The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MS. WOODRUFF: And I'm Judy Woodruff in New York. After our summary of the news this Wednesday, we focus on what the voters in South Africa were saying with their endorsement of reform. We'll talk with South Africa's ambassador to the U.S. Then yesterday's primaries in Michigan and Illinois, their message about the Presidential contest and their warning to the Congress. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President DeKlerk has a mandate to end white minority rule over the black majority in South Africa. It came from nearly 70 percent of those who voted in yesterday's whites only referendum. DeKlerk called the vote to measure white support for negotiating a new constitution and power sharing. We have a report from Jerry Thompson of Independent Television News.

MR. THOMPSON: It was the perfect present for Mr. DeKlerk on his 56th birthday -- the landslide victory he called for marking a turning point in South Africa's history.

PRES. F.W. DE KLERK, South Africa: Today we have closed the book on apartheid. And that chapter is finally closed.

MR. THOMPSON: It had been a staggering 85 percent turnout, with over 2/3 polling yes for what amounts to a future of one man/one vote. Though blacks were still protesting at Mr. DeKlerk's policies today, rather than celebrating his victory, they will now expect a rapid acceleration in a march towards reform.

NELSON MANDELA, African National Congress: We are now on the eve of blacks having an effective say in the government of their country.

MR. THOMPSON: Despite being routed, the leader of the right wing alliance wouldn't admit defeat.

ANDRIES TREURNICHT, Conservative Party: The struggle for our freedom and survival continues and that struggle has today, the 18th of March, entered a new phase.

MR. LEHRER: Talks between the government and the African National Congress will continue and could result in the result of an interim multiracial government later this year. In Washington this afternoon, State Department Spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler welcomed the referendum outcome.

MARGARET TUTWILER, State Department Spokeswoman: This vote sends a message of reconciliation to black South Africans who have demonstrated a remarkable willingness to put the past behind them. Yesterday, white South Africans made their preference crystal clear. They rejected a "no" option that would have led to a return of international isolation and domestic discord. All South Africans have a stake in our country's future and a right to make their views known. The way forward to a negotiated settlement is now more open than ever.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have an interview with the South Africa ambassador to the United States right after this News Summary. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: In this country, results from yesterday's primaries in Michigan and Illinois put Bill Clinton and George Bush in the winner's circle. With all the Democratic votes counted in Michigan, Clinton won 51 percent ofthe vote, Jerry Brown 26, and Paul Tsongas 17. President Bush on the Republican side carried 67 percent to Pat Buchanan's 25. In Illinois, with 99 percent of the vote counted, Democratic members were Clinton 51 percent, Tsongas 26, Brown 15. On the Republican side, Mr. Bush had 76 percent and Buchanan 22. This morning, Buchanan all but conceded the nomination to the President. He spoke at an airport news conference outside Washington.

PAT BUCHANAN: Clearly, the President won two bit victories yesterday in Michigan and Illinois, and he appears to be headed for the nomination and only celestial intervention could interrupt that process. And so our campaign, however, because it was not simply about delegates is going to continue so we are gaining ground and we are making converts everywhere we go. The phone calls by ten to one are saying stay in and keep doing battle. And that's what we intend to do. And so we're going to proceed ahead with this campaign.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Democratic Primary in Illinois surprised several congressional incumbents who were counting on being reelected. Two term U.S. Senator Alan Dixon was defeated by Cook County official Carol Moseley Braun. It was Dixon's first defeat in 43 years of politics. Braun decided to run after Dixon voted last fall to confirm Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. If Braun wins in November, she will be the first black woman ever elected to the Senate. And in a race profiled on the NewsHour last night, five-term Congressman Charles Hays lost to former Black Panther Bobby Rush. Last week, Hays admitted that he wrote 716 bad checks at the troubled House bank. Rush made that a key campaign issue. We'll have more on the results of yesterday's primaries later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: There was a claim of responsibility today for the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina that killed at least 12 people. The Islamic Jihad, a pro-Iranian fundamentalist group, issued a statement in Beirut, Lebanon, saying it ordered the bombing to avenge Israel's assassination last month of a Shiite Muslim leader. In addition to the dead, another 250 people were injured in yesterday's blast. Before that claim, Israel's foreign minister, David Levy, threatened to strike back at the bombers. He said those who carried out these murders and those who sent them can expect painful punishment. The Israeli government will choose the place and manner to avenge the blood of the fallen. Rescue crews in Buenos Aires continued to search throughout the day for victims trapped in the rubble. Officials said as many as 20 people could still be inside. They said it was doubtful any were still alive. At least 30 people were killed in a landslide that hit a shanty town slum in Brazil. Another 400 were reported missing. The tragedy occurred 250 miles North of Rio DeJanero. There was no official explanation for the landslide, but a Brazilian news service said it was caused by construction near the slum.

MS. WOODRUFF: The former Soviet republic of Ukraine has reportedly agreed to resume shipping nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction. Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk said last week he would stop the shipments because he was concerned that Russia might redeploy the weapons rather than destroy them. But today Russian news agencies quoted President Boris Yeltsin as saying that Kravchuk had promised to hand over all the weapons by July 1st as previously agreed.

MR. LEHRER: Hotel owner Leona Helmsley was ordered today to report to report to federal prison April 15th. A federal judge in New York City declined toset aside the four year prison sentence she received following her conviction for tax evasion. She had said she was too ill to go to prison. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the referendum in South Africa and to the primaries in Michigan and Illinois. FOCUS - END OF AMERICA

MR. LEHRER: The White minority has voted to endorse the inevitable, a move toward black majority rule in South Africa. A record 85 percent of white voters turned out for the referendum on continuing negotiations and the "yes" vote was 68.7 percent. Our coverage of this lead story begins with a report by Judy Aslett of Independent Television News.

MS. ASLETT: It's a victory President DeKlerk has been hoping for, the massive wind giving him a clear mandate to press ahead with reform, the man who began change here two years ago now claiming finally the end of apartheid.

PRESIDENT DE KLERK: Today we have closed the book on apartheid and that chapter is finally closed. We, standing on the threshold, face a future full of challenges. Nothing is going to be easy. But we have chosen our direction. We have laid the foundation on which to bode real reconciliation, long-term stability and peace and progress for all.

MS. ASLETT: The result will have a direct effect on negotiations. The Convention for a Democratic South Africa, CODESA, which first meant four months ago, is already well on the way to agreeing the principles for a new constitution. For the black majority, marching in protest against the budget today, that's heightened their demand for a place in an interim government which they now want by the end of the year.

NELSON MANDELA, President, African National Congress: We hope now that the National Party as well as its leaders will stop regarding themselves as the leaders of a tribe, as the leaders of an ethnic group, that they will conduct themselves from now on as part of the leadership of the total South African population.

MS. ASLETT: For the right wing though, the result is a disaster. The more extreme groups are already threatening to take up arms and the size of President DeKlerk's majority have increased the chances of right wing violence. Amongst the more moderate conservatives at party headquarters today, there's also talk of a split. Some members of parliament are known to favor joining negotiations. But today the leadership said that was out of the question.

ANDRIES TREURNICHT, Leader, Conservative Party: I'm not going to any negotiation table where I'll have to beg the freedom of my people from Mr. Mandela or anyone else.

HARALD PAKENDORF, Independent Political Analyst: The younger generation MPs, those who came into politics opposed to split with the National Party are the ones who are looking to negotiating and it's the older generation which is saying so far no further. And I think that must mean about half of the present MPs would be considering negotiating.

MS. ASLETT: President DeKlerk emerges tonight with his hand strengthened by this referendum result. Whatever course the right wing now decides to take, it's clear the government enjoys the support of the majority of white South Africans and it's the majority that's in favor of reform.

MR. LEHRER: A further perspective now from the South African Ambassador to the United States, Harry Schwarz. I spoke with him this afternoon. Mr. Ambassador, welcome.

AMB. SCHWARZ: Nice to be with you.

MR. LEHRER: How important is this referendum outcome?

AMB. SCHWARZ: I think it's a very significant event in South Africa's history because it's really demonstrated that white South Africa wants to move towards a democracy. And there's always been doubt cast on that both internally by the black community and also externally by the international community. So I this is established now once and for all that, in fact, whites have to go on to move towards a democracy.

MR. LEHRER: Did you have personal doubts, yourself?

AMB. SCHWARZ: I was worried and I was concerned. I thought we would win, but I didn't think we would win by as big a margin as we did.

MR. LEHRER: What's your analysis of why the "yes" vote won by such a large margin?

AMB. SCHWARZ: I think the reason is that there is actually no alternative to the negotiation and to the achievement of a democracy. The reality is that you cannot remain isolated. You cannot continue to practice apartheid and you cannot go back to apartheid. So, therefore, the choice really was a very stark one between people who want the status quo and know that it really can't continue and those who are realistic.

MR. LEHRER: Those who supported President DeKlerk and a "yes" vote said that a "no" vote would, could trigger civil war, could trigger a return for South Africa to international sanctions and all the rest. Were those fears justified?

AMB. SCHWARZ: Well, I think there is a very considerable ground for believing and I think it's beyond question that, the fact that the black community would not take it lying down, that there should be no change in South Africa. After all, the black community constitutes the majority. It's not the majority who voted here; it was a minority. And for a minority to hold up the democratic process in this time is just not practical, not possible. And secondly, as far as the international community is concerned, they have been told that we're making progress. Many people have, in fact, put themselves on the line and have, in fact, said, yes, we will help you, we will remove sanctions. Now, all those people would say, now, wait a minute, you, in fact, said you were going ahead, and now you're going backwards. And I think there would have been action from the international community.

MR. LEHRER: The African National Congress and other black groups in South Africa objected to the very idea of this "whites only" referendum. Why did President DeKlerk think it was necessary?

AMB. SCHWARZ: Well, I think I can understand their objection, because it's not acceptable that one group of people are voting while you are voteless and it's your future that's being voted on. So I think that's very understandable. But President DeKlerk needed to establish that, in fact, there was a mandate for what he was doing from the very people who had elected him. And that mandate was challenged, that after he'd lost three bi-elections, the Conservative Party said, you do not have the support of the white people to do this. So, therefore, both at the negotiating table and in the international field his credibility was put into question.

MR. LEHRER: Now, the vote was almost 70 percent in favor of continuing these negotiations. But that still leaves a third, over a million people, white people in South Africa, who are opposed to that. What happens to them now? What happens to their concerns?

AMB. SCHWARZ: Well, I think the first thing one has to remember is that people who voted know for a variety of reasons, there are people who were concerned about the crime, there are people who are concerned about the state of the economy. There are people who were fearful of the future, which is understandable, because they are moving into an unknown. Andone mustn't assume that all those people who voted no, in fact, would either take to arms or would resist. I think most of them are going to end up saying, let's take part in the negotiating process. And one of the difficulties I think that's existed has been that the Afrikaner has been portrayed as a kind of stereotype as seen in the form of Mr. Terry Blanche of the Afrikaner resistance movement. That is not the Afrikaner. One of the things that this vote has demonstrated is that, in fact, the Afrikaner has a majority voted in favor of change, because this majority wouldn't have been possible without Afrikaner votes. So I think one has to look at it as a picture as a whole and I have a feeling that what will happen is we'll have a fringe extremist element that'll still try to indulge in violence, that will still threaten, but that the majority of the white people, even though they voted no, will from that side come along with the negotiating process.

MR. LEHRER: You are not that concerned then about those white extremists who say never and they have promised to fight to the very end to prevent this from happening?

AMB. SCHWARZ: You know, we've heard in Africa this word "never" so often. We heard it just North of us, never in our lifetime, and they will accept the reality of life.

MR. LEHRER: You mean in Rhodesia, Zimbabwe?

AMB. SCHWARZ: Correct. We had them saying, "never in our lifetime." Well, it happened and it happened within the lifetime of the people concerned. So the word "never" is one that one should be very careful about using and I think people do use it in South Africa. But the reality is there will be some people who will not accept it, the very small minority. There are fringe groups not only on the right in the white community, there are fringe groups on the left in the black community. So one must accept that there are fringe groups. But the vast majority of South Africans of whatever color or race they are I think want to get together and want to solve this problem.

MR. LEHRER: Would it be correct to interpret this vote as the white minority, or at least the majority of the white minority saying we are prepared for majority black rule of our country?

AMB. SCHWARZ: I think they are prepared for a democratic rule. They want, I think, a non-racial constitution. That's what we're talking about, a constitution in which people will vote each one on equal footing but in which there will be protection for minorities, because we have many minorities in South Africa. We, for instance, have 11 different languages alone in our country. So minorities need to be protected. We need a constitution in terms of which you have the kind of rights that you have under your constitution. So it's that kind of government that we're looking for in terms of which all people are treated equally and all have access to the courts and all have opportunity.

MR. LEHRER: But if the black majority ends up with an equal vote, does that not also mean there is going to be a black president and a black majority government of South Africa?

AMB. SCHWARZ: You see, to me, the color of the president is not important. What's important is whether he's a humanitarian, whether he's a democrat, whether he applies the right kind of policies, that he's not an autocrat. The color of the person is not important to me and I think that's how South Africa is going to turn out to be, that color is not going to be the issue. It's going to be values.

MR. LEHRER: The pro-apartheid Conservative Party's leaders said today after these results were announced, "Mr. DeKlerk won his referendum just like Gorbachev won his. Gorbachev is today out of power and Mr. DeKlerk is negotiating his own government out of power." Is that correct? Was that analogy correct with Gorbachev?

AMB. SCHWARZ: Well, I think the analogy is quite different, because, in fact, one of the things that's happened is that Mr. DeKlerk has kept the support of his constituency, which I think is what's vital in this kind of operation. Secondly, when he --

MR. LEHRER: You mean, a white --

AMB. SCHWARZ: Well, the white voter who originally elected him still supports him. What is also happening, of course, is that he's getting a fair amount of support, quite a lot of support, in the black community, which I think is very significant. And I think we have to bear in mind that when Dr. Treurnicht talks about negotiating --

MR. LEHRER: That's the Conservative Party leader.

AMB. SCHWARZ: Yes. He talks about negotiating out of power. The truth is that President DeKlerk said today that he's looking for power sharing. He's looking for a new constitution. In other words, this is not a device on the part of DeKlerk to remain in power forever, far from it.

MR. LEHRER: So he is prepared to step aside if and when the process requires it?

AMB. SCHWARZ: Well, it depends on the electorate. I think he'll be a candidate. He might win. He might lose. Mr. Mandela might win, might lose. I think in a non-racial constitution that anybody can win and it's possible that a black majority might elect whites. It might be that whites will elect blacks. This is what we're hoping for, a non-racial situation.

MR. LEHRER: As a practical matter, what this referendum means, the negotiations that are now underway between the government and the ANC and other black groups will continue the way they have been, correct?

AMB. SCHWARZ: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: And then can you give us any kind of timetable when an interim government might be formed and all that sort of thing, or is it impossible to do?

AMB. SCHWARZ: Well, I think the next step is April. The end of April we'll see a meeting of a group known as CODESA. That's the Convention for a Democratic South Africa. That's where the 19 political parties are meeting together to formulate a new constitution and also to formulate the ideas for an interim government. So that's the next step. And I think after that meeting, the steps towards an interim government or transitional government, as it's sometimes called, that is a next step that'll take place. Different people --

MR. LEHRER: Do you think that'll happen fairly soon?

AMB. SCHWARZ: I think fairly soon. People are making different forecasts. I know Mr. Mandela says by June. I think it may take a little longer, but it's coming fairly soon.

MR. LEHRER: Amb. Schwarz, just in personal terms, you've been involved in the politics of South Africa for 40 years as an opponent of apartheid. Did you think something like this would ever happen?

AMB. SCHWARZ: Well, I was hoping it would happen and one has the confidence that when you are fighting, that you'll eventually get to this kind of stage. So one always hoped and one always thought it would happen. What, of course, did take place is that there were many years of frustration, almost a feeling of helplessness. But when President DeKlerk came along, the suddenly the world changed and things moved very, very rapidly. And I think that is what has been rewarding. And that's why the possibility of a reversal in this referendum was something which to me was just too ghastly to contemplate.

MR. LEHRER: And of course, as Nelson Mandela said today, this was a terrific thing, what happened in this referendum, but as we speak, apartheid still lives in South Africa.

AMB. SCHWARZ: Well, apartheid lives to the extent that we have got to negotiate a new constitution and we've got to see that everybody gets a vote. And there will be one person, one vote in South Africa. It'll be some people believe in a federal constitution, some believe in a centrist constitution. But that's going to come about. And that can't be done by DeKlerk, himself. That has to be done at CODESA by the consensus of all the parties that are involved, because nobody wants a constitution imposed upon them. They want to be part of the creation of a constitution.

MR. LEHRER: And that's happening?

AMB. SCHWARZ: And that's going to happen, yes.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much.

AMB. SCHWARZ: Thank you.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Gergen & Shields plus three. But first, this is pledge week on public television. We're taking a short break now so that your public television station can ask for your support. That support helps keep programs like this on the air. PLEDGE BREAK SEGMENT

MS. WOODRUFF: For those stations not taking a pledge break, the NewsHour continues with a unique prescription for reviving the nation's economy. It comes from Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot, who spoke before the National Press Club in Washington today.

H. ROSS PEROT, Businessman: At this point in time it is absolutely irresponsible for both the White House and Congress not to be linking arms, working together night and day to fix these economic problems. Unfortunately, this city has become a town filled with sound bites, shell games, handlers, media stuntmen, who posture, create images and talk, shoot off Roman candles, but don't ever accomplish anything. The total national debt was only $1 trillion in 1980 when President Reagan took office. It is now $4 trillion. Maybe it was voodoo economics. Whatever it was, we are now in deep voodoo. I'll tell you that. [laughter] And I don't know quite know what the problem is here, but this is an out of control financial situation. To me, this is like flying a 747 down on the deck at night, through the mountains with no instruments. It's just a question of which hill you're going to hit. We cannot continue to tolerate this. The average citizen works five months a year just to pay his taxes, 42 percent of his income goes to taxes. All the personal income taxes collected West of the Mississippi are needed just to pay the interest on the national debt. Kind of depressing, isn't it? Okay. Who's at fault? The first thing you got to do in our country is blame somebody, right? Well, go home tonight and look in the mirror. Everybody watching television go home tonight and look in the mirror. You and I are at fault because we own this country and there is the problem in a nutshell. We've had abdicated our ownership responsibilities. As owners of this country, we hold the future of this country in the palm of our hands. I ask you now, can we agree that going $4 trillion into debt did not create utopia? We've wasted the money. We got to pay the $4 trillion back. We got to pay the interest. You say, all right, Ross, which one of the Presidential candidates can fix this? Solomon can't fix this, the wisest man that ever lived. You know why? Because we have to fix it. You cannot just go vote in November, send some poor devil up there and go home. You're going to have to get in the ring, stay in the ring, and act like you own this country. Our founders created a government that came from us. Please listen carefully to this. We now have a government that comes at us. The process has reversed itself. That's why you have to get in the ring. Since we the people own this country here are just a few unsolicited ideas. No. 1, you've got to be fully informed. How can you become fully important? Not with sound bites. We've got to have, using television, an electronic town hall where we explain each of these issues we're talking about today in great detail to you. And with the current technology we have today, you can respond by congressional district and send a laserlike signal to every Congressman in Washington about what you want as a way of clearing their heads. We've got to stop deficit spending immediately. We've got to replace Gramm-Rudman with a real bill that cuts out all tricks, loopholes, and improper accounting procedures. We've got to take away Congress's right to raise taxes. Now there's a radical idea. You say well, that means a constitutional amendment. Fine. Now, you say, why am I doing it? These boys are drinking too much. That's why. You've got to take the bottle away from them for a while at least. Now, if they need more money, just put it on the ballot and let the owners of the country sign off. The board of directors and the stockholders of a company would want to. Give the President the line item veto to get rid of pork barrel and waste. Now, I say that for three reasons. No. 1, we ought to do it. No. 2, I'd like to see what he does with it. And No. 3, I'd like for him to stop whining about it. [laughter] Now just put it on there and then go on from there. Now, finally Congress absolutely must not exempt itself from the laws it imposes on us. You know all about that. This includes, but not limited to, the disability act, the equal opportunity act, the occupation safety act, et cetera, et cetera. Now, here's a weird one. Why do we have elections on Tuesday? A working fellow can't get there. Let's have elections on Saturday and Sunday. Why can't we leave the polls open two days? If anybody has a good reason, call me collect. [laughter] In plain Texas talk, it's time to take out the trash and clean out the barn or it's going to be too late. We've got a choice. We can wait until the clock stops ticking and it'll take us two decades to fix it, or we can move now.

MS. WOODRUFF: Despite some attempts to recruit Perot to run as an independent in the Presidential race, he said today that he was not yet an official candidate. FOCUS - '92 ELECTION

MS. WOODRUFF: We turn now to Campaign '92. Gov. Bill Clinton and President Bush were the big winners in yesterday's Presidential primaries in Michigan and Illinois. Clinton has now won 44 percent of the 2145 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination. With yesterday's twin victories, the Associated Press puts Clinton's delegate totals at 947. Former Sen. Tsongas has 430, former Gov. Brown 129, and 422 delegates are uncommitted. On the Republican side, President Bush would appear to have a virtual lock on the 1105 delegates needed for renomination. Winning Illinois and Michigan gives Mr. Bush a total delegate town of 711 to Pat Buchanan's 46 and 6 uncommitted. To help us sort through these and other results, we are joined by Gergen & Shields plus three, that is, David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, and syndicated columnist Mark Shields. He joins us from Henderson, Nevada tonight. The plus three are Democratic Pollster Peter Hart, Republican Pollster Linda Divall, and Eddie Williams, head of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a research organization which focuses on black policy issues. Well, David, I'm going to start with you. Pat Buchanan said today, I think I have this right, only celestial intervention is going to prevent President Bush from getting this nomination. If that's the case, why is Pat Buchanan staying in the race?

MR. GERGEN: Well, there's no sign that celestial intervention is on the horizon either. I think he's staying in for a couple of reasons. He continues to be a magnet to draw George Bush to the right and many conservatives will support him right through the election, indeed, make him a factor in the fall campaign in order to keep Bush to the right, because the President has moved over. And secondly, I think that Pat Buchanan wants to redefine conservatism for the future so that he might well be the nominee of the party in 1996. Both of those reasons I think are sufficient for him and as long as he doesn't attack the President, I don't think he's doing much damage to him right now.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mark, do you want to add anything to that?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, if he doesn't attack the President, Judy, he's not going to be covered. If he's not covered, then he might as well not be running. I think it becomes very difficult when you've contested the President in every state to say, well, I'm really going to go from here to California because there just isn't the kind of oxygen which is the media coverage that an insurgent campaign needs to survive. I mean, the first question asked of Pat Buchanan will be, I thought you were out of the race, what are you doing, and he has to explain what he's doing at this point. I think it becomes increasingly difficult from this point forward.

MS. WOODRUFF: Linda Divall, any other thoughts on it?

MS. DIVALL: I think Mark makes a good point. The longer that Buchanan stays in the race without being controversial, the more he loses his cache, if you will, and I think the key thing that he needs to worry about is how does he go about the process of getting what he wants most at the convention and positioning himself for 1996, and I don't think he's sorted that out yet.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about, is the fact, David, that the President is losing or lost a third of the Republican voters in Michigan, what, about a quarter of the voters, Republican voters in Illinois, is that something that he needs to worry about at this point?

MR. GERGEN: Well, you know, it's interesting. It's all in the optics, and particularly the optics of the press. In the beginning of this campaign, we looked upon, you know, a 37 percent vote for Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire as a major victory for Buchanan. Now when he gets 25 or 30 percent, we see it as a major victory for Bush. So I think it's partly what we create, to be honest with you. I think there's still a protest vote out there that is bigger than one would imagine. I do think it's trouble for the President in the fall unless the economy comes back. My expectation is we'll see some modest recovery here in the next few months.

MS. WOODRUFF: Peter Hart.

MR. HART: Well, there's a sense that George Bush needed to accomplish something in this campaign. He's won tactically. That's all he's done. I mean, he's run the negative ads against Pat Buchanan, shows him driving him a Mercedes and saying come home America. It doesn't work for Pat Buchanan, but the difficulty is George Bush ends up without a message, without moving his campaign forward. So he's getting the 75 percent. But I callit a joyless 75 percent.

MS. WOODRUFF: A joyless 75 percent. Eddie Williams, is President Bush any weaker as a result? How much weaker, let me put it this way, is he as a result of Pat Buchanan having taken shots at him for the last three months?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think Pat is taking BB shots and they're not really hurting that much. But they all make little dents. And there are little dents that I think the Democrats would hope to seize upon in November. I will say that if Pat Buchanan had a rose garden, this would be a great time for him to go and confer with himself on what he wants to do and how he plans to get there.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mark, how badly do you think the President is nicked as a result of all this?

MR. SHIELDS: I think Peter is absolutely right, Judy, that George Bush has beaten Pat Buchanan but he hasn't addressed what George Bush's basic problem is. Has there been a wake-up call, yes. Has this campaign been through a spring training shake-down, yes. But we still have no greater idea why George Bush wants to be President, other than the case he's made that Pat Buchanan is inconsistent or hypocritical on his espousal of protectionist or nationalist trade policies, and at the same time driving a Mercedes.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you agree with that, Linda Divall?

MS. DIVALL: Well, I would say initially the President was nicked a little bit, but since then you've seen in the exit polling data that his job approval rating has steadily increased, No. 1, to about a 2 to 1 margin, but secondly, what's happened on the Democrat side has really overshadowed what potential problems the President might have. And unfortunately for the Democrats, I don't think they've been able to maximize the vulnerability that might have existed because of the fact that this Democrat primary has actually become a little bit more engaged with the emergence of Jerry Brown than I think many people had anticipated.

MS. WOODRUFF: What are you saying, that there's been more attention paid to the Democrats and that's helped the President, is that what you're saying?

MS. DIVALL: Yes. I'm saying that the tussle on the other side and the fact that many people feel that many Democrat leaders are still somewhat uncomfortable with Bill Clinton means that there has been undue scrutiny on that side and it has not just been focused on the fact that President Bush might have some problems and where is he going next. I mean, both Mark and Peter are absolutely right. The key thing that the Bush White House needs to address is what is the future direction of this Presidency, and they haven't done that yet, but that has not received the prominent attention that it might have otherwise if the Democrats thought he was resolved.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you agree with that, David?

MR. GERGEN: Yes.

MS. WOODRUFF: It was that good, you're not going to say anything else?

MR. GERGEN: What else can be said to improve upon her?

MS. WOODRUFF: Peter.

MR. HART: No. Linda's right, except for one problem. The problem is for George Bush is he's looking at a tactical race and if they think that they're going to get re-elected in the White House just by an anti-campaign, I think he's misreading 1992. I think he has to stand for something. He has to provide a vision of where he's going to take the country.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. What about the Clinton point though, this business about the vulnerability? We keep hearing the other shoe or whatever you want to call it, the other high heel. Is that a real problem for Bill Clinton today?

MR. HART: Well, I guess the real problem is if that's what the Republicans are banking on, that really isn't much of a campaign strategy, is it? I mean, it seems to me that we've got to give Bill Clinton a tremendous amount of credit for what he was able to accomplish yesterday. He's now gone from South to North and he's won big races and he's won them well. He's persevered. He's shown tremendous character, internal fortitude, and more importantly than that, he's shown that he has a message and a message that works. So he understands the electorate and he's out there and he's doing the right thing. I'd say give Bill Clinton tremendous credit. He's done it right. He's done it well and the first 15 days in March are as good as any 15 days anybody could have.

MS. WOODRUFF: Eddie Williams, what is it that Bill Clinton has put together that, you know, the word in the wires and the newspapers today is that this is virtually impossible to stop him now from getting the nomination?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know whether it's impossible or not, but he does, as Peter said, have a very formidable campaign and I think it would be a mistake for anyone to wait for him to shoot himself in the foot. After New Hampshire, he declared himself as the "comeback kid" and it seems to me he has lived up to that, to that billing. He's a fighter. He's articulate. He is bright. He is very fast on his feet. He is able to take adversity and turn it into an asset. Witness the hassle over his wife. I mean, he virtually put Jerry Brown on the defensive on that one by accusing him of castigating his wife. And he got into the whole gender issue. I think these are some reasons why it will not be easy to cast him out. Unlike Dukakis, I think what President Bush will find in the fall in the election is that here is a fighter, here is a very strong counter puncher.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mark, how much does Bill Clinton have to worry at this point about either Jerry Brown or Paul Tsongas?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, he has to worry, Judy, in two respects. I think that the previous observations are valid, that this is somebody, after all, who's won 10 campaigns in the past two weeks. So the argument that's been used against him that he's unelectable becomes increasingly difficult to make, especially by those candidates he's beating by a 2 to 1 margin in state after state, week after week. But I think Bill Clinton does have a task right now and a very difficult task and that is to lower the anxiety level among many Democrats and to heighten the comfort level among Democrats and being quite frank about it, there are still reservations about him. The very fact that people talk in terms of something else happening, that Jerry Brown talks about a scandal a week or whatever, the idea is Bill Clinton plays wonderful defense and he can take a punch, as has been put. We always use the sports page metaphor. But you don't want your candidate having to slip punches and get up off the deck. You want to be able to score points, especially when he's trying to do something that's only been done three times in this century, and that's to beat an incumbent President.

MS. WOODRUFF: And, David, does it hurt Bill Clinton that Jerry Brown is, apparently he was just out there two days ago talking about the scandal a week, I guess as recently as yesterday, if he keeps this up, what does that do to Democrats?

MR. GERGEN: The conventional wisdom is that Jerry Brown is a Pat Buchanan on the Democratic side, he'll keep drawing blood from Bill Clinton. I call it a contrarian view and that is the longer this race goes on, the more it helps Bill Clinton, because I think when he goes out and wins a race it's two to one, and I think that margin may increase in some future races. It will make him look more electable. I think he looks more electable this week than he did two weeks ago because he's wrapped up these victories. So to have Tsongas and Brown stay in as long as there are no more revelations, I think he build momentum, which is good for him. You know, as a colleague put it to me, you know, we may be asking the wrong question. It's not whether he's electable but whether he's sinkable. He's taken all these punches. I think he's gained support from people who are being sympathetic to the fact he takes a punch, gets back up off the deck and is a strong candidate. It has not eliminated all the doubts. The number of people on the Democratic side who are saying they would like somebody else in the race is going up in these primaries. It's gone up from 29 percent in New Hampshire to over 50 percent yesterday. So it's not over for him. But he has put together a strong coalition of working class whites and blacks and you have to give him credit for that.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. We want to move on just a moment. It wasn't all Presidential politics yesterday. There were some upsets in Illinois in Congressional primary races as well. The biggest surprise of the night was the defeat of two-term Senator Alan Dixon by Carol Moseley Braun. She is the Cook County recorder of deeds and she is seeking to be the first black woman elected to the U.S. Senate.

CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN, Democratic Senate Nominee, Illinois: When they said it couldn't be done and you said, oh, yes, it can, oh, yes, it can [applause], when you told 'em, you said we get it, we know how to do this and we're doing the right thing you went out all over the state, all over the state to take the message forward that this democracy is live and well and ordinary people can have a voice with no money, with no money, [applause] just a lot of, a lot of hard work and dedication and commitment and devotion and staying with the plan. We started on a track. We stayed positive. We talked to people here in the heart about what mattered for real, not just sound bites, but about the real issues. We are going to give the Senate a healthy dose of democracy and we are going to make history in November. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Mark Shields out in Nevada, was it hard work and staying positive that won this for Carol Braun?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think Carol Braun poses today in her victory an enormous threat to an industry that's under siege and that is of political consultants. I mean this is somebody who won on a shoestring against one candidate, an insurgent who spent 4.3 million of his own money, who actually did help by softening up Sen. Dixon, but I think David had talked about it earlier in terms of George Bush. I think it's true and Carol Braun's victory I think symbolized it, and that is, George Bush was elected as a candidate of the status quo, as an in box President. In 1992, the status quo is unacceptable. Anybody who tries to run as the status quo, and I think Alan Dixon, after a 43 year career and a very gracious concession statement last night is seen as a symbol of status quo. And I think anybody who is not seen as an agent of change and real change in 1992 faces early retirement.

MS. WOODRUFF: Linda Divall, would you see it the same way?

MS. DIVALL: I would have to agree with Mark. I mean, what you saw from the clip is she is spunky and vivacious. But more importantly, I think this anti-incumbency feeling we saw in our survey data was very pronounced as early as a year ago. It used to be though that the snail darter was the most prominent on the endangered species list. Now I think it's any incumbent member of Congress and if they don't get the message, the voters start buying their ashtrays now because they won't get 'em next year.

MS. WOODRUFF: Peter Hart, what about the reports were that she said she decided to get in after Dixon voted against Clarence Thomas in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings, was that a factor in all this?

MR. HART: I'm sure it was a factor, but the big factor is people are unhappy, they're angry and they're going to vote change. Unless you have the ability to say this is what I stand for and this is, I'm part of that change, you're in trouble. And for every single incumbent out there that's running for re-election, they better have gotten the message yesterday, because they're going to get it sent to them. And I'll bet you one thing this year, you'll see very few billboards that'll say re-elect on them. Nobody will be putting that there.

MS. WOODRUFF: Eddie Williams, were there any other factors do you think in her victory?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Judy, clearly there was a lot of disillusion and I suppose we could call that anti-incumbent. I'm a little concerned about that expression because it tends to imply that what is out there is some non-discriminating massive force against all incumbents. I don't think that is true. I think there's a tremendous amount of discrimination among the, within the electorate. Take Carol Braun, for example. I think it was more than just anti-incumbent. There are some factors that we know, for example, that Sen. Dixon's voting record had increasingly grown outside of the mainstream of the Democrats in Illinois, particularly in Chicago. He certainly got caught on the wrong side of the Clarence Thomas issue and, therefore, there were a lot of women mobilized on behalf of Carol Braun for that, including I understand a significant number of Republican women crossovers. She is an experienced politician having been in the State House and in her current position as a recorder of deeds. So I think that there were some positive factors, more than just a one issue on her part, and more than just an anti-incumbent feeling.

MS. WOODRUFF: Republican women crossovers, David, is that a problem for the Republican candidate, Rich Williamson, in the fall? He's the fellow who's running against her.

MR. GERGEN: It could be. I think he's going to be a stronger candidate than people understand. He's rather unknown right now in politics. I've known Rich and worked with him a few years ago and I think it'll be an interesting and very tough race. If we go back to something Peter said, there won't be any bumper stickers this year of stay the course, which was the old slogan of the '80s. And I think even George Bush last night was running as a candidate of change when he put out a statement, you remember that, so he got both Clinton and Bush running at it. But this race was as important to Democrats as the Thornburgh loss was to Republicans.

MS. WOODRUFF: That was the Senate Republican, Senate Republican - -

MR. GERGEN: In Pennsylvania this last fall when an establishment Republican they thought, everybody thought would win lost. Now you've got an establishment Democrat losing. No one is safe. This election in Illinois hit Capitol Hill like a tidal wave. All the Democratic Senators, as well as Republican Senators know, you have to scramblenow. You have to represent change. I think it's a very healthy day for democracy. You know, Washington hasn't been working and when voters stand up and respond and start throwing people out, that's what's going to bring real change in Washington.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, how much of it was specifically, Mark, check bouncing scandal? We had the Congressman Charles Hays, in fact, we profiled that race last night on the NewsHour who had bounced what, he said, 716 checks and we, Elizabeth Brackett interviewed a voter there in Chicago, who said I just didn't like the way he dealt with that thing. He seemed too arrogant. Was it the way members of Congress are responding to this, or just the fact that they're involved, do you think?

MR. SHIELDS: I think it is the involvement, Judy. It's fascinating to watch how the members try to deal with it. I think the poet, Chesterdam, once said that psychoanalysis was confession without absolution. You're hearing a lot of confession, but voters are giving very little absolution and forgiveness about the check cashing because it is something that people can associate and identify from their own life and it is something further that just represents that sense of remoteness, of arrogance, of power, and perks, that people increasingly associate with their elected representatives in Washington, both executive and legislative.

MS. WOODRUFF: Linda Divall, how worried should Republican incumbents be this fall?

MS. DIVALL: Well, as I said earlier, any incumbent has got to be on red alert right now. But secondly, I think, you know, the numbers are such that there are more Democratic incumbents and there are more Democratic incumbents who have been in office a longer period of time. So there is some safety in that. But, nonetheless, I think Republicans who have been inadvertently caught up in this net, as many have and as Sec. Cheney alluded to last night, I think have to square with the voters very, very completely and very early on. And the good news about this episode is there's plenty of time for the voters to assimilate this information. I say full disclosure. Let the members explain their own situation. And the electorate I think will be smart enough to make a judgment based on the people that they know, whether they want them in or out.

MS. WOODRUFF: Eddie Williams, do you agree that full disclosure, get it out early, and the issue's pretty much over and done with then?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think the whole issue, this issue about check bouncing is what I would call a kicker issue. By that I mean if there are some other problems there with respect to the candidate, this certainly will be the kicker to bring 'em down. You take Charlie Hays for example. I'm not persuaded that the check bouncing issue alone would have done the trick in his case. There were some other factors. I think some of the electorate had grown a little concerned about his representation of the district. I think there may have been some other issues that they were concerned about, and that perhaps the check issue was the straw that broke the camel's back.

MS. WOODRUFF: Peter Hart, can you add anything to this?

MR. HART: The one important thing is I think George Bush was salivating, thinking that it was going to be a Republican wedge against the Democrats. I think it's against government and I think the difficulty is it's going to work as much against George Bush as it is going to work against the incumbent Congress people. They're unhappy with what's going on. That's the message. And I think that Eddie Williams is right. It's the kicker issue if there are other things there.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about Linda Divall's point though, that if they do the full confession number early on, that they can sort of inoculate themselves?

MR. HART: I'm not sure that they'll totally inoculate themselves.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's my word, not hers. I may have gone further than Linda intended to go.

MR. HART: Fair enough. I've got it. But I don't think you can totally inoculate yourself. If you have 900 bounced checks, I think you're going to find that it unscrews a Congressman.

MS. WOODRUFF: David, should incumbents be really sweating it out?

MR. GERGEN: Yes, absolutely, and it's good. We just had this story on about South Africa, and that was where the phrase "the winds of change are blowing all" originated, remember, back in the '50s, with Anton Eden, and now the winds of change are blowing here. And it's a healthy thing and it's going to force Washington to come to grips, even if some incumbents don't get thrown out, it's going to force Washington to do things they're not doing now, reform campaign finance laws. They've been refusing to do that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Because you said weren't. For example, the long time Ways & Means chairman, Dan Rostenkowski, did not go down to defeat --

MR. GERGEN: That's right. But the charade that's been going on about stimulating the economy, both sides now, the White House and the Executive and the Congressional branch are posturing over economic reform and trying to help the economy. They're both looking for a veto because they want to get something out of it politically. You know, the deficits that people are walking away from and just sort of holding their nose and walking away from it and abandoning any fiscal discipline in this country, I think all those issues are going to get a real shove now. And that's terrific. It's great news for the country.

MS. WOODRUFF: Winds of change, Mark Shields, is that what it is?

MR. SHIELDS: I think the winds of change are certainly blowing and anybody who cares about democracy anywhere in the world or planet has to be cheered and excited and encouraged by South Africa. But if you talk about inoculation on the check cashing, when you write 900 bad checks, the inoculation, you're going to look like a porcupine you're going to have so many needles in you. It's going to be beyond, Judy, you know, masochism of the first order. I think that in certain states, my native state of Massachusetts has been historically more tolerant of the peccadilloes, of their elected office holders. States like Minnesota I don't think that's the case. States they have a strong reform-minded tradition in the state, and I mean no disservice to my native state, but where, you know, that is really valued, I think check writing there, bad check writing, could really hurt and probably doom a political career.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, gentlemen, we thank you all, and Linda Divall, once again. Thank you all for being with us. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, White South Africans voted overwhelmingly to negotiate with blacks for an end to white minority rule. And voters in Michigan and Illinois gave large margins of victory to President Bush and Bill Clinton in yesterday's Presidential primaries. Two-term Democratic Senator Alan Dixon was defeated for re-election. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.