The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After the News Summary, Arthur Ashe and the risk of AIDS from old transfusions, then we examine where the Democratic Presidential race stands after yesterday's primaries. Three other analysts join Gergen & Shields. And we look at tomorrow's general election in Britain, which offers a referendum on the Thatcher legacy and a revival of Scottish nationalism. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Arthur Ashe has AIDS. The 48-year-old former tennis star announced that fact this afternoon at a news conference in New York City. He said it came from blood transfusions after his second heart bypass operation in 1983. His first was in 1979. A heart attack a few months before had ended his tennis career. Ashe said he learned he had the HIV virus after a brain operation in 1988 and said he had not planned to go public but was forced to when rumors were passed to members of the press. We'll have excerpts from his news conference and more on the story right after the News Summary. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Democratic Presidential hopeful Bill Clinton took his campaign to Illinois today, a day after scoring a decisive win in the New York primary. The final results showed Clinton with 41 percent, Paul Tsongas, who suspended his campaign last month, with 29 percent, and Jerry Brown 26. Clinton was also the winner of contests in Kansas and Wisconsin. At last night's celebration in New York, he said the victories were a turning point in the campaign. Jerry Brown vowed to keep fighting all the way to the convention, in spite of yesterday's results. Paul Tsongas is considering whether to reenter the race. He has scheduled an announcement for tomorrow. President Bush scored big victories in all three Republican primaries. Today he and Mrs. Bush took a pre- dawn stroll beneath Washington's flowering cherry trees. Speaking to reporters who tagged along, he called his showing "outstanding." We'll have much more on the Presidential race later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: The travels of Secretary of State Baker and John Sununu were the subject of a government report today. Congress's General Accounting Office said the two officials took $774,000 worth of personal and political travel on government planes in one twenty-six month period. The GAO said Baker under established formulas reimbursed the government for $17,000 of the 413,000 his trips cost. Sununu, then White House Chief of Staff, paid 44,500 for his $361,000 worth of travel. Baker announced last week he would begin taking commercial flights for personal travel after learning of the audit.

MR. MacNeil: PLO Chief Yasser Arafat was found alive today after his plane crash landed in the Libyan Desert. It went down last night during a flight from Sudan. Three crew members reportedly died in the crash. After the plane was reported missing, former President Jimmy Carter called the White House at the request of the PLO. He asked whether the U.S. could use its satellites to help spot the aircraft. U.S. officials said Arafat was found before they could respond. Robert Moore of Independent Television News has the story.

MR. MOORE: For a man who is constantly traveling and constantly at risk from assassination, Arafat's trip from Sudan to Tunisia must have seemed like just another journey. In fact, it saw his closest brush with death, Yasser Arafat surviving a crash that killed all the crew. Had he died, as was feared for many hours, the Palestinian movement would have lost its best known spokesman, a national hero without a country, a guerrilla leader now pursuing regional peace talks for the millions of dispossessed Palestinian refugees. Huge relief among his supporters greeted news that this great survivor of politics had again cheated death. There were celebrations across the region, nowhere more so than in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, land that Arafat sees as the territory of a future Palestinian state.

MR. MacNeil: Arafat was seen tonight on Libyan Television lying in a hospital bed in the capital, Tripoli. U.S. officials today said Iraq has moved anti-aircraft missiles into the Northern security zone for the Kurds. The missile batteries are reportedly above the 36th Parallel, in violation of U.N. resolutions. They could pose a threat to Western warplanes protecting the Kurdish region. National security adviser Brent Scowcroft called the deployments "a matter of considerable concern." He told CNN that the U.S. was consulting its allies on an appropriate response, but refused to say whether military force was being discussed.

MR. LEHRER: Jurors in the Manuel Noriega trial declared themselves deadlocked today. The jury foreman in Miami wrote a note blaming the impasse on one holdout. He told the judge "We feel we are wasting time. What should we do?" The judge ordered them to continue deliberating. The jury got the case four days ago after a six-month trial. They are considering 10 drug and racketeering charges against the former leader of Panama.

MR. MacNeil: France announced today that it will suspend its nuclear testing program for the rest of this year. The new prime minister, Pierre Berregovioux said France hoped the action would encourage other nuclear powers to negotiate further accords on disarmament and testing. France has conducted more than 200 nuclear tests in the South Pacific since 1966. The U.S. said today it was committed to negotiations on testing, but it would continue to conduct its own nuclear tests when needed, despite the French decision. That's our summary of the news. Just ahead, Arthur Ashe's AIDS announcement, the Democratic Presidential race, and tomorrow's British election. FOCUS - AIDS - ANOTHER VICTIM

MR. MacNeil: We lead tonight with the announcement by tennis star Arthur Ashe that he has AIDS. Ashe, who is 48, said he was infected through a blood transfusion during open heart surgery. He suffered a heart attack in 1979 and had bypass surgery that year and again in 1983. Here is an extended excerpt from his press conference today in New York. He was joined by his wife, Jean, and New York's mayor, David Dinkins.

ARTHUR ASHE, Former Tennis Champion: Beginning with my admittance to New York Hospital for brain surgery in September 1988, some of you heard that I had tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. That is, indeed, the case. It was transmitted through a blood transfusion after one of my open heart bypass operations, in all likelihood, the second operation in 1983. I have known since the time of my brain operation in September 1988 that I have AIDS. I found out when my right hand had lost all motor function and a biopsy of brain tissue removed detected the presence of toxoplasmosis, a marker for AIDS, which is relatively harmless in people with normally functioning immune systems. Subsequent blood tests proved positive for HIV. So some people may ask, why not go public earlier? The answer to me and my family was simple. Any admission of HIV infection at that time would have seriously, permanently, and my wife and I firmly believe unnecessarily infringed upon our family's right to privacy. Camera already knows. Just read that paragraph for me [talking to wife].

JEAN ASHE: Camera already knows that perfect strangers come up to daddy on the street and say hi. Even though we've begun preparing Camera for this news, beginning tonight, Arthur and I must teach her out to react to new, different and sometimes cruel comments that have very little to do with her reality.

ARTHUR ASHE: Particularly, for the sake of our family, Jeannie and I and some close friends have often talked about how long we could conceal this secret. Then sometime last week someone phoned USA Today and told the paper. After several days of checking it out, USA Today decided to confront me with the rumors. It put me in the unenviable position of having to lie if I wanted to protect our privacy. No one should have to make that choice. I am sorry that I have been forced to make this revelation now at this time. After all, I am not running for some office of public trust, nor do I have stockholders to account to. It is only that I fall under the dubious umbrella of "public figure." I am not sick and I can function very well in all that I have been involved in for the past several years. As for my family, my wife and daughter are in excellent health and both are HIV negative.

REPORTER: What lifestyle or emotional factors do you attribute your extraordinary good health to over these four years?

ARTHUR ASHE: Having been an athlete, I had the self-discipline to listen to reality and adjust very quickly to a new regimen. You obviously had to monitor and moderate the stress in your life. Stress impairs the immune system a little bit. I was very fortunate to be able to tolerate AZT. Some HIV positive patients cannot take it at all. They get very sick when first taking it. Of extreme importance, especially when I've seen others, is the support of my family and friends. I would say that's probably No. 1.

MR. LEHRER: The announcement by Ashe raised questions about the possibility of infections from past blood transfusions. Some 4770 AIDS cases in the United States have been attributed to blood transfusions. All but 20 of those cases occurred before 1985, when routine screening of the blood supply for the AIDS virus began. We're joined now by Dr. Ronald Sacher, the director of transfusion medicine at the Georgetown University Medical Center. He's also a spokesman for the American Association of Blood Banks. Dr. Sacher, many people might be asking themselves this evening if Arthur Ashe got HIV from a transfusion at that time, does it mean other people who had transfusions then face the same risk?

DR. SACHER: Well, there's certainly a possibility that those individuals who got blood transfusions in the time before blood was screened face a risk of transfusion-transmitted AIDS and I believe that individuals who received transfusions prior to 1985 when the test was introduced should actually be tested.

MR. MacNeil: Well, now let's make it clear. How far back before 1985, if they had transfusions to what year? When did HIV enter the blood supply system?

DR. SACHER: As far as we can tell, we believe that AIDS entered the blood supply in 1976. That would probably be the earliest time. And this is based on number of samples of blood that was stored for other tests that have subsequently been tested. So I would say probably 1976 at the earliest.

MR. MacNeil: So are you saying that people who had transfusions between 1976 and 1985 should go and be tested for HIV?

DR. SACHER: Yes, I believe so. I think that tremendous strides have been made both in the management of individuals who are HIV positive and as Mr. Ashe said, the drug AZT has certainly improved the symptoms that AIDS patients may have. And I think that their life expectancy is increasing. Tremendous strides have been made.

MR. MacNeil: If people followed your advice and turned out to have -- to be positive for HIV, how can you tell, or how could they tell it came from a transfusion?

DR. SACHER: Well, obviously, there are risk factors that would be excluded. The risk factors such as homosexuality and even heterosexual transmission, intravenous drug abuse and that sort of thing would have to be excluded. But more often than not, the individuals that have been identified have been identified as having received a transfusion, if one looks back at that individual's transfusion history -- and certainly blood banks keep incredible records -- one would be able to trace the donors in many instances and look at their tests, subsequently recall them and look at and maybe ask them specific questions as well.

MR. MacNeil: Wouldn't most people who have got the HIV infection as long ago as that know it by now?

DR. SACHER: In most cases, yes. And, in fact, as Mr. Ashe indicated, he obviously has known it for six years. That is true. I think it'd be very remote that they wouldn't know it.

MR. MacNeil: So we're talking about very few people then, are we, who might have had transfusions in that period and got the HIV infection but not know about it?

DR. SACHER: That is correct.

MR. MacNeil: So a person who hadn't got the HIV infection or hadn't turned up some symptoms by this time is statistically probably in the clear. Would that also be true?

DR. SACHER: Statistically that's true. But we still do get to see some individuals who, many appear to be HIV positive and have a risk factor of a transfusion at that time. It still occurs. I think it must vary according to the factors of the recipient and their overall health status as well.

MR. MacNeil: That means that somebody -- it's possible that somebody could have got the infection then but still be quite healthy because he was in such very good health or his own immune system was so strong or something like that?

DR. SACHER: Well, presumably it must relate to health factors of that individual, as well as potentially a variance of the virus, there may be different strains of this particular virus that we just don't recognize, but you're absolutely correct. I would say that the probability would be extremely remote.

MR. MacNeil: What was the chance of getting HIV from a transfusion then? What was the risk factor? And what is it now that the blood supply is so well screened?

DR. SACHER: Well, let me start by saying that the blood supply is the safest it's ever been at the moment and let me start by also adding that in the last two weeks we have gotten some statistics that the risk is probably less than one in two hundred and twenty- five thousand. It's very likely less than that, but that seems to be the most accurate figure for the present time. What the risk was then, of course, there were a number of figures that were touted, very likely it was close to probably one in ten thousand and maybe more than that.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Dr. Sacher, thank you very much for joining us.

DR. SACHER: Thank you very much.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Democrats versus Democrats in America, Tories versus Labor in Britain. FOCUS - '92 - DAY AFTER

MR. LEHRER: The latest episode in the saga of Bill Clinton is next tonight. He hits, he misses, he gets hit, he loses, he's counted out, he's counted in, he's the front-runner, he's had it, and so it has gone Tuesday after most Tuesdays, primaries after primary, since it all began in New Hampshire two months ago. Yesterday he won a big one in New York, as well as in Kansas and Wisconsin. Jerry Brown, his last still standing opponent for the Democratic Presidential nomination, came in third in New York, not only behind Clinton, but also behind Paul Tsongas, who quit campaigning three weeks ago. So the question tonight is again the ever familiar: Where does this latest round of results leave Bill Clinton now? We ask it and others of our regular political analysts, Gergen & Shields, U.S. News & World Report editor at large David Gergen and syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and of Republican pollster Linda Divall, Democratic pollster Peter Hart, and Eddie Williams, president of the Joint Center For Political and Economic Studies. Mark, let's start with you. You are in Miami tonight. Where does Bill Clinton stand tonight as it looks to you?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, Bill Clinton, Jim, is in that time of the political nominating season where there are no more moral victories, there are no more better than expected. Winning is defined by coming in first, something he did yesterday, as you pointed out, in three different states. And for that reason, he has a large leg up tonight, and a lot closer to the nomination. He's at the very least the front walker for the Democratic nomination at this point. The question -- only question really remains because Jerry Brown took a real pasting yesterday in New York, is Bill Clinton himself?

MR. LEHRER: "Front walker," is that the term you would use, David?

MR. GERGEN: I'm sure it's not the term Bill Clinton would use. I think Bill Clinton's back in the driver's seat, Jim. Jerry Brown got his hand on the wheel here in Connecticut and it slipped off in New York, and I think that Bill Clinton -- you have to say -- he was the first Southern who has ever won that New York primary. Jimmy Carter got beat a couple of times there. It's been a very hard state for a Southerner to win. Al Gore had a hard time last time. Bill Clinton's in much better shape tonight. He's back in the driver's seat. It's going to be very hard to stop him for the nomination.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Eddie, very hard to stop him, that he's going to get that nomination odds are?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's hard to stop him. He can stop himself. I think we learned a lot of things in New York in terms of how he appeals to different constituencies under pressure. In fact, I think the whole electorate is happy to get New York out of the way and we can all now begin to look at perhaps more saner politics.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Peter, Mark said that, okay, he won, but he's still got problems. Do you agree?

MR. HART: Sure, he has problems, but give him credit, first of all.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MR. HART: Because he really did a heck of a job in New York. A week ago we would have said he would be lucky to be standing and he won a double digit victory. So give him credit to start with. Now, having said that, there are character questions that remain. He's going to have to deal with that. I mean, I would tell him, first of all, go home, take some time off, the voters need a rest. You need a rest. You need a fresh voice and the press needs a rest as much as anything. Second thing, he needs to be able to come back and he needs to be able to set priorities and start to deal with some of the uncertainties that voters have. And that means understanding that you have to deal frankly and openly with what's there. And the voters need to see more of Bill Clinton than they've seen right now. He does certain things extremely well and when he's open and he brings and includes people, he's great. When he's a confrontationalist, I think he losespeople. And the third thing I'd tell him is, forget about Jerry Brown. Okay. You've taken on Jerry Brown; you've taken him apart one way or another; now, you have to tell voters about yourself, what you stand for and what you believe in. Voters know more about Bill Clinton's 20s than about his 40s and that's a scary sign going into the general election.

MR. LEHRER: Linda, is there joy in Republicanville tonight over the fact that Bill Clinton won as well as he did and is still the front-runner?

MS. DIVALL: I'll try not to smile too much, but I think in this environment it would be a major mistake to be too confident about an election that's still six months away. But I think there are a couple of problems that Clinton faces. One, he did terrible with his own generation. I mean, baby boomers only gave him one out of three votes. And I think there's still some skepticism that his peers have of him. Secondly, when you look at who you vote for in November, 31 percent of the Democratic primary voters in New York said that they were going to vote for George Bush or Ross Perot. And, third, when you ask people, does he have the honesty and integrity to be President, 46 percent say no. So those are three fundamental problems that he has to address. And I think Peter made a very good point, that if Clinton can get to sort of the general election message, not get entangled with Jerry Brown, he is much better served. His speech last night in that regard was terrific, but he's not quite at the point of being able to do that just yet. He can't just brush aside Brown totally yet. And we also have to look at what Tsongas might do.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, what does he do about Jerry Brown now, or what does Jerry Brown do about Bill Clinton now? Frame the question any way you would like.

MR. SHIELDS: Well, Jim, I think Jerry Brown had happened to him very -- almost identically what happened to Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan got close to two out of five votes in a vote test in New Hampshire at which point he got greater press and public scrutiny and was found wanting, that there wasn't a complete package there, there wasn't a whole program, that his other values were open to question. The same thing happened with Jerry Brown, quite frankly. Jerry Brown's candidacy was a protest vehicle, but it won in Connecticut. Once it won, they said, well, let's look at this guy as a potential leader. He was found wanting. His ideas were rejected. The 13 percent scared older voters into the Clinton column for fear that Social Security would somehow be threatened. Beyond that, Jerry Brown's candidacy was --

MR. LEHRER: You mean the flat tax, the flat tax idea?

MR. SHIELDS: The flat tax.

MR. LEHRER: Right.

MR. SHIELDS: His 13 percent flat tax. Beyond that, Jim, Jerry Brown's candidacy lacked and continues to lack any sense of joy, of optimism, of a very real vision about the future. It's a syllabus of errors about the present and it strikes a resonant cord with a lot of voters, but there isn't a sense of where he wants to take the nation in a more uplifting way.

MR. LEHRER: Eddie Williams, where does Jerry Brown take himself right now? What should he do?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think he's going to go all the way to the convention. I have a feeling though that he plans a bit of a straight man for Clinton. I mean, Clinton needs someone to react to. Brown continues to help bring out some thoughts of that personality or bring out character issues that Clinton has to deal with. I don't see Brown dropping out. I think he's going to stay in.

MR. LEHRER: David, if Brown does stay in and if he continues to do what he's done up to this point, which is just hammer Clinton every chance he gets, even though Clinton beat him at his own game, more or less, with some help from Brown, himself, I mean, that's going to continue to take a toll on Clinton, is it not?

MR. GERGEN: Not if Bill Clinton follows Peter Hart's advice. I think it's the right advice. Pat Buchanan kept on hammering George Bush. But when George Bush started ignoring Pat Buchanan, Pat Buchanan was no longer in the headlines. And that's what Bill Clinton needs to do to Jerry Brown right now. To come back, to expand on the point with Peter, this may seem a far fetched analogy, but you know I worked for Richard Nixon some years ago and we always were aware that there were two sides to that personality. There was a bright side, a man who wanted to be a great President, and then there was this darker side. And the dark side got in his way. And I would argue with Bill Clinton there is this very bright side, and yet, there's a darker side, it seems, evasive or devious, that bothers people a lot. And he somehow has -- if he can show his brighter side, as Peter's saying, be more open, learn to answer questions candidly and fully, instead of dodging around and creating all these doubts in people's minds, he will be a stronger candidate. His speech -- to go back to something Linda said -- I think his speech last night was one of the best moments in his campaign. It was a healing speech. It was a unifying speech. If he moves to those themes and moves away from this contact sport with Jerry Brown, I think he'd be much better served and a stronger candidate.

MR. LEHRER: Linda, the polls aside, what is your own analysis of what Bill Clinton's problem is and how he could combat it from this point on?

MS. DIVALL: Well, I think first and foremost his problem is -- and David alluded to it -- that every time he gets caught in a problem or a scandal or an explanation, it's not just one explanation. We seem to have two or three explanations and it's much like when you were growing up, your parents say, well, tell me the truth the first time around, you'll be better off for it, and I think this campaign has sort of proven that that advice is still valid.

MR. LEHRER: How do you cure that in a person?

MS. DIVALL: Going back to what David just said. I mean, you have to be forthcoming. You have to be candid. And, again, I think he is a product of his generation but I think, you know, baby boomers, particularly and hopefully are parents, you know, will understand that some mistakes are made along the way, face up to it, immediately explain yourself. The day after the Illinois primary, he did do his speech of repentance, if you will, and that plus the change message that he had going quite aggressively there. If he gets back to that, he can do himself a lot of good. The other problem he has in terms of advice is that he and Hillary have to sit down and they have to think through the fact that they are new models in American politics in terms of two people seeking the presidency of their generation and exactly what are each of them going to do and say, because she is creating problems for him. She's a very strong --

MR. LEHRER: Like what?

MS. DIVALL: I think she has offended a certain segment of the female voter. I think that her comments and the Vanity article last week were unnecessary at this level of American politics and unsubstantiated and I think that tendency to say too much --

MR. LEHRER: This is an allusion to the possibility that President Bush might have had an affair.

MS. DIVALL: Right. I don't think that is becoming in a spouse's - - a candidate's spouse in terms of what people want to see and hear on the campaign trail. She's a very strong personality. They have to sit down and figure out exactly how they're going to play that as they go through between now and New York during the convention.

MR. LEHRER: Does that make sense to you, Peter?

MR. HART: I think, yes. I think it still comes back around to Bill Clinton and I think Bill Clinton is going to have a second chance and a third chance. And I pick up on what David said. Bill Clinton can be as good as they come and last night we saw the potentiality and there's -- here we are, we're focusing all on Bill Clinton and there's sort of the presumption that everything's okay with George Bush. George Bush has the same problems that he had going into the primaries. He hasn't solved those. He's going to have to deal with those. So the sense is Bush is okay. The answer is both of them are going to be tested. Let me make one other point, and that is, candidates always look better at the beginning of the process than in the middle. Ronald Reagan started out two and a half to one positive going into 1980, as David Gergen remembers. And by the time he ended up in June, he was only about four to three positive, so that voters, Republican voters lost sort of their positive feelings, but in the end obviously she came out very well.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, what about Paul Tsongas? He's going to make an announcement tomorrow. If you were a betting man -- and I know you're not -- how would you bet? Is he going to get back in? And does that make sense?

MR. SHIELDS: I would hope that he doesn't get back in, because I think that Paul Tsongas loses a little bit of his differentness. Paul Tsongas, first of all, did better in New York than he did in either Michigan or Illinois where he campaigned and quite frankly Bill Clinton could be accused of being a regional candidate. Paul Tsongas's strength has been in a certain style and type of electorate, the Democratic electorate. And the Connecticut, the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, he is not going into friendly territory at this point and I think the fact that -- in Pennsylvania and Ohio and the upcoming industrial states -- and I really think, Jim, that Paul Tsongas understands that. I think he grasps that he did better in New York, where, again, his ideas weren't being scrutinized and his positions weren't being criticized by an aggressive Bill Clinton.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about that, Eddie?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I would advise him not to get back in. I'm sure he will not be deceived by the size of the vote in terms of its all being very pro Paul Tsongas. He was being used as a vessel of dissent and a kind of protest.

MR. LEHRER: People didn't like either Clinton --

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: -- or Brown.

MR. WILLIAMS: And after all, he's --

MR. LEHRER: Do the exit polls reflect that for the most part?

MR. HART: Yes, they do. All people who voted for Tsongas said it was because they disliked the other two candidates. So we know that.

MR. WILLIAMS: And after all, he still is the same person he was at the time he got out, because he was defeated in the Southern primary, in Illinois and Michigan. So I think he, in my view, really looks and sounds more ministerial than presidential. And he'd make an excellent cabinet member.

MR. LEHRER: Could he blow the whole deal by getting back in? In other words, he went out with such style and, in fact, you and Mark said on this show that he was a loser but in a way he was a winner. He came out of this in good shape. If he goes back in tomorrow, does he risk blowing the whole deal?

MR. GERGEN: He does. And, you know, just as I felt by his getting out he was going to hurt Bill Clinton, I think that by getting back in, he'll help Bill Clinton, because I think Clinton will go on and womp him in Pennsylvania, and he'll beat Jerry Brown as well. I think Clinton will come out looking like a bigger winner.

MR. LEHRER: Linda, David Broder had a column in the Washington Post this morning saying that maybe it's time for the leaders of the Democratic Party to get together and decide whether or not Clinton can beat George Bush in November, and maybe exert a little more control over the process. What was your reaction when you read that?

MS. DIVALL: Well, with all respect to David Broder, whose opinion I normally think a lot of, I think speaking as a Republican strategist, it would be great if the Democrat Party would do that. If they got behind closed doors and we have five guys picking a new nominee as opposed to Bill Clinton, who's been struggling and going after it for a year, you couldn't write a better scenario for a Republican success story. I just think the environment is just not at all conducive towards that type of strategy.

MR. LEHRER: Peter.

MR. HART: Bill Clinton's earned it, and unless somebody can beat him, he's going to be the Democratic nominee. The more important point that David brought up is the fact that the voters do not feel included in the process. We had a huge falloff in New York because they weren't discussing the issues. And one of the challenges to Bill Clinton is to bring in voters, because if we have 500,000 less voters in New York than we did four years ago, it just means that somehow we're not inspiring people and if Democrats are going to win in 1992, it means getting people out. And that's where Bill Clinton has to be at his best.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, do you agree then that what you see is what you're going to get if you're a Democrat, that anybody who's sitting out there, thinking that five people in a room, to use Linda's analogy, are going to say, oh, wait a minute, this isn't quite working, and we've got a better one, then trot him out, that's not going to happen?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't think it's going to happen, Jim, unless there's a major disaster in the Clinton candidacy. But let me just say one thing about Bill Clinton and that is, I differ slightly, I think Bill Clinton has to change the subject from his own personal peccadillos background to really how he would be different as a President. He has to excite people. He has to get --

MR. LEHRER: In other words, does he have to start running against George Bush now?

MR. SHIELDS: Yes, and give a sense of what government can do or how he wants to be a leader, how a Clinton Presidency would be different. It has to be that, rather than -- because if your child is sick with a ruptured appendix, you're really not worried whether that surgeon you're hiring paid a 1040 form or filled it out at IRS, you want a good surgeon. And this country is in trouble. There's pessimism. There's a sense of disillusionment. That's what Bill Clinton has to address.

MR. LEHRER: David.

MR. GERGEN: I wanted to go back to your other question, but Peter I think wanted to respond to that question.

MR. LEHRER: Peter, you were shaking your head. All the time you were talking, Mark, Peter was shaking his head.

MR. HART: Let me just say I always bet with Mark, but in this case I'll differ just slightly by saying that, look, for Bill Clinton, he's going to have plenty of time to go after George Bush, worry about himself. It's the next six weeks he has the best chance to define himself, and I'm worried that he's going to do what he does best, which is go after the other candidate. And I don't think it necessarily enhances him. I think he needs to be able to define himself.

MR. LEHRER: And, David, you said, you know, last night that this issue that remains for Clinton, which all the polls indicated in New York and the other states, is the honesty and trust, and you still believe he has to deal with that directly, do you not?

MR. GERGEN: Absolutely. It is a threshold question. Unless you pass that threshold, you don't get considered seriously on the other issues, because people want to know who that person is in that office. They want to feel they can trust and respect that person in that office. And unless you get past that barrier, I don't think -- you know, that's the price of admission to the game. And I don't think he's passed that for a lot of people. But I'd like to come back to your original question, if I could, if we could retrace this, the question of -- this was said without regard to Bill Clinton, whom I do think is probably going to be the nominee unless, as Mark says, some disaster happens. Jim, I think that the leadership of the party, Democratic Party, has abandoned its responsibility for peer review of the candidates in this process. They essentially have said let's turn it all over to the voters; we're not going to pay any attention -- help the voters figure out who has the experience, whom we respect within our own party. And I frankly think that has produced a series of candidates for the Democratic Party that have been shown by experience not to be able to win. And I -- it is not right for any professional to lack peer review. And that's what's going on in our politics now. This system is wide open to anybody coming from the outside. Nobody knows who they are when they come in the door. Then the leadership turns over to the press and says, you guys in the press and women in the press, you scrutinize them for the voters. And now we have the press going around, looking under every rock or every speck of dirt that we can. There ought to be some say on the part of the party. After all, the nominee represents the party. And the party is supposed to come forward with somebody to represent. I don't think the process is working very well for the Democratic Party.

MR. LEHRER: But David, didn't Bill Clinton have a tremendous number of endorsements from Democratic officeholders?

MR. GERGEN: He had the most but they were mostly state officeholders. I would say that prior to the New Hampshire primary, it would have been helpful if the party not only had some screening process but also helped to push forward the leading numbers of the party. One of the reasons that Bill Clinton is having so much trouble and this has been such a crazy process is, of course, the heavy hitters in the Democratic Party never got in the primary.

MR. LEHRER: Linda and Eddie, Peter was on the show last night, and he said that one of the problems that Clinton has is that -- and that he thinks also George Bush has -- is that they haven't figured out yet that it's 1992 and it's not 1988, and that the different rules apply and the rules this time are tell the truth, when in doubt tell the truth. And the normal way of running for office is by the boards. Do you agree with Peter Hart?

MS. DIVALL: Yes, I do. I thought it was interesting what President Bush said this morning in his early morning walk, is this election is not about the past three years experience, it's about who's going to produce the change that this country needs. And I think the President, you know, by saying that does clearly understand that people are demanding not that I've gotten a message. They want to know what it is they're going to do and where it is that you're going to take the country. I think with Bill Clinton, he's got a twofold problem. First, I agree with David totally, he has got address this character issue first, because voting for the Presidency, that issue is probably more important than it is for any other office that we vote for in this country. And until he gets beyond that -- when he's still -- one out of two people questioning his character -- he can't get on to the next part of the equation. But he does have six weeks now, I agree, to address that, and then to look at where it is that he would take the country.

MR. LEHRER: Very quickly, Eddie, do you agree with that?

MR. WILLIAMS: The character question is very important, but he also has some real strengths in terms of people believing that he can win. And that's very important to Democrats. He's very bright and he's very quick. And one thing he has to do is to learn to think through an answer to a question. When he commits himself to having done more for civil rights than anybody in America, I mean, I think that is really ridiculous.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. I got you. Linda, gentlemen, thank you very much. FOCUS - TIME FOR A CHANGE

MR. MacNeil: We focus now on tomorrow's elections in Britain for a new parliament and possibly a new prime minister. The latest polls show almost a dead heat between the ruling Conservative Party of Prime Minister John Major and the Labor Opposition of Neil Kinnock. A third party, the Liberal Democrats, could win enough seats in the House of Commons to hold the balance of power and possibly help form a coalition government. The elections are being followed closely by politicians here because coincidentally or not, over the past 30 years, there have been strong parallels between U.S. and UK results. In 1964, British Labor and American Democrats won. In 1979, the Conservative returned to power under Margaret Thatcher preceded by a year the victory of Ronald Reagan's Republicans. Our coverage tonight begins with a background report from Eleanor Goodman, a political reporter for Independent Television News.

MS. GOODMAN: The prime minister started this week determined to defy the polls which suggest that only an unprecedented swing to the government in the last few days will save him. Publicly he remained confident, joking with the photographers.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: I'm sorry they're not here tonight.

MS. GOODMAN: But moments later, his stoicism was tested. An egg hit him on the face, clearly shaking him and his security men. But as before, when confronted by a demonstrator, he tried to turn the incident to his advantage.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: Not to worry. That is what we're fighting against. So just fight harder.

MS. GOODMAN: But Tories insist that such incidents are totally atypical and that the warmth of his normal reception is far more representative of his standing in the country. Publicly he continues to insist, despite some unofficial reports of the country from constituencies that the Tories' own canvas returns show their vote holding up much better than the polls suggest. But increasingly, as the campaign has entered its final days, the Tories have been forced to acknowledge the possibility they might lose in an attempt to frighten former Tory voters back into the fold. This morning, the tactic was again to warn of the dangers of a hung parliament.

DOUGLAS HURD, Foreign Secretary: A Labor government would smash the hopes of recovery and a hung parliament would smother them. I don't know which form of death is more painful.

MS. GOODMAN: When questioned, Mr. Major refused to countenance the possibility of anything but outright victory.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: I have said repeatedly through this election that I'm confident we're going to have a clear majority on polling day and that we are going to form the government with a majority that will last for five years.

MS. GOODMAN: Throughout this election, Mr. Major has had to fight against the background of the recession. Today he was supported by a full line up of ministers who all came prepared with sound bites spelling out how the Tories would bring about recovery. But Mr. Major acknowledged the recession was one reason why the election looked like being so close.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: If it were not for the recession, if it were not for the difficulties and the bruises that have been caused by the recession, I don't believe there's any doubt that there would be an increased majority for the Conservative Party at this general election. But recessions hurt people. We understand that.

MS. GOODMAN: Nevertheless, the word from the Tory camp was that things were moving their way in the critical final 24 hours, and that it would be Mr. Kinnock who would look foolish on Friday morning. The Tories have been hoping all campaign that Mr. Kinnock would make a gaff. But today at the brick factory, at the last of his carefully controlled photo opportunities, he resolutely refused to drop a brick. And at the press conference, Mr. Kinnock claimed that the campaign had vindicated his original forecast of an outright victory.

NEIL KINNOCK, Labor Leader: There is very strong acknowledgement and the closer you get to the individual constituencies, the stronger it becomes. And it certainly comes from people here who have been on the campaign trial and to hundreds of constituencies in the last few weeks that that forecast that I made of majority government has complete authority from the doorstep, which is the best kind of authority.

MS. GOODMAN: Despite the narrowing of their lead tonight in some polls, Labor claims that they are getting the swing they need in the critical marginal seats. But much could depend on what happens to Paddy Ashdown's vote. The Liberal Democrats believe that there will be wide regional variations and that while they may be squeezed in some traditional Tory Labor seats, they will spring surprises elsewhere.

PADDY ASHDOWN, Leader, Liberal Democrats: I think both Labor and the Conservatives are counting their chickens before they're hatched. The fact is that people are now moving to the Liberal Democrats very strongly. And I think the people of Britain will probably deny either of them the right to govern this country and they'll be right to do so.

MS. GOODMAN: Tonight Mr. Ashdown claimed to be as fresh as a daisy, but judging by the way the gap appears to have closed between the two major parties, all the politicians could be in for a very long night tomorrow before they know for certain the outcome of this election.

MR. MacNeil: Now we hear directly from the leaders of the two biggest parties. The one whose party gets the most seats in the House of Commons will become prime minister. We start with Labor Party Leader Neil Kinnock, who was interviewed Monday by John Snow of the Independent Television News Channel 4 Program. Snow asked Kinnock if his plans to change Britain's government included getting rid of the second parliamentary chamber, the unelected House of Lords.

MR. KINNOCK: Certainly the objective of replacing the House of Lords will be pursued. We want an elected chamber, that is basic, and in order to achieve that, we want to ensure that the legislative program is steady, that it's capable of being delivered, that it enjoys widespread --

MR. SNOW: But Labor governments have said that before. Absolutely nothing happened.

MR. KINNOCK: But none of them have approached it -- first of all -- with the kind of analysis that we've undertaken over a prolonged period, gaining the kind of consensus that exists, and none of them have done it either quite in the same circumstances as we'll be doing it, proposing that. It becomes a genuinely representative segment.

MR. SNOW: You've used this word "consensus." You've used it tonight and you've used it a lot in the last few days, "consensus government." The fact is that there's very little prospect of any party getting more than let's say 43 percent of the vote. Mrs. Thatcher had 43 percent of the last election. You'll be very pleased to have 43 percent, I would think, this time. That will give you the same mandate and no greater mandate than she had for radical reform. Well, now, that is not democracy, is it?

MR. KINNOCK: The use of democracy, the use of that mandate is of the essence. See, Mrs. Thatcher with 42/43 percent of the vote knew that she had something near 100 percent of the vote. She had a very large majority. And instead of taking the advice of Frances Pin and understanding the shortcomings and the temptations of ruling with a degree of absoluteness, then there was a certain ruthlessness in the conduct of government. I think that what we bring today, especially with those lessons in mind, is a majority government that uses its power to ensure that there is an invitation, for instance, to the national economic assessment, to the plant committee, and an attitude in the conduct of power that prevents government from becoming remote or remorseless in the way in which it bulldozes everything before.

MR. SNOW: Well, if you do get in and find yourself there on Friday, you'll be there because people didn't want the Conservatives anymore and want change. You could face some extremely tough decisions. You could, as you already indicated, find the books are in a worse state than you think they are, and you may have to disappoint very large numbers of people who have very high hopes of you in office. Are you prepared to be brutal, to be tough, to disappointment?

MR. KINNOCK: I think that everybody knows that the sense of responsibility I have means that I will take tough decisions if tough decisions need to be taken. The important thing to do is to ensure that we move from the form of toughness which was manifested by the last 13 years of Conservative government which ensured that the weakest in our society and often most productive in our society suffered, was those who could have afforded to bear the biggest burden got away from it, and so in the exercise of toughness, there has to be toughness with sensitivity to what the interests of the whole nation are. Now, it's one of those -- why our propositions for change are prudent, are costed and are related to get an investment-led recovery, we will pursue that. And if it requires a national toughness, durability, tenacity in doing that, then I think that I'll demonstrate to the nation that I have those qualities too.

MR. MacNeil: Early today, Prime Minister John Major was interviewed by John Snow.

MR. SNOW: Isn't your difficulty that you've been the prime minister for 16 months with the huge advantage of not being Mrs. Thatcher and not being Mr. Hazeltine, but you have failed to distance yourself from the policy failures of the Thatcher years?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: The Conservative Party has perhaps the most coherent philosophy of any political party in Western Europe. That philosophy was evidence for the 1980s, the belief in the free enterprise system, the belief that people should have more direct choice, the lowest possible level of taxation, choice in the way they spend their money. That is a consistent theme right the way across the Conservative Party. What I'm seeking to do is to build in the base line that I've inherited from Mrs. Thatcher. It's a base line I believe that enables us to build a level of prosperity in the 1990s unmatched by anything we've seen in the past. And that's the important thing. What are we going to do in the future? And how are we going to do it? The first thing is to get inflation down, restore confidence, and I think tomorrow's election result will do that. And then we can begin to see the levels of growth I wish to see in this country.

MR. SNOW: Some people say, well, you know you haven't really seen a major government, he had to inherit all these things from Mrs. Thatcher and some of the people live for things. If you win, and you've said you want a mandate, and that's why you want to win, if you win, how will the government look any different?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: Well, it's a question of how the policies evolved and what we seek for people. I mean, I am absolutely clear and have been through the campaign about the priorities I have. I do want to widen choice. I do want the lowest level of taxation consistent with being able to sustain our public services. I do intend to see a national health service remain as it is, the finest national health service in the world and it continues to grow. I do want us to take our important role within Europe, but not in a federal Europe, not in a United States of Europe, but in a Europe of nation states and a Europe that extends and grows, bringing in the states to the North and eventually spreading the community right the way across Eastern Europe. Now those are big things and perhaps above all, as I have indicated repeatedly, before and during this election campaign, I am critically concerned to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom.

MR. SNOW: But those are some of the points you make in this leaflet which was put out today, 10 good reasons to vote conservative, keep taxes low, get basic right in education, be tough on crime, or keep strong defenses, yet, you don't mention health. Ten points about -- what's wrong with your health policy?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: I have been mentioning health in speech after speech --

MR. SNOW: But why not in the 10 reasons for voting conservative?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: We have all sorts of other pamphlets dealing with health. That is by no means the only leaflet we put out. If one wants to deal with health policy, I'm happy to deal with it either in the short-term or the long-term, but in the short-term --

MR. SNOW: All the points that you've made throughout the campaign except health --

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: No, they're not, they're not. I've made a vast range of points far beyond that and we have other leaflets dealing with other points far beyond that. Health, right the way through this campaign, has been one of the central themes you have heard. Most of my speeches -- no doubt you've read those you haven't heard -- I don't believe you could find one in which health wasn't important, an important ingredient, because I believe in the national health service. I'm determined the national health service will be built up, and I'm determined the national health service will remain a national health service. It's not going to be privatized. Let me make that entirely clear. I am no more likely to privatize it than I am to join the Labor Party.

MR. MacNeil: The prime minister mentioned the unity of the United Kingdom. One of the biggest differences between the British parties is how much they should yield to growing demands in Scotland for more self-government or even independence. Scotland was a separate nation until its union with England in 1707. Now, Labor and the Liberal Democrats favor local self-government and a Scottish parliament. The Conservatives oppose even that, while a Scottish Nationalist Party, the SNP, is pushing for more independence. Ann MacMillan of the CBC Journal filed this report on the election in Scotland.

MS. MacMILLAN: The SNP was once a fringe party, a bit of a joke, but today it rides a wave of nationalism that's sweeping Scotland. Alex Salmond, party leader, is on the campaign trail in Glasgow, certain of success. The majority of Scots favor more self- government but the SNP goes all the way. It promises complete independence.

ALEX SALMOND, Scottish National Party: Things aren't working for the people of Scotland. We can do a lot better than we're currently doing. We're not looking for a parliament, a constitutional distraction, something for the tourists to come and see. We're looking for a people's parliament, offering power and prosperity for the nation of Scotland.

MS. MacMILLAN: It's among the youth of Scotland that nationalism is most obviously grabbing hold. At Glasgow's Uskie Bay Pub, it's as fashionable to wear a kilt as it is to dress in jeans. This is a return to roots, where culture and politics combine in a demand for change.

MAN IN PUB: People are beginning to think that in order to have a voice it'll have to be our own voice and we'll have to look after our own affairs.

WOMAN IN PUB: I think that mainly a lot of young people are fed up with the policies of the Labor and Conservative Party, therefore, a lot of Scottish young people are looking towards the SNP Party.

MS. MacMILLAN: It may be a new cause for the young. But Scottish nationalism is as old as the ancient buildings of Edinburgh. In this city, once the seat of Scottish kings, the call for self- government has always been a rallying cry. Ever since Scotland joined with England in 1707, there have been attempts to reclaim some of its lost power. This building in Edinburgh was refurbished in the 1970s in the hopes of housing a Scottish assembly. It didn't happen then, but today more than ever the dream of Scottish power could come through. The unused debating chamber inside the proposed assembly building bears silent witness to a system of government which the majority of Scots resent. There are 72 Scottish MPs, but their parliament is in London, hundreds of kilometers from here. Most Scots vote for Labor MPS, yet they're ruled by a Conservative government which has become more and more despised.

SPOKESMAN: We're sick and tired of the contemptuous treatment, government by remote control from South of the border, the imposition of things like the poll tax on the Scottish people was the final straw for many people in Scotland, and it's also very positive coming to the opinion and that's the position Scotland is going to be in the new Europe.

MS. MacMILLAN: For many Scots, that new Europe offers a new security. David McCrone, the University of Edinburgh.

DAVID McCRONE: As Europe has grown in political and economic importance in Britain and in Scotland, so the Scots see a new future for themselves within the European community and it doesn't seem such a large step from the present position of being part of Britain within Europe to being entirely our own country but also within Europe.

MS. MacMILLAN: Scotland is rich in natural resources. 80 percent of Europe's oil reserves is under Scottish waters. One-third of Europe's fish is landed in Scotland. But whether it can make it as an independent nation is open to question. The Glencas Foundry North of Edinburgh is a case in point. It makes everything from drill bits for North Sea oil rigs to fittings for the Channel Tunnel. Business is booming in spite of the recession, but self- rule would be a disaster, according to owner Peter Hughes, forcing many businesses to move South to England.

PETER HUGHES: 80 percent of my business from this particular company is South of the border. We're worried and I don't want worried customers. Business requires stable economic conditions and stable political conditions and independence doesn't give us either of these things. I'm a Scott. I wear my kilt when I go to Canada and I go to America and I go to Europe, but I'm also sensible and I'm a businessman and I want good business. It's as simple as that.

MS. MacMILLAN: Scottish Nationalist politicians have a completely different line. They tell voters an independent Scotland will be part of Europe and in a global economy location doesn't matter much anyway. This is an election about Scotland's future, about what sort of country tomorrow's voters will inherit. It's a fight to retain traditions, to regain political control. There are several choices, all parties but the Conservatives promise some sort of self-government. And privately even the Tories say change must come. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, former Tennis Star Arthur Ashe said he has AIDS. He said he got it from a blood transfusion during a 1983 heart bypass operation. And PLO Chief Yasser Arafat was found alive 15 hours after his plane crash landed in the Libyan Desert. These are the first pictures of Arafat since the crash. He is seen with a bandaged right eye being taken off a rescue plane with other survivors, and later in a Libyan hospital, with that country's leader, Moammar Gadhafi. Videotape was broadcast on Libyan Television. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.