The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in New York.

MS. WOODRUFF: And I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington. After our summary of the news this Wednesday, we have Newsmaker interviews with the new co-managers of Ross Perot's still unannounced Presidential campaign. Then Gergen & Shields are joined by three other political wise people to size up the election now that the primaries are all but over. And essayist Roger Rosenblatt looks at women in politics. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Ross Perot hired two professionals today to run his campaign for President. Ed Rollins, a Republican, managed President Reagan's 1984 campaign. Hamilton Jordan, a Democrat, ran President Carter's campaigns in '76 and '80, and served as his White House Chief of Staff. They will be co-chairmen of Perot's operation. The announcement was made late this afternoon in Dallas. We'll have Newsmaker interviews with Mr. Jordan and Rollins right after the News Summary. Bill Clinton and President Bush made clean sweeps of all six primaries yesterday. Clinton picked up enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination. He told reporters he would now be able to start fresh with the voters. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said Mr. Bush was ready to take on all comers and considered it a three-way race against Clinton and Perot. The President has scheduled a news conference for 8 PM Eastern Time tomorrow night. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: What's being billed as the largest ever gathering of heads of state began in Rio De Janeiro today. More than 120 leaders are expected to attend the 12-day summit on the global environment. It opened with dire predictions about the future of the planet if more is not done to protect it. U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was among those calling for action.

U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI: My hope is that what I may call the spirit of Rio, that is, the spirit of planet Earth, will spread throughout the world. The spirit of Rio must embody the full awareness of the fragility of our planet.

MS. WOODRUFF: Disagreements between rich and poor nations are expected at the conference. Many developing countries have said they're unwilling to protect their resources unless rich countries pay for it. President Bush has argued against strict environmental controls, saying they will hurt the U.S. economy. He will arrive at Rio next Thursday, near the end of the summit. A Harvard University study is offering a stark new vision of the global AIDS crisis. It predicts more than 25 million people will have AIDS by the end of the decade and up to 120 million will be infected with the AIDS-causing virus. It said the epidemic will be particularly explosive in Asia. Its projections go far beyond recent ones from the World Health Organization. The study was coordinated by the former head of the WHO's AIDS program.

MR. LEHRER: The U.S. Senate today debated how much federal money should go to Public Broadcasting. They voted down an attempt to reduce it from 1.1 million dollars to 825 million in the 1994/'96 fiscal years. White House officials had said President Bush might veto it if the money was not reduced. Senate critics say public television programming is too liberal and sometimes indecent. Supporters defend it as an important educational, cultural, and public affairs resource.

SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, [D] New York: Here we are with a few real winners that we've come up with in a quarter century. A quarter century ago this was enacted. And we loved it. How many children are there in this country who could not recognize Big Bird? It is one of the rare federal programs that has support everywhere and I hope it will have support on this floor.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: They get all these liberal commentators talking about how we're going to kill Big Bird and all these things that they don't know anything about. This amendment is simply about priorities and can limited federal resources be better spent to house and clothe and feed disadvantaged Americans? Can it be better spent on health care and education? Or, a novel idea, it would be better to save it to reduce the federal deficit.

MR. LEHRER: The Commerce Department reported today orders to U.S. factoriesrose a full percent in April. It was the fourth straight monthly gain and further evidence the manufacturing sector was leading the recovery from recession.

MS. WOODRUFF: British actor Robert Morley died today in a London hospital after suffering a stroke. He was 84. Morley, seen here with Humphrey Bogart and Kathryn Hepburn in the "African Queen," appeared in more than 50 films and 100 plays in mainly comic roles. He was also a prolific writer of plays, books and articles, but claimed to be lazy by nature. He once said, "I don't work; I merely inflict myself on the public." That's it for our summary of the day's news. Now it's on to Perot's bipartisan campaign management team, an assessment of the election year so far with Gergen & Shields plus three, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay on women in politics. FOCUS - THE FINAL ROUND

MS. WOODRUFF: First some analysis of today's news from the Perot camp as well as some assessment of yesterday's Presidential and Congressional primaries. We will get five different perspectives. But first we hear from two men practically forgotten today, the about to be nominees of the two main political parties. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton thanked his supporters at a victory rally in Los Angeles last night. President Bush spoke via satellite to a Republican breakfast in Los Angeles this morning.

PRES. BUSH: I believe that ultimately this contest will come down to who's the best candidate with the values, the qualifications, and the ideas for the job, and secondly, who do you trust, who do you trust to make the hard decisions and lead this country for the next four years? And lest there be any doubt, we are ready for this fight. So far, I have not attacked my opponents. In fact, I don't think you can point to one single remark against either one of them. And we've made a decision I should try to lead this country, continue to lead it. And I'm going to do that. But when that convention of ours is over, I'm coming out of there with my sleeves rolled up, ready to take this fight to every precinct in this country. And we're going to win it.

BILL CLINTON: I've got one opponent who says he'll do whatever it takes to hold onto the White House. Then there's another person running who says he'll spend whatever it takes to get the White House. Let me tell you, winning this election is not what's at stake here. Winning the fight for America's future is what is at stake here. And what I came here tonight to promise you is that I will stay up late and get up early and work hard as long as it takes to turn this country around and give it back to the American people.

MS. WOODRUFF: We hear now from our regular analysts, Gergen & Shields. That's David Gergen, editor at large of U.S. News & World Report, and syndicated columnist Mark Shields. Joining them are Democratic pollster Peter Hart, Republican pollster Linda Divall and Eddie Williams, President of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Mark, how much of a boost, if any, are Clinton and President Bush getting out of yesterday's results? This is virtually the end of the primary season.

MR. SHIELDS: Minimum. Bill Clinton fulfilled his lifetime ambition. He wrapped up the Democratic Presidential nomination yesterday and the headlines were all grabbed by Ross Perot, not only that he won the exit polls, that the election results were quickly eclipsed by the exit polls that showed Perot was strong, but the announcement today that he had signed on two legitimate, authentic political heavyweights, Ed Rollins, and Hamilton Jordan as his co-campaign chairman.

MS. WOODRUFF: David.

MR. GERGEN: Well, once again Ross Perot has stolen the thunder from the main line candidate. A day that should be one of celebration for Bill Clinton -- he did, after all, win the 10 biggest primaries this year, the first Democrat who's done that -- you know, I think he has run -- since New Hampshire - - you have to give him a lot of credit for the kind of race he's run. But he is eclipsed in the very news stories by the addition of Ed Rollins and Ham Jordan to the campaign for Ross Perot. Perot promised a world class campaign; he's delivering.

MS. WOODRUFF: Eddie Williams, is Bill Clinton completely eclipsed? I mean, he did go over the delegate total last night that he needed to win the nomination.

MR. WILLIAMS: He went over the delegate total and I'm sure he feels like many people in the electorate, thank God it's over. And so now he can go on for a new beginning. And I think that's what we're going to see, a lot of reassessing on the part of all of the candidates, seeing what has happened up to this point, looking at the potential effect of Ross Perot and try to come out with some strategies going into their conventions and going into the campaign.

MS. WOODRUFF: Linda Divall, same thing about President Bush. Was he -- how much of an oomph, of a boost, does he get coming out of this?

MS. DIVALL: Well, I think it may be even worse than what Mark said. It's not that they got a minimal boost. The fact of the matter now is everybody is saying to the two major party candidates, what are you going to do, and traditionally, they had until the conventions to come up with that answer. So I think there is greater motivation for them to do something different. President Bush has to recapture the agenda, and Bill Clinton has to recapture his theme.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean, recapture the agenda?

MS. DIVALL: President Bush has to define the agenda as only a President can. And Bill Clinton is the agent of change. He started out that way. He is no longer. Ross Perot has hijacked his theme.

MS. WOODRUFF: Peter Hart.

MR. HART: Well, I would give Bill Clinton a lot more credit than my fellow panelists. I think that the press coverage obviously all went to Perot, but in terms of the vote, Bill Clinton did the job that he needed to do. The problem ahead is he has to be bold. He has to do things differently, and I agree with Linda, he has to be able to capture the imagination. And that becomes the tough chance.

MS. WOODRUFF: Capture the imagination. How does he do that, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think Peter is both answering the question and raising a separate problem. I mean, the problem is that he's won the nomination, but it's meaningless. He's at 15 percent --

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you really mean that, the nomination of the Democratic Party is --

MR. SHIELDS: Well, it's meaningless in the terms that we've never had a Democratic Presidential candidate standing at 25 percent before in national polls, never. If the Democrats drop below 25 percent in November, they forfeit public financing. They are no longer a major party under the laws of the United States. What Bill Clinton has to do -- my friend, Mr. Gergen, said -- George Bush's problem is a problem for public character. People question his public commitment, his public ideas, his public values. They question Bill Clinton's personal character and personal values. What Bill Clinton has to do is prove his personal character by his public value, his public position. He's got to do things that are bold. He's got to for example -- if he's going to take on teacher testing, he's got to do it to a national education association meeting. He's got to go in and shout, I am the real thing, I'm the authentic thing, I'm not afraid to write off certain constituencies for what I believe in. And he's got to somehow allay people's fears about his personal misgivings they have about him, about his public boldness and courage.

MS. WOODRUFF: David, is that something that he can do?

MR. GERGEN: Absolutely. He just had missed the opportunities. And winning the California primary, he missed a major opportunity to respond with boldness, with vision, with courage, to the Los Angeles riots. That was true, by the way, of George Bush, in my judgment, also of Ross Perot. But that was a major opportunity for Bill Clinton that slipped past him. There are not very many of those that come along in a campaign. I think that to go back to Linda's point, it's interesting that the burden, with momentum in the Perot campaign, the burden is shifting to both Bush and Clinton to do something different. Now, the President's holding a prime time press conference tomorrow night. I cannot understand what is going on with that prime time press conference, unless he's got something fairly dramatic to announce, because, otherwise, he's going to be buffeted by lots of questions about how are you responding to Ross Perot. I don't understand. That seems to me to be a sign of being flumuxed, not knowing what to do, rather than a boldness which both candidates now need.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Well, speaking of Ross Perot, and we're going to come back to Bill Clinton in a minute and to President Bush and a little bit of the Congressional contest, but we want to go now to Jim Lehrer, who we think has some contact with some folks in Dallas. Jim. FOCUS - PEROT IN '92

MR. LEHRER: Yes, I do, indeed. Ross Perot did take another large step toward an official candidacy this afternoon. He hired two political pros, Democrat Hamilton Jordan and Republican Ed Rollins to help run his campaign. They are with us now from Dallas for a News Maker interview. Mr. Rollins was the manager of Ronald Reagan's 49-state landslide reelection in 1984. Mr. Jordan managed Jimmy Carter's 1976 and 1980 campaigns, and he also served as Mr. Carter's White House chief of staff. Gentlemen, welcome. Ed Rollins, why should Ross Perot be President of the United States?

MR. ROLLINS: I think that Ross Perot offers a unique leadership ability. It's been proven obviously throughout his life. I think as an outsider coming with this tremendous momentum that I've never seen in American politics, he'll basically go there and not do the usual. He will do something different. He'll be willing to tackle the problems quickly and effectively. And I think in the course of this next five months, he'll be able to build enough support across the country that with 150 new members of Congress, together they may be able to change the system.

MR. LEHRER: Ed Rollins, you've dealt with a lot of political personages, personalities of all kinds through the years. What is different about Ross Perot?

MR. ROLLINS: I think there's a dynamic nature to this man. He's a self-made man. Obviously, his business success has been well recorded. But I think he has a great chemistry with crowds, as I watched him over the last several weeks. He really understands the little guy and he speaks to the little guy. And I think that's a real unique ability and a real -- I mean, he really has his thumb on the political pulse of America today at a very unusual time.

MR. LEHRER: Hamilton Jordan, as you know, there are critics of Ross Perot, this man that you and Ed Rollins have gone to work today for, come to work for today, and the main criticism is what - - it's a question, and I'll ask it of you -- what has Ross Perot done besides make a billion dollars that qualifies him to be President of the United States?

MR. JORDAN: There are not many of us that have done that.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. What else besides that qualifies him?

MR. JORDAN: Well, I think the people of this country see in Mr. Perot a real life experience, some core values and beliefs that they think are appropriate to deal with our nation's problems. I think our country's off track. I think the American people feel that. I think they look at both of the party establishments and they think that the major parties and their candidates represent only incremental change at a time where we need to have drastic change. And I think the challenge for Mr. Perot and his people's movement is over the next four or five months to lay out those changes. I'm certain that he will.

MR. LEHRER: What would you say are his core beliefs?

MR. JORDAN: Well, I think his core beliefs, he's a patriot, he's a man that believes in the potential and greatness of this country. He's a man that's not afraid to make a tough decision, to stick with it. If you look at some of the public issues that he's been involved with here in his home state of Texas in public education and drug issues, you see him taking, taking people on and speaking with a loud voice and passing things through the legislature. It's a track record of considerable achievement and it suggests to me that, just as you've seen over the past ten or twelve weeks, it suggests to me that he knows how to build a consensus, how to lead people. I hear all the questions and have heard the questions from friends in recent days: Can he govern, how will he deal with the Congress? Those are fair questions. I think people will see demonstrated over the next four or five months that Mr. Perot can be an effective President.

MR. LEHRER: Ed Rollins, clearly, this was not an easy decision for you, particularly in your case your wife was working for President Bush, she had to resign today in order for you to do this. What, what was it that was on your mind that you needed resolved before you made this decision? In other words, what did you talk to Ross Perot and his people about before you decided, okay, I'm going to throw the dice on this?

MR. ROLLINS: It was probably the most difficult decision I've ever made and, obviously, my wife was tremendous. She's a supporter of the President and will continue to be a supporter of the President. But needless to say, I just, as someone who's been in and around government all my life, just feel there's a real need for change and that the present system, whether it's President Bush reelected or Bill Clinton, is not going to be willing to make those tough decisions and those changes. What I asked Ross Perot when I sat down with him on Sunday was governance questions. I know how to run a campaign. Hamilton obviously knows how to run a campaign, but we both served in White Houses and we know that it takes a special leadership ability to govern, an ability to sit down and deal with the Congress, an ability to push an agenda. And I've found in him a presence, a security, certainly a vision of where he wants to take this country, that I think that he has the will to lead this country effectively, and I think that's what finally allowed me to take what to me is a great risk, because obviously many of my friends are in the Republican Party. It's been my life. They've been very good to me, and obviously, this is not an easy decision.

MR. LEHRER: Is it -- Mr. Rollins, is it Ross Perot, or is it the state of the country, or the state of mind of the American people that has caused you to do this, or a combination thereof?

MR. ROLLINS: It's all the above. I started to see it in 1990 in the Congressional races when I was the head of the Congressional Campaign Committee, that Americans were terribly frustrated with their government. You saw a lot of city council races where incumbents were defeated, sheriffs. It didn't quite go to the Congressional level, but there was great anger. Then I think the last two years has been one in which the American public, with the exception of the war, have not been very happy with the governance of the country. And I think that in a normal set of years, circumstances, a Ross Perot candidacy may not be as significant as it is in this set of circumstances. I think that it's all a unique series of time in which the American public are willing to look beyond the two party nominees to try and find an outside leader who's willing to go, willing to take a bet on him, and I think they're going to find over the next several months a real building on that momentum.

MR. LEHRER: Hamilton Jordan, each in your own way, you and Ed Rollins, are essentially saying to, in your case Democrats, in Ed Rollins' case Republicans, forget it, guys, that is not the way I want to do it anymore, that is not the way to govern this country anymore through the party system. Was that a conscious decision on your part? Do you really believe that in your heart and soul?

MR. JORDAN: Well, let me just describe my own decision, and maybe that answers the question. I watched the Larry King Show when Mr. Perot was on and I was impressed with him, but thought there's no chance that anything will come of this. And a couple of weeks later, I read about thousands of phone calls and I realize maybe this man has struck a chord there. And I made contact with the campaign and began quietly helping and I thought initially that all he could do was to fire a shot across the bough of both parties and hopefully rattle the political establishment out of lethargy. This thing is so powerful that he's done and as he says himself, it's not just about him. It's about these hundreds of thousands of people that have responded. He's turned what began in my own mind as a serious protest vote into a positive, political movement.

MR. LEHRER: But how do you personally feel about the two-party system? Are you saying by your action, forget it?

MR. JORDAN: Both parties, as I said, represent in my own mind incremental change. Mr. Perot is addressing the core issues that face this country, particularly the budget deficit, for example. Until we resolve some of these core issues, it's really moot, the differences between Democrat and Republican, because our country doesn't have the resources to address some of these other problems. Will this -- what happens if he wins -- what happens if he loses - - interesting questions, I don't have the answer to that, to the parties. But I would guess at the momentum this thing has developed that the two parties will never quite be the same because of this people's movement.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Ed Rollins?

MR. ROLLINS: I think, unfortunately, the parties have become irrelevant. I'm not walking away from my party. I hope to go back and be a participant as a Republican, but I think what's going to occur in this election cycle is that people are going to realize that you don't have to be a member of the Democratic Party or Republican Party to either run for office successfully or to go out and challenge ideas. I think the two parties have tried to cover too wide a base of allegiance, and so they really don't have any center core. And I think that both are going to have to redefine themselves for the remainder of this decade and obviously to the future if they're going to be very relevant.

MR. LEHRER: But are you not concerned, Ed Rollins, or do you share the concern that some have written about, Elizabeth Drew, in particular, in the New Yorker, that here you have a situation where a man has, he has a billion dollars, he comes along and he goes on television, the Larry King Show and what else, and says, I want to be President of the United States, he's gone through no tests of fire in the political system or whatever, and suddenly here he is, a major force in American politics? And there are some historical rings there, as we know.

MR. ROLLINS: I think the irony of this campaign is that everyone talks about Mr. Perot's money. He's not spent very much money. What's going on across this country is a movement that I've never seen in the 30 years I've been around politics. These people out there are buying their own bumper strips, making their own T- shirts, making their own signs. You know, you look at what the President's spent and what Clinton has spent compared to what Perot has spent, it's minuscule. I think in the final analysis, if he wanted to go run a campaign under traditional ways and ask people for money, he could raise all the money he needed to run this effort. So I don't think it's just a question of him having the luxury of spending his own money. I think there's just this tremendous movement. People have reached out to him because they see a vacuum and obviously, they're going to watch him closely. There is scrutiny. There's going to be a lot more scrutiny. We have a very long campaign still ahead of us. It's a three-person race, instead of the traditional two-person race. I expect Mr. Perot to be treated as fairly and as roughly as the other two candidates and he'll have to prove himself probably beyond the other two candidates, because there will be a lot of skeptics who will wonder whether he can govern. He could prove himself to be a leader, continue this momentum. I think he's going to get elected and change American politics.

MR. LEHRER: Hamilton Jordan, then you also, I take it, do not share the sentiment that's been expressed that it's scary that a guy can come along like this and with his money, go on television and just throw the whole election, Presidential election here into such a turmoil, you see that as a healthy thing rather than as a scary thing?

MR. JORDAN: I don't -- I think that misses the point, Jim. The last time I read the Constitution it made no mention of either Democratic or Republican Party. It outlined a process and a structure for electing our President, which allows for a Ross Perot candidacy. Mr. Perot's candidacy will ultimately succeed or fail on the American people exercising their reasonable judgment that he is better or not better than President Bush and Gov. Clinton. So I don't think he's hijacked the election. I think he's probably invigorated the political process, bringing people into the process that have not otherwise been involved, and I think it's going to end up being healthy for the country, whatever the end result.

MR. LEHRER: Even if it ends up going into the House of Representatives for a final selection for the next President?

MR. JORDAN: Again, we've had that happen twice before in our country's history. I see stories about Constitutional crisis and gridlock. If it goes to the House under the watchful eye of the media and the American people, the elected representatives will make a decision that likely will reflect the will of the people and the common sense of the American people. So I see these things as - - I see these things as obstacles to the change that Mr. Perot represents.

MR. LEHRER: Ed Rollins, you don't see a potential nightmare scenario as a result of the Perot candidacy?

MR. ROLLINS: My personal feeling is that if we build on this momentum that's there, and go out and articulate an agenda for this country -- and obviously, Bill Clinton and President Bush have the same opportunities to do that -- this can become an election of hope, not an election of despair and we can turn a lot of voters onto the process. I think the potential is there for Mr. Perot to not put this thing in the House of Representatives but to win this outright. You may not have a majority winner, but I clearly think that he can get a plurality among enough states to win the 270 electoral votes.

MR. LEHRER: How are the two of you going to separate responsibilities and duties, Hamilton Jordan? Who's the real boss?

MR. JORDAN: Well, the real -- there's no doubt who the real boss is. It's Mr. Ross Perot. And Ed and I'll be working as a team and working for Tom Loose, who's the chairman. I'm going to focus on strategy, which is kind of, I suppose, my bag, and Ed's going to be the campaign manager an do the day-to-day things and we're going to have a good effort, I think.

MR. LEHRER: Have you two -- beginning with you, Ed -- are the two of you in sync? I mean, here you've come out of a Republican background and you, Hamilton, have come out of a Democratic background. You've been on opposite sides. What are you going to do when you disagree, Ed Rollins?

MR. ROLLINS: I think, you know, obviously, Mr. Perot's going to be the one that makes the decisions and I think to a certain extent it's going to be very healthy to have the debate. I started out as a blue collar Democrat 30 years ago in politics, became a Republican, obviously a conservative Republican. I have some very strong views that I'll put on the table. Hamilton obviously has some very strong views. But I think the bottom line is we're both Americans who are very, very concerned about the direction in this country. It's not partisanship when you're talking about rebuilding the educational system. It's not partisanship when you're talking about how do we take young black minority children that are going to live a life of despair unless we make dramatic changes in our inner city. It's not partisan Republican or Democrat when you talk about rebuilding the infrastructure of America and it's certainly not partisan solutions, the building of an economy that has long lasting effects that when kids graduate from college or high school they can find meaningful employment. And I think those are the kinds of issues that have to be addressed. Whether you're Democrat or Republican, you all want those common solutions.

MR. LEHRER: Hamilton Jordan, the list that Ed Rollins just outlined is as good a list as any, that the critics say Ross Perot has yet to address and has yet to lay out how he would solve each one of those problems Ed Rollins just laid out.

MR. JORDAN: Well, it's interesting that Mr. Perot is being held to a standard different than that of the other two candidates who've not had their conventions or platforms endorsed. Certainly it's reasonable to expect Mr. Perot over the next four or five months to lay out his positions on the issues and I'm highly confident that he will.

MR. LEHRER: But how could you go to work for him if he hadn't already laid out these positions?

MR. JORDAN: I have never -- I've done the same thing at a different level that the average Perot volunteer has done. I've looked at Mr. Perot, his real life experience, his success, his values, his feeling that the core issues facing this country have to be addressed first, and I'm betting that he's the best person to address those core issues.

MR. LEHRER: Ed --

MR. JORDAN: I've never worked for anybody in my life with whom I agreed a hundred percent, and I certainly will not agree with Mr. Perot a hundred percent, but I'm not here as an issues adviser either. I'm here to, to help him and help his campaign win the election.

MR. LEHRER: Ed Rollins, did you ask Mr. Perot, say, hey, look, you say you want to, you want to reduce the deficit, the deficit's a terrible thing, did you say, okay, Ross, how are you going to do it?

MR. ROLLINS: We had a very long discussion about issues and how we're going to function and I have enough confidence that he understands how to put the process together to bring the very best advisers into the room, someone who listens, and obviously, he'll come forward with some programs and agenda. You know, problems that I lay out are very complex and if they had easy solutions, someone else would have moved forward on them. They're very tough decisions. I think the most important quality he has today, his ability to lead the country and tackle the tough decisions, no matter how popular or unpopular they may be, and I think that's what I see in his candidacy today.

MR. JORDAN: Jim, can I --

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. JORDAN: Can I jump in there?

MR. LEHRER: Sure, sure.

MR. JORDAN: I think it's a mistake to ignore or to misinterpret what's happened thus far. His ability in 10 weeks to form and present a message to the American people which is basically who he is and what he believes and then to have the response that he has suggests to me that he has tremendous skills as a leader who can communicate and build consensus with the American people. So I think he -- I think there are a lot of signs in his private life, his business life, in the last 10 weeks, that he can be a strong and effective public leader.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Hamilton Jordan, Ed Rollins, thank you very much for being with us tonight. FOCUS - THE FINAL ROUND

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. We're back now with our group of analysts. And David Gergen, what is this -- what does picking Hamilton Jordan and Ed Rollins say about Ross Perot? What does it tell us about this man?

MR. GERGEN: It tells us he's a very shrewd political operative. Mark said the other night that he may be a better politician than anybody else in the field. Judy, I think these people give a lift to the Perot campaign partly because Ross Perot now has spokesmen. Somebody else can make the arguments in his behalf. And that's been very important for him. He hasn't had people out doing that. And I think we just saw two people who know a lot about how to be effective in making a case for their candidate. I think it will open the door to other people, Republicans and Democrats, to come work for Perot. It's easier for other people to make that leap now. There's a lot of social pressure --

MS. WOODRUFF: This is sort of the Good Housekeeping stamp of approval or --

MR. GERGEN: Well, there's been a lot of social pressure on operatives down within the ranks about not wanting to work for Perot or not talking to him openly. This in a sense opens the door. But I think the most important single thing that they bring is when Americans see that Ross Perot can bring together two campaign managers, one from Jimmy Carter and one from Ronald Reagan, to work together, the lion and the lamb laying down together, I think they're going to -- I think it becomes more plausible to believe that Ross Perot can not only put together a world class campaign, he can put together a world class government. He can actually bring together a bipartisan government and to me, that's going to be the most important theme for the Perot campaign in the fall.

MS. WOODRUFF: So, Mark, it's all good for Ross Perot, what we're seeing here?

MR. SHIELDS: I think it is. I mean, these are two exceptionally able and respected people. And they have been very successful in their post political careers. I mean, nobody's holding a benefit or running a charity raffle for Hamilton Jordan or Ed Rollins. They've both done very, very well. And they're going back there, they say, with a cut in pay to do it. It's a testimonial to Perot that there's a perceived need on his part to have people of that caliber and that quality. The test, in my judgment, will be whether Ross Perot can do what is the toughest job in a political campaign for someone that's never run for office before, and that's to be the candidate, and whether he can let them manage and do what they do well. I'm not sure he can. Thomas Jefferson wasn't capable enough to be both manager and candidate and Ross Perot isn't. And if he tries to be both candidate and manager, he will fail. So that's the test. The testimonial is to him for getting them. Will he be able to use them, follow them and let them run the show?

MS. WOODRUFF: Linda Divall, do you see any down side to having Ed Rollins, former Republican -- Republican -- he says he's going back to the Republican Party -- and Hamilton Jordan?

MS. DIVALL: The only down side is you have a troika arrangement here and a question comes out of decision making. And Ross Perot's a very powerful personality, I agree with what Mark just said. I mean, who is ultimately going to make the decisions? On the other hand, the singular biggest plus that I think they have is that both Hamilton Jordan and Ed Rollins are masters at running insurgent campaigns and that's exactly what this is all about.

MS. WOODRUFF: Eddie Williams, same question. I mean, do you see a down side to this pair?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think there are some pitfalls there and I think we've referred to some of them. First of all, it's a very shrewd move. There's no doubt about that. And there are some very shrewd and tough-minded operatives that he's got. But I think that decision does not excuse Ross Perot from addressing the electorate in terms of what he believes, not what Ed Rollins says he believes, and not what Ham Jordan strategically positions the press. He's got to come out. And there are two people around who are going to make sure he does that. And one is named Clinton and one is named Bush. And they've got to make sure the press pushes him. But as a first step, I think it's a very good step.

MS. WOODRUFF: Peter Hart.

MR. HART: It's hard to disagree with this group and I won't. What a guy, huh?

MS. WOODRUFF: All right, we'll move on to the next question.

MR. HART: One quick point, and that is that one way or another, it comes back around to the candidate. And you can put all the mechanics in place. He's going to have to be able to be more than a protest vote, more than an empty vessel for all of people's complaints. And what Jordan has seen and what Rollins has seen the rest of America has to see. And they haven't yet.

MS. WOODRUFF: But can Perot still sell himself as an outsider when he's brought to, despite what Hamilton Jordan said at that news conference, he's brought to Washington old hands --

MR. HART: I don't think that has anything to do with changing his message as the outsider. I think that it's the reassurance that David talks about, and that is, now he has people who you could trust putting together a government and I think that's helpful to him.

MS. WOODRUFF: I want to ask both Linda and Eddie this. Linda, so far we don't see any women around Ross Perot. Is that significant? I mean, he's been interviewed with his wife certainly on television, but --

MS. DIVALL: It was not a part of this decision at all. It's a good observation. I think that there are many people across America who still need to know a lot more about Ross Perot. And 2/3 of all Americans know little or nothing about him. And he does have a gender gap problem right now. He's suffering about a 10 point gap between men and women in terms of his current vote support. And that could create a problem for him ultimately.

MS. WOODRUFF: Eddie Williams, what about among minorities? I mean, again, the same thing, we don't see --

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. You don't see them. There's a great deal of hesitancy. We've been trying to come up with some good data on black views on Ross Perot and someone said in California that he was getting something like 18 percent. Well, if that is true, the he would be getting more black support than any other non- Democratic candidate since Richard Nixon in 1960, but if it is true -- I think the numbers are soft -- we're going to be doing an over sampling of the black vote sometime soon to try to get at that. But he's got to -- he doesn't have women. And I'd like to take this back to the earlier question you raised about Bill Clinton and what he has to do. He has to do all of the things we said, but at the same time, he's got to shore up and clean up his act with what he must consider to be his core constituency. The data shows that he has not done that among --

MS. WOODRUFF: Being -- you're going to say --

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I mean, I think he has not pitched, made a pitch strongly yet to women and yet, we see in California, where he was getting a disproportionately high number of women votes -- he hasn't done it really in terms of -- he's got to shore it up with minorities. Blacks I think in California he was down to 61 percent, whereas in the South he was pulling 70, 80, 85 percent. He cannot win, it seems to me, unless he gets with minorities, with women, with labor, and with some other groups. And that core constituency, when you start dividing it into one-thirds, then it becomes very critical.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, here we get to this question, you know, who - - you know, we're not going after -- each candidate isn't going after 51 percent of the vote. All you need to win is 34 percent. So it's a very different kind of a campaign, Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right, Judy. Ordinarily, we have two candidates and it's a fight between the 45 yard lines. The liberal tries to prove that yes, he believes in the patriotism which he believes in patriotism, the conservative nominee, he tries to prove that he's not going to abolish Social Security. When you get into the three-way that Eddie has described here, you go back to your base, you try and energize and galvanize your base support. And I think this is a problem for Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton's candidacy began and was born in a message that was quite different from what we're talking about right now. It was, I am the candidate of the middle class, I am the candidate of the forgotten working people, I am the candidate of the South and the Western, those areas of the country of Reagan Democrats that have been disaffected with the National Democratic Party. Now what is being recommended to him is a course of action which would be sort of Fritz Mondale revisited, to go back to all the constituent groups of the Democratic Party. I mean, the Washington Post ran one front page picture of Bill Clinton in the last two weeks. It showed him regaining his voice before a gay group in Hollywood, California. Now, if that's -- going back to the core constituencies, if it means, that, that it's an entirely different process, then I don't think it fits with the courage on taking on tough issues and turning down favorite constituencies. So I think it becomes a real problem for him.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you could almost say the same thing about President Bush --

MR. SHIELDS: Sure you could.

MS. WOODRUFF: -- couldn't you, David, that all he has to do is go back to the core Republican constituency?

MR. GERGEN: I think that both President Bush and Bill Clinton have to do the same thing initially, and that is to hold on and solidify their base. They have to do that. I am not at all clear that this is going to wind up as a three-way race. We are there now. My growing sense is either Perot is going to continue to build his momentum, and may win this outright, or he's going to fade and it's going to then turn into a race between Bush and Clinton. I'm not at all clear that what we're now seeing, this log jam we now see of both -- all three people being about the same level -- will hold throughout this race. It does seem to me that it's unlikely Perot will hold where he is. He's either going to go up or he's going to go down. We're not sure which yet.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you're saying he's absolutely pivotal --

MR. GERGEN: He is pivotal, but in the meantime--

MS. WOODRUFF: -- to the outcome in a way more so than either Bush or Clinton?

MR. GERGEN: But in the meantime, going back to Eddie's point, and that is, Bill Clinton needs to rebuild and solidify that base so he has something going into the fall he can count on. George Bush needs to make sure he can count on the Republicans and then they're going to find out where they are at the end of the summer and what they need to do beyond that.

MR. HART: What I think is George Bush will think this race through tactically. That's how he thinks races. And the difficulty is he needs to be able to unite a people. And what concerns me about Clinton is if he starts thinking tactically, how do I get the blacks, how do I get the union vote, what do I do with women, each little block, and then he's back to an old style campaign. The only way he can do it is to look at it differently and to be able to say I've got to take chances, I've got to go out and do things differently.

MS. WOODRUFF: You're saying he doesn't need to shore up the base that Eddie Williams and David are talking about?

MR. HART: I'm saying that if your whole object is to shore up the base, it changes your message and it ends up an internal message and then he ends up as part of the old politics and the old way of doing things. His way of winning has to be something different. Eventually he wins because people who are with Ross Perot today say hold it, Bill Clinton can represent me, and at this moment, what they're saying is, I don't like Clinton and I don't like Bush, so I'll be with Perot. So he has to bring those people back and he doesn't bring it back by going to the old style.

MR. SHIELDS: I just want to associate completely with Peter. He's absolutely right and to build on something Linda said earlier, and that is that George Bush to win, he has to be, he has to lay out the change agenda. George Bush really is probably constitutionally incapable of doing it. It might take a graft or a transplant, but he was elected as the candidate of the status quo. Politics is the most imitative activity. We always go back to what worked for us. He was elected in '88 as the status quo. He cannot be believably the agent of change. For Bill Clinton to win, he's got to be the agent of change. To go back to pandering to constituent groups or caressing the erogenous zones or whatever else, I'm telling you, it's going to send a message to the rest that this is --

MS. WOODRUFF: You mean that in a political sense?

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. I want to mean it in a political sense, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: But, Eddie, that's really not what you're saying.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to join this issue. First of all, these are his fundamental core supporters right now, whether he likes it or not. And I think Peter kind of drew an either/or situation which I think none of us would agree to. And the pandering, sure, let's get rid of the pandering to the corporations and the labor unions and everybody else, but I think he has to tactically find a way to expand and get enthusiastic support from these groups and keep that solid while he does reach out to do these other things. This is not -- it's not an "either or." It's a "both and". And I think there are several tactical ways he's going to try to do that, I think in terms of his selection of a Vice President, in terms of how he -- I think both Bush and --

MS. WOODRUFF: You mean by choosing either a black or a woman?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, no -- but quality or the kind of person he chooses, the location or the ideology of the person. I think he will also do it by adapting or adopting some of the Ross Perot magic, if you will, or at least some of the substance. And I think he will do it by trying to adopt some of the things that Paul Tsongas represented.

MS. WOODRUFF: But, you know, we've only been talking about what Bill Clinton needs to do -- mostly about Bill Clinton. What does George Bush need to do, Linda?

MS. DIVALL: Well, I think what President Bush needs to do first and foremost is to go back and decide where he wants to take this country next. And his biggest problem is the comparison that people have to the George Bush of one year ago, where they saw a decisive commander in charge of the Persian Gulf War, commanding respect in the international arena, and now they see somebody who seems to be a little bit beleaguered by the problems in the urban areas, doesn't seem to know where he wants to go in addressing these domestic issues, and that is what the public is yearning for. I mean, what they see in Ross Perot is somebody who is action-oriented, somebody who talks about problems in terms that they understand, somebody who draws the line, says, let's get this done, and that is the contrast to President Bush that puts him in bad standing right now.

MS. WOODRUFF: Does anybody -- David.

MR. GERGEN: It seems to me that George Bush still does not have a message. A few months ago, he came out with his five pillars, you know, of the second term. And then the five pillars gave way to the six point program on the urban renewal side. And now we've got five pillars and six points and it's a mish mash. Nobody knows where you are. Nobody knows what he's going to do in the second term. Now, Bill Clinton has the opportunity, as Gov. Cuomo argues, to get together with the Democratic leadership of the Congress and say if I'm elected, we can get something done in Congress. Ross Perot's got the opportunity to say, if I am elected, I can bring the best people from both parties. George Bush has got to find a reason. He's got to find a way to get to the people and say, if I am elected, here's what's going to happen in my second term, here's why the second term is going to be better here at home, here's why I'm going to make a difference.

MS. WOODRUFF: Can he say -- I mean, can he make that argument?

MR. GERGEN: He has not found -- I don't think he's found a credible way to make that argument yet.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is there an argument to be made, is what I'm asking. I mean, is it there?

MR. SHIELDS: Eric Severide said 32 years ago that it was between the men and the boys in politics, that the boys run for President to be something and the men run for President to do something. I don't think anybody at this table knows what George Bush wants to do in a second term. And we follow it pretty closely.

MR. HART: How many times can you have on the program and ask us the same question? That's what we keep doing. It's like a rerun. And, you know, what it is, is he's the conductor on the caboose and there's no sense of leadership and there's no sense where he's going to take the nation.

MS. WOODRUFF: Other than that -- I want to spend -- we've only got a few minutes left, but I do want to turn to some of these Congressional results, especially California, where we had two women win the Democratic primaries for the -- let it be known what Mark Shields' reaction was -- win the two Democratic primaries for U.S. Senate seats -- for the two-year seat former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, of course, won. She's going to face the incumbent Senator John Seymour. For the six-year seat, Congresswoman Barbara Boxer beat out two very tough opponents. She's going to face conservative Republican Bruce Hershenson in the fall. Today Boxer and Feinstein were flying together around the state, making campaign stops. Linda, what do their victories tell us? Is this a message about the year of the women, or is it less than that? Are we making too much?

MS. DIVALL: Well, first of all, all this happened on the Democrat side, and one of the unfortunate things, I think, which could be a fallout for 1990 is that there are not more Republican women running to be in the same position. Secondarily, what I think is interesting is that Barbara Boxer prevailed in spite of all the checks that she bounced, which could, indeed, say something about this being the year of the women and that they are willing to forgive some of that because they still think she is an agent of change and she is sort of a boisterous person who is different from the status quo, even though she has been a member of the House for quite some time. And I think when you look at how important California is, those two women being on the ticket is probably an asset to Bill Clinton right now that he couldn't possibly fabricate on his own.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: I think Dianne Feinstein's win was expected. She led from gate to gate. She crushed her opponent, who may have ended his political career with a political commercial, compared her to Leona Helmsley, in a last desperation move, and was booed in a Democratic gathering last weekend in San Francisco. But Barbara Boxer's victory I think is an important one, because it said several things. First of all, she was in a state that has become this mega state, this nation state, where the media dominates. She ran an energetic personal campaign. Unlike her principal, her financial opponent, Mel Levine, a very able opponent from Los Angeles, who had a Dialing for Dollars campaign, never scheduled appearances before, voters in any situation, and just ran a television campaign. She won that. She won it on energy. She won it on the idea that she would change things, would shake them up, and I think that overcame the doubts and she confronted the check thing directly. I mean, she said, look at the whole record and apparently people were willing to do it, and she won among men. I think that's important.

MS. DIVALL: Exactly. One other thing is Carol Moseley Braun and Lynn Yakel and now Barbara Boxer --

MS. WOODRUFF: Illinois, Pennsylvania, and now California.

MS. DIVALL: It's not just the margin with women. They both, all three of them have won with men as well.

MS. WOODRUFF: So what does that say about what we're going to see in the Senate and in the House in November? I mean, can we say anything at this point, Peter?

MR. HART: I think the potentiality is that we're going to go way up. We could double the number of women, maybe even triple. It could happen.

MS. DIVALL: Of course, we're starting at two --

MR. HART: But the point is that it's possible by the end of the decade that you'd have 20 women in the United States Senate. Yeah, it's not beyond belief.

MR. GERGEN: And in the White House.

MR. HART: And in the White House, it is changing -- I mean, in Montana, Dorothy Bradley won the Gubernatorial nomination and you can look every place that you go across this nation, women are winning and there's a message, they care about the issues that people care about.

MR. WILLIAMS: Black women are also contributing to that. Diane Watson won a Los Angeles supervisory seat, defeating former Congresswoman Yvonne Burke.

MS. WOODRUFF: This is a county position.

MR. WILLIAMS: Los Angeles county, a very powerful seat, incidentally, in the city, so that marks a difference. Two Congressional races, North Carolina and Alabama, black women -- I think there was one black woman and two black men -- but these are net gains in terms of blacks coming to Congress.

MS. WOODRUFF: So to throw the rascals out is really coming to fruition, David?

MR. GERGEN: Judy, at a time when a lot of Americans are discouraged about what's happening in the country, I think the country is off track. I think what we're seeing in our politics is something extraordinarily healthy, and that is we have the capacity for self-renewal in this country, so that if the system isn't working, outsiders can be elected, women can be elected, challengers can be elected. A Ross Perot can get into the system. That's very healthy. It says something about this country that ought to give us some hope about the future, because it means that the old system can be challenged effectively. In a lot of European countries, you could never do this. Only our democracy is wide open and I think that's a very healthy --

MR. SHIELDS: One of the interesting victories -- Barbara Boxer's opponent in November, will be Bruce Hershenson, who is an outspoken conservative who writes all his own material, who garrets all his own speeches, writes all his own TV spots, and will be an interesting contrast, an interesting race. He beat Tom Campbell, who is sort of the fair haired boy of the Republican establishment in California, who was pro-choice and pro-environment and anti-tax and pro-capital gains tax, and had all the positions that sort of figured 75 percent approval, and Bruce Hershenson, this, this genuine, direct, blunt, candid fellow beat him. It'll be an interesting race between him and Barbara Boxer.

MS. WOODRUFF: So on both sides --

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MS. WOODRUFF: -- you had very interesting people.

MS. DIVALL: Again, both of these contests, it is the dynamics of a three-way race that resulted in the ultimate winner here, because you could also make the argument that Sonny Bono detracted from Tom Campbell in terms of drawing votes from moderates and from maybe others.

MS. WOODRUFF: The old folk singer, or whatever. Well, it's already been an interesting political year and it looks like it's going to be even more interesting. Thank you all for being with us. ESSAY - BETTER HALF?

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt on a subject, as we just heard, that was made particularly relevant by yesterday's California primary results, electing women to office.

MR. ROSENBLATT: There's an odd scrap of political clap trap going around that women running for high office will bring softness and compassion to government. That's what's being said about Carol Moseley Braun, who's running for a Senate seat from Illinois, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, who want the two Senate seats in California, and Lynn Yakel, who is running for the Senate in Pennsylvania. For all I know, these candidates may bring softness and compassion to high office. But if they do it, it will not be because they are women. Women in government cannot only be hard as nails, but they are generally a lot better at governing than you know who. Want to look at history? Pick any female ruler out of a hat. Pick Elizabeth I of England, monarch of all she surveyed, queen of the English Renaissance, smasher of the Spanish armada. Now, there was a real softie; Queen Victoria II, a pushover, that one. Pick Catherine the Great of Russia, the remnants of her power stand in St. Petersburg today long after the grads of Lenin and Stalin, both men; and Maria Theresa of Austria, and Marie DeMedici of France, and plain old Marie of Romania, not a cream puff in the lot. Who can forget Ava Carone? Whatever you say about little Ava, it was Argentina who did the crying -- and Madame Nu and Madame Change and Cori Aquino and on and on -- elected, appointed, self- appointed, rulers by proxy, by divine right, by chance, these women were tough, not to mention able, not to mention Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir. But you get the point. The point, hardly a secret, is that women run things very well, extremely well. They are born commanders. The women editors I know have left their male counterparts in the dust, the dust. Women doctors, in my experience, are more diligent, less cavalier. Women run families, the most unwieldy, changeable, complicated institutions in the world. Often they do bring softness and compassion to their tasks. But mainly they bring order, discipline, and productivity. Their supreme administrative gift is that they know how to get the best work out of people with lesser abilities. Men fire, women retrain and redirect and re-encourage. They do that with children and with older children. Anybody who expresses disdain at the idea of women in power has either never had a mother or is trying to hang onto his job. Tell you what I propose. Let women run the whole show. Let them run the White House, the Congress, the army, and any state government they can get their unsoft hands on. We would see a lot more sense about abortion laws, gun control, health care, education, war, and, needless to add, the budget deficit. The budget deficit, or did you think that was a family matter? Men, meanwhile, can do what God meant us to do all along, plot and dream, formerly known as hunting and gathering. We're much better at plotting and dreaming and hunting and gathering, than we are at getting things done. The women can get things done. And if we are worried about our diminished stature, we can ask the women how to handle that too. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, Ross Perot hired two political professionals, Republican Ed Rollins and Democrat Hamilton Jordan as co-chairmen of his Presidential campaign. And the Earth Summit opened in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. One hundred and eighty nations are there to negotiate a series of treaties to protect the global environment. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with an interview with Haiti's deposed President, Jean Bertrand Aristide. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.