mean, excuse me. They would never go to a mosque, they would never go to a Jewish temple and stand up before people, but they feel free to do that in the black community, and yet if some of those same parents who send their children there wanted a voucher so they could start a school there, the Democrats would be screaming, "separation, church and state." But you never hear the church/ state issue when the Democrats get in trouble, run to the black church, and take over the pulpit.

MICHAEL DYSON: Well, here's the reality. First of all, Mr. Bush did refuse to sign into law a bill that would extend the existing bill in Texas that punitively assessed penalties against those who would hurt people because of their sexual orientation or their race. So when you hear the commercial that is being directed at the voters of America, the reality is that Mr. Bush has failed to extend his own concern about African-American people to a bill. Number two, Mr. Bush... I mean, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore going to the black church, there's an old tried-and-true tradition within African American culture. Two things: First of all, African-American people certainly overwhelmingly, 90%, vote Democratic, and that's for a reason. Are we assuming that they're unintelligent? No. Are we assuming that they understand that if they have been used-- and one would never deny that the Democrats have to a certain degree taken black people for granted-- but my God, that's better than being totally ignored and in a vicious way dismissed by the Republican Party. So I think that the Democrats have a better record in terms of speaking to the needs and interests of African-American people, number one. And number two, let's be real: If a bum-fumbling, half- articulate African-American person stepped up to the plate to try to run for the presidency, he would be or she would be overruled and outright dismissed. Here, mediocrity has been elevated to the level of enormous distortion in American society, and now Mr. Bush has a chance to be President. He obviously believes in affirmative action because he's being the beneficiary of it right now.

GWEN IFILL: Give Mr. Woodson a chance to respond.

ROBERT WOODSON: I think that this elitist notion that somehow...

MICHAEL DYSON: Skill...

ROBERT WOODSON: May I finish? That the Governor isn't smart enough: Most Americans understand that 80% of the people that start businesses in America tend to be "C" students. "C" students come to great universities like yours and endow it; "A" students come there and teach. And so I think most Americans would trust a honest "C" student to a dishonest "A" student.

MICHAEL DYSON: It's not about grades.

ROBERT WOODSON: Mr. Gore... ( Both talking at once )

GWEN IFILL: Let me step in.

ROBERT WOODSON: The presidency is about honesty, and he has proven not to be very honest.

GWEN IFILL: I want to give you a chance to respond. Let me ask about this integrity question. That's a question that continues to dog Al Gore. How do you respond to that?

MICHAEL DYSON: Well, I think, first of all, we can't determine integrity by, say, three debates. We can't determine integrity by sound bites. We determine integrity by the life record of a human being. You can't determine one inning here, one inning there. I wouldn't do that to Mr. Bush; I certainly don't want to do it to Mr. Gore. In other words, integrity is about the consistent life pattern that you put forth as a result of your own moral and ethical commitment, and as it relates to politics, what decisions have you made over your life? Now, for me, I could say the character issue is evoked in Mr. Bush's case when he's allowed a disproportionate number of African American men and Latino men to die on Death Row. That is indeed a character issue. Now, it's also a political issue. So I think to indict Mr. Gore's character and integrity and impugn his integrity by suggesting, because he did go to a Buddhist temple, because he made mistakes, he's not perfect... integrity is about understanding your imperfections in light of your goals and aspirations, and then making a whole out of your life, not reducing it to one thing.

ROBERT WOODSON: Well, let me agree with you one thing, that integrity is revealed by one's pattern. Let's just look at Mr. Gore's pattern...

MICHAEL DYSON: We don't have time to examine the patterns, but...

ROBERT WOODSON: No, I'm just saying, you used the word "pattern." Yesterday, Gore... Yesterday Gore announced before an African American group in Michigan that he was... supported... opposed to, rather, moving the embassy to Jerusalem, and then before, he goes before a Jewish group, and takes the opposite position. He stands up and says to the entertainment industry, "I will never invoke government to control anything you do," and then turns right around and says to another group, "if they don't clean up their act, I will get to the federal communications bureau... Commission and see that they do it."

GWEN IFILL: Give him a chance to respond.

MICHAEL DYSON: Well, to the latter accusation, because I'm not familiar with the former -- the latter accusation, Mr. Gore said to Hollywood, "I want you to clean up your act." He did say, "what I want to do is this: If you don't do it on your own, I'm going to bring some governmental pressure." There's a difference between civic conscience, where you deploy the bully pulpit of the presidency to say to people "do what I do." I happen to disagree with him on that issue, but the reality is, is that if Hollywood needs to be talked about and talked to, then the bully pulpit of the President should be used. He is not talking about restraining free speech through acts of censorship. But let me go back to this. The point is this, that most African American people, unlike Mr. Woodson, understand and intuit in their relationships to Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush that here is not simply a likable index, "is this guy more likable than that?" -- because if Mr. Gore comes off more wooden than does the affable Mr. Bush, what black people understand is substance. We're not about styles and shenanigans. What we understand is that the integrity of the political process is about what have you not only done for me lately, but what have you done over the life of your own commitment to public life? Mr. Bush can't even acknowledge that he would support affirmative action. Affirmative action is central to African American interests in this country.

GWEN IFILL: Ralph Nader, who is Al Gore's biggest threat right now in many ways, even bigger, some people say, than Governor Bush, has said that both of these candidates are dangerously alike, a pox on both their houses, and you begin to hear more and more voters saying that. How do you make the case against that?

ROBERT WOODSON: Well, I don't agree. I think they starkly differ on choice and education. Again, Mr. Dyson talks about the black community's support for affirmative action, the black... The black community is split on this issue, as any other group is. 47% oppose race-based affirmative action. Mr. Bush says he is for... for access, and his record in Texas speaks to that. So that, no, there is significant differences. Social Security reform, Social Security reform really represents a net transfer of assets from blacks to whites because we die earlier, and on the issue of racial profiling, nine blacks die every year at the hands... hate crimes; 9,000 die at the hands of other blacks. Now, what is the most crucial issue for black community, hate crimes or putting policies in place to change the culture of violence in our community that we're trying to do?

GWEN IFILL: You had the first word, you'll get the last word.

MICHAEL DYSON: Well, the reality is that this kind of rhetoric, which is inflated morally, certainly indicates that African American people understand black-on-black crime is a problem, but they also understand that economic inequality is the problem that creates vast wastelands of ghetto and lost opportunity. So what we're arguing for with Mr. Gore is that the possibility of living in a nation that looks like us, whose administration reflects our own diverse makeup, but also the basic fundamental premise that African-American people have always been committed to the political process in being fair and just and honest and open, and if we see in Mr. Bush the denial of that, the recognition that three Supreme Court justices will be appointed, potentially to roll back the gains that we have so hard worked for, the reality is that Mr. Bush does not represent the best interests of African- American people, and that's why we've got to go with Gore.

GWEN IFILL: I know you have more to say, but we're going to have to leave it there. Professor Dyson and Mr. Woodson, thank you both very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday: The presidential campaign went into its final full week; and on the NewsHour tonight, Secretary of State Albright said she thought North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was ready the take steps to reduce his country's missile threat, and she said she hoped Palestinian leader Arafat would exercise more control over the street fighting. A program note before we go. "The Great Campaign of 1960," a documentary about the Kennedy-Nixon presidential race, airs tonight on most public television stations. The reporter is PBS veteran Paul Duke. Please check your local listings for the time in your area. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.