The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Former Senator George Mitchell explains his special commission's recommendations for cleaning up the Olympics; Jeffrey Kaye reports on Republican politics in California; Elizabeth Farnsworth examines the election results in Nigeria; and David Gergen talks about the happiness of women. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: A special US commission criticized the Olympic committees at all levels today and recommended major reforms. Former Senator George Mitchell chaired the five-member commission. The US Olympic Committee formed it to investigate bribery allegations surrounding the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Games. Mitchell spoke at a news conference in New York City.

GEORGE MITCHELL: We do not excuse or condone those from Salt Lake City who did the giving. What they did was wrong. But they did not invent this culture. They joined one that was already flourishing. The rationale behind the governance changes proposed by this commission is that the integrity of the Olympic Movement must be restored and protected. Reform and restoration will be effective only if they reach the entire Olympic Movement.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have a Newsmaker interview with Senator Mitchell right after this News Summary. The US Supreme Court heard arguments today in a sex-discrimination case. The issue was punitive damages in workplace-bias cases. A lower court ruled employees had to show egregious conduct by employers to collect sums intended to punish and deter, but federal law on the subject says the standard is reckless indifference. The Supreme Court will now decide what that standard means. In Nigeria today, a retired general was declared the winner of the presidential election. He will be the nation's first civilian ruler in 15 years. He won 63 percent of the vote in Africa's most populous nation. His opponent claimed there was vote fraud and said he would challenge the results. We'll have more on the story later in the program tonight. Israel bolstered its military forces in Southern Lebanon today. It followed yesterday's Hezbollah guerrilla attacks that killed an Israeli general, two soldiers, and a radio journalist. Saira Shah of Independent Television News reports.

SAIRA SHAH: Israel flaunted its biggest hit on Lebanon in two years. Its latest weapon in the propaganda battle: Gulf War-style videos of smart bombs eradicating Hezbollah bases deep inside the country.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: We reserve the right to act against the Hezbollah wherever and whenever they operate against us. This is an ongoing war. It is not necessarily merely a tit for tat. It is a war in which we will reserve the initiative in order to put Hezbollah off balance and in order to explain to them that there is not a one-sided war.

SAIRA SHAH: On the ground in Lebanon, Hezbollah celebrated its highest-ranking Israeli military casualty by handing out sweets to passersby. Over the weekend, it killed Brigadier General Erez Gerstein. Israeli Television simulated the attack on his convoy in Southern Lebanon, which also killed three other Israelis. Hezbollah's spiritual leader, Sayed Fadlallah, called it "a historic turning point in the Islamic Jihad against the Zionist enemy." Lebanon now fears another full-scale Israeli military onslaught, like before the last Israeli general elections. Mr. Netanyahu also yearns to bring home Israeli soldiers bogged down in Southern Lebanon. He wants the Lebanese army to guarantee Israel's border instead. But Syria, which controls Lebanon, wants a comprehensive peace first, including the return of the Golan Heights. Civilians in Northern Israel hunkered down in bomb shelters, the country increasingly divided about Israel's role in Lebanon.

JIM LEHRER: In China today, Secretary of State Albright clashed with the government over human rights. It was the first day of her two-day visit to Beijing. She said a recent crackdown on dissenters had caused an intense reaction in the United States. China's foreign minister said she was, thus, interfering in China's internal affairs. The international treaty to ban landmines took effect today; 133 Countries have endorsed it, 66 have ratified it, and 12 have destroyed their inventories. The United States has not signed the treaty yet. President Clinton has set 2006 for doing so. Secretary of Defense Cohen said today mines were still needed to protect US troops on the border of North and South Korea. He also confirmed President Clinton has expanded the targets in the no-fly zones over Iraq. US fighter pilots are no longer limited to taking out only missile and radar sites. Earlier in the day, American planes showered more than 30 heavy bombs on radio facilities, as well as anti-aircraft guns. There was no word on Iraqi casualties. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to an Olympics scandal update, the Republicans in California, the elections in Nigeria and a David Gergen dialogue.

NEWSMAKER - SALT LAKE 2002

JIM LEHRER: The Olympics story is first tonight. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell headed a panel that looked into the situation for the US Olympic Committee.He joins us now. Senator, welcome.

GEORGE MITCHELL, Chairman, Olympic Oversight Committee: Thank you very much. Nice to be here.

JIM LEHRER: Sir, your report said today that "The Olympic flame must burn clean once again." How dirty did you find it to be?

GEORGE MITCHELL: The Olympic Movement has been badly damaged. Its reputation and integrity, I think, has been harmed. And the report indicates that there's good evidence for that, good reason for that. We found responsibility at all levels, local, national, and international. It's not irreparable. I believe it can be corrected, but it's going to take a willingness to accept responsibility, accountability, and significant reform at all levels.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the problem centers around getting a particular Olympics game at particular city. Is that correct?

GEORGE MITCHELL: That's correct.

JIM LEHRER: And what you found and what others have found is widespread bribery, is that it?

GEORGE MITCHELL: Widespread gift giving of an improper nature that really in a form of gift creeps started as general goodwill of small gifts of minimal value to large numbers of people and gradually evolved into very large sums in the guise of scholarships for individual IOC members and their families, and direct payments to influence votes, in effect, to buy votes for a particular city.

JIM LEHRER: And did you find that for the most part this system worked? In other words, the city that paid the largest sum of money to the members of the committee ended up getting the games?

GEORGE MITCHELL: We're not able to determine that because we did not have access to information about a large number of cities.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

GEORGE MITCHELL: But it's very clear that this is a pervasive process. I think in the case of Salt Lake City, the reverse was probably the case. They had the best presentation, the best facilities, and I think what makes this particularly sad and tragic is they didn't need to stoop to this level to win the games. I think they had a good presentation.

JIM LEHRER: Well, then based on your investigation, why, in fact, did they stoop in Salt Lake City?

GEORGE MITCHELL: There was a culture of improper gift giving that was pervasive, notorious, has existed for a long time. In January of 1991, more than eight years ago, a delegation from Toronto went to the International Olympic Committee, presented a report in which they warned in strikingly prophetic language about what would happen to the integrity of the games if this improper culture was not somehow reigned in or stopped. No changes were made. The culture expanded, and an attitude of "everybody's doing it, and so we have to participate, otherwise we might be at a competitive disadvantage" took hold.

JIM LEHRER: And they did nothing about that Toronto report? In fact, it even got worse, is that what you're saying?

GEORGE MITCHELL: It spread over time. There is a dispute in recollection among the International Olympic Committee and the Toronto representatives as to whether there was any follow-up, what the degree of participation was, but it's very clear that no effective action was taken and the problem became even more widespread.

JIM LEHRER: And it just became an accepted culture of the Olympics, is that correct?

GEORGE MITCHELL: I think that's unfortunately the case. Widespread, notorious, many, many people participating in it, millions of dollars changing hands in a way that left these bid cities in a situation where they didn't have confidence that if they just relied on the merits that they might prevail.

JIM LEHRER: Did -- in the process of your investigation, of your looking at this, did anybody attempt to justify this culture?

GEORGE MITCHELL: No. No one did. Obviously, it's very hard in all human affairs, in politics, in this area, in business and other areas to judge past actions based upon current standards and with the benefit of hindsight. I think what happened of course is the Olympics has become very big business. It is a multibillion dollar enterprise, and winning the games is a huge civic enterprise and a lot of good people simply got involved in a way that they thought they were doing something good, but the means that were being used were not good.

JIM LEHRER: So it was so important to get the games that it was worth just about any price to pay. Is that really what was the mind set after a while?

GEORGE MITCHELL: Well, people were doing things that clearly were wrong, that they should not have been doing, that were improper. There is of course a separate criminal investigation by the US Justice Department. We did not have subpoena power, the ability to compel witnesses or documents, and we of course would not in any event express a judgment on the legality or illegality of the conduct. That judgment will be made by others. But it's very clear that what happened was wrong, cannot be condoned. The context, however, is a pervasive culture in which everybody else is doing it and competition leads people to take these kinds of actions.

JIM LEHRER: Now, you were very specific in some recommendations that you want carried out that you think will clean this up. Tell us, what are the most important of those? What do you think can be done to change this?

GEORGE MITCHELL: Well, first, of course, there must be clear rules regulating conduct in the site selection process, and those rules must be vigorously enforced.

JIM LEHRER: By whom? By whom? Who should enforce them?

GEORGE MITCHELL: There should be an independent Office of Compliance at the national level, the United States Olympic Committee, and at the international level, the International Olympic Committee. Second, we strongly urge that the US Olympic Committee and the IOC cooperate to encourage the adoption of a convention against bribery, which was adopted by the Organization for Economic Development. It's an international organization. Thirty-four countries have signed this convention, including the US, and most European countries and most of the countries that have hosted or will host Olympics. To say once and for all that this conduct will be criminal if it occurs, it would extend the reach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. We also recommended substantial changes in the oversight by the US Olympic Committee when games are held in the US, so that you don't just have the city interacting with the International Olympic Committee, but the US Olympic Committee meets its existing statutory obligations to oversee and make sure this doesn't happen. And finally, we propose significant structural change in the makeup and governance of the International Olympic Committee to make it open, democratic, accountable, and financially transparent.

JIM LEHRER: Is that possible to make it open, democratic, and transparent?

GEORGE MITCHELL: Not only do I think it's possible, I think it's absolutely essential. I do not believe that the Olympic movement will be able to regain its credibility and maintain the high regard it has had around the world if they don't take this kind of action. I think that the credibility will be permanently impaired if they do not act.

JIM LEHRER: Now, do you have any reason to believe that your recommendations are going to be taken seriously by the International Olympic Committee?

GEORGE MITCHELL: I believe they will be because I don't think they have any real alternative but to engage in reform. This is not just the United States saying this. I want to emphasize that. Americans do not have a monopoly on morality. We're not the only ones who care when things happen in a wrong way. British officials, German officials, officials from all around the world have made very strong statements about the need for reform. I think they must reform. I believe they will.

JIM LEHRER: Why has it gone this far, Senator? I mean, you looked at all of this. You mentioned it at the beginning, but it seems so blatant and so open and so corrupt, how could this happen?

GEORGE MITCHELL: It's the question that one asks all the time in life when we suddenly discover something that we had accepted, taken for granted, didn't question, and suddenly realize was wrong. As I said, there were some people who acted in a very wrong way. There were many, many other people who looked the other way, and there were still others who simply participated in what they thought was a noble enterprise but didn't take the time to find out how the enterprise was being run or how the objective was being achieved.

JIM LEHRER: Specifically, how corrupt was the Salt Lake City operation?

GEORGE MITCHELL: It was very seriously wrong. We estimate between $4 million and $7 million in either direct payments or in-kind payments were made. Not all of that was inappropriate. You have a mixture of appropriate reimbursement and inappropriate reimbursement.

JIM LEHRER: Compare -- give us an example of each.

GEORGE MITCHELL: Well, a person from the IOC flies to Salt Lake City to inspect the city and to listen to its presentation and then flies back home, and Salt Lake City reimburses them. There's nothing wrong with that. However, a person, same place, same situation, books a flight that stops in Orlando, stops in Atlanta, stops in Montreal, stops in Salt Lake City, and he charges each one of them a round trip first-class ticket full fare and pockets the difference, that's wrong. Secondly, a so-called scholarship program set up to help scholars in other countries particularly athletes -- the money goes instead to the family member of an International Olympic Committee member who is not an athlete, and in some cases doesn't go to school, and in many cases received benefits that are completely outside any realm of impropriety. That's the kind of thing that occurred. The examples are legion. I could go on, but that gives you some flavor of how this thing went wrong.

JIM LEHRER: Is there any one particular thing that just really made you angry, that really made you -- oh, my goodness, I can't believe that people did this?

GEORGE MITCHELL: Well, I think the thing that makes me most sad, not angry, is that the attention has been deflected away from the athletes. I think all of us thrill at the performance of great athletes at the peak of their efforts in the prime of life, in the brilliant focus of the Olympics. I think it's become a great sporting and even much more than a sporting event. It's kind of a metaphor for life the best seeking to be their best at a particular time. And yet all of this attention is now focused on non-athletes and non-athletic events. It isn't too much to ask that the people who put on the Olympic Games aspire to and maintain the same high standards that we expect of the athletes who perform in thegames.

JIM LEHRER: Senator, your Commission has finished its business. Do you plan to stay involved in any way, in other words to raise Cain -- to keep the feet to the fire if you need to?

GEORGE MITCHELL: Well, our mandate has expired but I think it's going to go on because we've been asked to meet with a very large number of organizations and individuals, possibly to testify in various forums. We're going to do what we can. Of course, we're a bunch of volunteers brought together from all over the country. It's been a very intense and difficult couple of months to put this whole thing together. We want to do it because we believe in the Olympic Movement. We believe in its integrity. We think it's a great thing, not just for people in this country, but around the world. And we'll do what we can to push this forward. But, essentially, the success or failure whether l turn on the recognition by members of the Olympic Movement that is their interest and in the interest of the movement to make these reforms. We have no power to compel anyone to do anything, but the force of public opinion, the sponsors, the athletes, the governments all saying, "this must be done," that I believe is what will cause change to occur.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Mitchell, thank you very much.

GEORGE MITCHELL: Thank you.

FOCUS - GOP 2000

JIM LEHRER: Now some Republican politics in California and to Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles.

SPOKESMAN: Good morning, ladies. Oh, you got one, great.

JEFFREY KAYE: Stung by painful defeats in the last election, California Republicans converged at their state convention in Sacramento this weekend. The debate was over the future of the party. Moderates came to try to oust the state party's conservative leadership.

SPOKESMAN: Are we going to bring the Republican Party back to common sense?

PEOPLE SHOUTING: Yes.

JEFFREY KAYE: The convention also heard from seven likely presidential candidates, invited to lay out their visions of the GOP.

DAN QUAYLE, GOP President Candidate: And today it is so important that we work to reclaim the values that made this country great, the values for which this country was founded.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, GOP Presidential Candidate: We should all be working toward a new American unity because we can't afford to leave anyone behind. We need every American's help if we are to extend our country's greatness into the next century.

JEFFREY KAYE: There was disagreement about Republican priorities.

SPOKESMAN: We have run away from our own agenda.

JEFFREY KAYE: But all agreed the party is at a crossroads. State party official Shawn Steel.

SHAWN STEEL, State Republican Official: It's a healthy debate. It's a re-examination of our souls and of our future, what we intend to do.

JEFFREY KAYE: In the past, Republicans attending conventions like this were galvanized by unifying issues such as the Cold War, welfare reform, and rising crime. Now with those issues dissipated, Republicans as a party are actively debating what they stand for.

GROUP SINGING: Whose broad stripes and bright stars --

JEFFREY KAYE: Last year's election were bad news for Republicans across the country. The party in the White House traditionally suffers losses during an off-year election, but last November, Democrats actually gained five seats in the House of Representatives. Republicans also fared badly at the state level. Since 1942, the President's party has lost an average of 380 legislative seats in off-year elections. Last year, though, Democrats reversed that historic trend and gained 40 seats.

GRAY DAVIS: This has been a long journey, and let me tell you, it doesn't get any better than this. [Applause]

JEFFREY KAYE: In California, a Democratic governor was elected for the first time in 16 years. Democrats increased majorities in the legislature and were elected to five of the seven top state offices. Those election results drove Bob Larkin, an insurance salesman from Simi Valley, California, to step up a campaign to change the direction of the state Republican Party.

BOB LARKIN, State Republican Delegate: If we don't turn the Republican Party back from the cliff on the right side of the road, then we're all going to crash.

JEFFREY KAYE: Concerned that the party's strong anti-abortion position was turning off women voters in particular, Larkin assembled and endorsed a slate of moderate candidates. It was the first significant challenge to the state party's leadership since conservatives took control in the early '90's.

BOB LARKIN: We're losing voters. They have an image of being anti-woman, anti-minority, and anti-gay and anti-just-about-everybody, and they're losing -- we're losing voters.

SPOKESMAN: Can I give you a John McGraw button?

JEFFREY KAYE: Among Larkin's conservative foes was computer executive John McGraw. As vice chairman, he was expected to be the next chairman in the tradition of the California Republican Party. But he came under fire and challenge after a January interview with a Catholic newspaper in which he stated, "The most important political issue by far is the abortion issue." He distanced himself from the remarks after opponents publicized them.

JOHN McGRAW, State Republican Official: That was a lead-in to a personal question. As a party official, my job is to support all candidates, and quite frankly, I have an extremely long track record of supporting candidates who agree with me on this issue, as well as candidates who don't. What we need to do is be very tolerant with each other.

JEFFREY KAYE: But businessman Nicholas Bavaro, an abortion rights proponent, didn't buy the retraction, and decided to run against McGraw.

NICHOLAS BAVARO, State Republican Delegate: We need to elect a chairman, not a pope. I believe that the Republican Party should not take that one issue and divide the party. The US Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of abortion.

JEFFREY KAYE: San Diego's Republican Mayor, Susan Golding, another abortion rights advocate, says the party's strong position on abortion is just one example of how the GOP is out of touch with the majority of voters.

MAYOR SUSAN GOLDING, [R] San Diego: In California, the abortion issue, I believe, has come to symbolize more than a position on abortion. It's come to symbolize a view about the working woman versus the woman at home.

JEFFREY KAYE: Meaning what?

MAYOR SUSAN GOLDING: Well, the tone that has been adopted by a lot of statewide Republican candidates recently has really turned a lot of Republican women off and into the Democratic column. It's lacked -- it has lacked compassion; it has lacked understanding.

JEFFREY KAYE: But other party loyalists oppose any effort to, in their view, dilute the message.

SPOKESMAN: The only problem we have is we are afraid. We're afraid of standing up before people and say, "Look, we've got a track record. Every single time we've taken a position on an issue, we've been right."

JEFFREY KAYE: California State Senator Ray Haynes, a conservative, says Republicans should not try to broaden their appeal at the expense of principle.

RAY HAYNES, State Senator: We are losing elections, and we are losing elections because we don't stand for anything. You cannot build a party based on the fear of what somebody else is going to think about you. Part of the essence of politics is convincing people that your solutions are the right solutions for society. If you are constantly out there trying to figure out what society thinks, you're going to be blown hither and yon. And that is the biggest problem of the so-called "big tent." I don't believe in big tents. I believe in big houses built on a solid foundation with solid pillars. That way when the winds come and the storms hit, the thing doesn't blow away.

JEFFREY KAYE: State party activist Michael Der Manouel ran for treasurer as part of the conservative slate of candidates. He says Democrats have co-opted traditional Republican issues, so Republicans have even more reason to reassert themselves.

MICHAEL DER MANOUEL, State Republican Official: In 1994, the Democrats got together and decided to be more like Republicans. They said, "You know what, we better move to the right on crime; we better move to the right on welfare; we better move to the right on taxes." They've been moving to the right as fast as they can, and they've seen some success in '96 and '98 as a result of that. We have to quit sitting around crying and whining about that. There are still differences we can accentuate between us and the Democrats, and it's going to take a lot of hard work to do that.

JEFFREY KAYE: The California debate over what that message should be is reflected in the developing race for the Republican nomination for US President.

STEVE FORBES: We don't have to dilute our principles, and we shouldn't muffle our message. [Applause] It's very basic: No message, no support; no principle, no victory.

JEFFREY KAYE: Conservatives such as Stephen Forbes, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Dan Quayle, and Senator Bob Smith brought a common message to California: Republicans can take back the White House by sticking to conservative principles.

DAN QUAYLE: Republicans shouldn't get nervous. They don't need to walk away from principle. They need to have a backbone; stand up for what we believe in. Values matter most, values like responsibility, integrity, courage, faith, family, freedom. These are the values for which this country was founded. These are values that keep families together. These are values that make families stronger. These are values that keep communities together, and we need to emphasize the importance of values.

JEFFREY KAYE: But other likely presidential candidates in attendance this weekend -- Former Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and Arizona Senator John McCain -- downplayed the importance of moral values as campaign issues. When Senator McCain addressed the convention, social issues took a back seat to the need he sees to improve the party's image.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Of course we stand for character, integrity, decency, support of the families, but we also stand for a strong national defense, less government, lower taxes, less regulation. But look, our problem is not so much the message, it's how we're sending the message. That's our challenge. We have either wittingly or unwittingly sent a message that we are to some degree an exclusionary party.

JEFFREY KAYE: The role Republicans played in the impeachment fight was another area of some disagreement. Delegates greeted Congressman James Rogan like a conquering war hero, even though he lost the battle he fought as a House Manager in President Clinton's impeachment trial.

SPOKESMAN: How many of you think that Jim Rogan might make agood candidate for the United States Senate? [Cheers and applause]

JEFFREY KAYE: Conservatives are encouraging Rogan to run for the US Senate. Some party members see impeachment as a proud and defining issue for Republicans.

DAN QUAYLE: We have to have the courage to lead, and it does take courage-- courage that was demonstrated by Henry Hyde, Jim Rogan, and the other House Managers as they dealt with the issue of impeachment.

JEFFREY KAYE: But McCain, who as a Senator voted for both impeachment articles, is not keen about campaigning on that issue.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: The polls indicate that the impeachment process hurt Republicans. I believe that the majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, now want us to move on. I believe the process worked, just as it worked in 1974, and it's time now to move on to issues that are important to the future of American families.

JEFFREY KAYE: In the convention hall, after two and a half days of lobbying by moderates and conservatives, delegates cast their votes. John McGraw was elected chairman with 61 percent of the vote. It was also an across-the-board victory for the entire conservative slate. But at the end, after McGraw and his challenger, Nicholas Bavaro, embraced, McGraw's was conciliatory.

JOHN McGRAW: All of you know that I have very strong convictions. That does not and will not mean, in this party, any intolerance. I want this party to be the party of open and honest, but when that is done, I want us to all unite and go after the Democrats.

JEFFREY KAYE: From the moderates' perspective, their strong showing plus a declaration of Republican unity was a victory.

NICHOLAS BAVARO, State Republican Delegate: We have now come to the table, and they -- the other side realizes that the California Republican Party consists of both moderates and conservatives, and the only way we can win is if we join forces together.

JEFFREY KAYE: But as the convention ended, it was clear the united front would only go so far. Abortion rights activists say they'll challenge the party's anti-abortion stance at the next state convention this September.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: The elections in Nigeria and a David Gergen dialogue.

FOCUS - VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY?

JIM LEHRER: Spencer Michels begins our coverage of the Nigeria story.

SPENCER MICHELS: Millions of Nigerians had a rare chance over the weekend to vote for a president, but the fairness of the election is now being questioned. Nearly 30 million ballots were cast in a vote that ended 15 years of military rule for the West African nation.

GROUP: [counting] 43, 44 -

SPENCER MICHELS: Nigeria -- with about twice the land area of California -- was once a wealthy nation, one of the world's top oil producers. But for the last 15 years, corrupt military governments have been accused of siphoning off much of the wealth. Today, many of Nigeria's 110 million people live in poverty. Political repression in Nigeria has drawn international criticism, especially the 1995 hanging of poet and human rights crusader Ken Sara Wiwa, and several others. But last summer Nigeria's military rulers agreed to an election. The winner is former military ruler, General Olusegun Obasanjo. He served as president in the late 1970's and voluntarily relinquished power in 1979 to a civilian government, which was later overthrown by the military. Obasanjo was later imprisoned for three years for criticizing military rule and was released just eight months ago. During a campaign that lasted only a week, Obasanjo promised that his voting government would serve as a bridge to a civilian administration.

OLUSEGUN OBASANJO, President-Elect, Nigeria: Now after the election we will expect to go back to the work of reviving Nigerian society.

SPENCER MICHELS: Obasanjo's opponent was Former Finance Minister Olu Falae, who called Obasanjo "a soldier in civilian disguise." Falae has disputed the fairness of the vote and said he would fight it constitutionally, legally and politically.

OLU FALAE, Presidential Candidate: Well, I'm afraid there has been no election. What has happened is a farce because the will of the people has been subverted by large scale and massive rigging of the vote.

SPENCER MICHELS: The balloting and counting was under scrutiny from international and American election observers including Former President Jimmy Carter. In a statement issued as he was leaving Abuja, Carter said, "There was a wide disparity between the number of voters observed at the polling stations and the final result that has been reported from several states." He went on to say, "Regrettably, it is not possible for us to make an accurate judgment about the outcome of the presidential election." But some observers said fraud would not affect the ultimate outcome, a 63 percent victory for Obasanjo.

JIM LEHRER: Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco takes the story from there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: For more now on the elections and what they mean, we are joined by Wole Soyinka, a Nigerian author, poet, and playwright, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1986. He was in exile in the United States from 1994 to 1998. He is the chairman of the United Democratic Front of Nigeria, which opposes military rule, and is a professor at Emory University in Atlanta. And Walter Carrington, United States Ambassador to Nigeria from late 1993 until October 1997. He is currently a fellow of the W. E. B. DuBoise Institute of Harvard University.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Soyinka, what is your reaction to the elections and the victory of Mr. Obasanjo?

WOLE SOYINKA, Author, Nobel Laureate: A very sad one. I believe that the results are terribly tainted, and it does not bode well for the democratic future of the nation.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So excuse me just one second, but your reaction to the complaints by the various observers is that this is really a serious problem?

WOLE SOYINKA: Yes, indeed. I was home in December -- also remember -- during the governorship elections, and I can tell you that I left -- I was there just about a week -- and I left very, very doubtful about the whole proceeding. It's been a great disappointment since the nation had been waiting for so long for this exercise.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, expand on that. In what way a disappointment?

WOLE SOYINKA: Oh, first of all, the money. Oh, I saw, I actually witnessed the role which money has been playing in this election, and I think that the international observers didn't even go far enough regarding the massive fraud which took place during the elections. Now, having said that, let me make this clear, because sometimes I'm always being misunderstood. I'm not playing any of the principals, either Obasanjo or Falae or even the Independent International Commission, but there are forces which have staked millions, millions on this election for the results which they want, and they've used equal amount of money in subverting the process right from the beginning.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Forces? What sorts of forces?

WOLE SOYINKA: Some of them are ex-military officers, those multibillionaires' certain business interests who want the result to go one particular way and have not hesitated at all to use any methods whatever in subverting the regular democratic process.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Ambassador Carrington, what is your reaction to the election and to the victory of Mr. Obasanjo?

WALTER CARRINGTON, Former US Ambassador, Nigeria: Well, I think I agree very much with what Wole Soyinka has said. And I think the real test now is whether or not the civilians are going to be able to govern in a way that is different from the military in terms of the kinds of corruption and fraud that took place in the elections. The challenge right now is to try to try to have a different way of governing so that one can restore the faith of the people in the government. What happened, especially during the five years of the Abacha regime, was that that faith in government was completely lost because people saw the government interested only in their own welfare and not in the people's welfare. And the hope with these elections was that the civilians would have learned their lesson and would come back differently, and I think the extent to which there was fraudulent practices going on in many of the states sadly may indicate that a lot of the civilian politicians have not learned their lessons.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Ambassador, what's at stake here? How important are these elections in the establishment of democracy in Nigeria?

WALTER CARRINGTON: Well, I think quite a bit. Nigeria is by far and away "the" most important country in Africa, a country of 110 million people, a country which has the potential to be a great leader, not only in Africa, but in the world -- a country that is our fifth largest source of oil, the sixth largest producer of oil in the world. And if Nigeria can get it right, it could be a force for great good in the continent. And I'm hoping that with the election of General Obasanjo that he will be able to restore Nigeria to that position of leadership.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Soyinka, what would you add to that? In your view, what's at stake here?

WOLE SOYINKA: What's at stake is the restoration, the recovery of the civic politic, which has been severely, deliberately damaged by succeeding military regimes. Obasanjo said something. I listened to a speech -- a sentence or two in his "acceptance speech" in which he said he hoped to be the bridge to genuine democratic dispensation. But it's a bridge, nevertheless, an opposition has been in effect. These election have been most unfortunate. I think the only thing to do is to regard the elections as the real transition program towards a genuine democracy. Because what has taken place so far has not been a genuine democratic exercise.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Soyinka, thinking of this then as a transition, explain the key problems that any president has to confront in Nigeria now?

WOLE SOYINKA: Well, the principal -- I think the basic thing is to restore the public services: Telephone, petroleum supply, transportation, lights, electricity, water, educational institutions. I mean, just to get that country working like a well-organized piece of real estate -- it's as basic, as elementary as that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Ambassador, what do you see as the key problems?

WALTER CARRINGTON: Well, I think that's very true. Public services have really fallen apart. I mean, today Lagos is probably the largest village in Africa. It ought to be a great metropolitan city, but in the villages one of the problems in villages, you don't have water, you don't have electricity, you don't have fuel. That is what has happened in Lagos. There is no fuel. There is very little electricity. That is one of the things. The other thing is it seems to me that there has to be something done about the federal system that makes it more fair so that there is an opportunity for the people in the oil producing regions, for example, to be able to realize some of the great money that is produced in those areas. Those areas have been greatly shortchanged. It would be as if in this country the poorest state would be Texas, even though Texas is a great oil-producing state. That is the situation in Nigeria -- where the oil producing areas are among the poorest in the country mainly because they are populated by minority groups who do not have the kind of clout that is needed and also because so much of the oil revenues have been siphoned off by military leaders, and the people have not received the benefit of the oil that has been produced in the country.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Soyinka, do you think even with the problems with the voting, and if this is perhaps a transition, that the president, who takes office on May 29, will have the mandate to deal with some of these problems? Or do you, for example, foresee a challenge to his election that could cause more chaos in the future?

WOLE SOYINKA: Well, if whoever takes power goes according to the correct priorities -- Walter has put his finger on it. The restructuring of that country is absolutely paramount. In fact, this is what we have always proposed. Over and above whoever happens to be president is the real issue of restructuring the nation of ensuring the minorities, the genuine resource-producing areas are no long short-changed, marginalized, totally alienated. I mean, the Delta region is on fire, and that is an oil-producing area. So if the incoming person gets his priorities right and, as I said, also tackle the basic public function aspect of society, it's possible that people will accept it as, yes, a bridge into the democratic Valhalla, a rickety one as I said, very, very shaky, and then he might be able to overcome some of the political problems which certainly are going to come up as a result of this very fraudulent process of choosing the next head of state.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Soyinka, just so we know, what are the means available to the defeated candidate to challenge the results?

WOLE SOYINKA: Well, there's the appeal court of INEC, the protestation court, if you like, of the Electoral Commission, and there are the regular courts also. And I think it's important that these things -- the anomalies be brought to the surface if only to assist the nation in organizing a proper election. It's unfortunate that the military messed up this particular electoral exercise again.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ambassador Carrington, how would you answer that question about whether this new leader, Obasanjo, will have a mandate, even given the problems of the elections, to deal with the problems that you pointed out?

WALTER CARRINGTON: Well, I think the fact he won with 63 percent of the vote, now how much of that was the result of unfair practices we don't know. But I think that what he has to do in addition to what I said before about doing something in the Delta oil-producing regions, he's got the reach out to his own people in the Southwest, the Yorubas. All of those Yoruba states went to his opponent. And it seems to me that there has to be a kind of national reconciliation. I would hope that there could be some bringing in of the government of some of the leaders of Falae's party so that Nigerians can pull together because unless they do, if they create a vacuum, if there is unrest, my great fear is that this will give an opening for some military man to have an excuse to try to come back in. So it's time it seems to me for all civilians, all who believe in civilian rule, to pull together and to try to make this thing work.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you both very much for being with us.

DIALOGUE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a Gergen dialogue. David Gergen engages Danielle Crittenden, founder and editor of the "Women's Quarterly" Magazine, author of "What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman."

DAVID GERGEN: Ms. Crittenden, your new book, "What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us," might well be retitled, "American Feminism: The God That Failed."

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN, Author, "What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us:" Or "The Goddess That Failed."

DAVID GERGEN: "The Goddess That Failed."

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: Yes. My book is about this generation of women who has grown up post- feminist, or what I think of as the daughters of the revolution, with very strong ideas, many of them feminist in origin, about how life was going to work. And I think we found that a lot of those ideas have failed. So whether it's to delay marriage; delay having children, put everything into your career; that your fulfillment will come from your career, not from your marriage, not from being a mother-- these are ideas that we have grappled with and certainly accepted growing up, only to find out that when you get into your late 20's, 30's, you have put everything into your work. You look around you, and if you're not married, you've suddenly made it very difficult for yourself to find somebody, a man who's committed; if you're having a child into your 30's, how difficult the work-child struggle becomes, and in fact, you suddenly realize that your priority is no longer your job, but yet it's now very difficult to leave your job. The sexual revolution, I think, has been very hard on women, and made it also very hard to find men who will commit. So those are a lot of the ideas that I address in the book.

DAVID GERGEN: Now, there was an incident on a tennis court that seemed to crystallize your views,

while you were writing this book, about how far hostility toward males has come in some quarters.

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: Well, one of the most rampant forms of prejudice in our society I notice comes from women toward men. It's almost reflexive. Gloria Steinem had once said, "We have become the husbands we wanted to marry." And it occurred to me that maybe we've become those Archie Bunker-like husbands we wanted to leave behind. And for instance, when this whole Clinton scandal broke, I was amazed at how many women just said, "Well, he's acting just like a man." And I remember a lot of men saying to me, "Well, I don't act like that. That's a real sexist remark." And I think that's true, that we have demonized men and mischaracterized them.

DAVID GERGEN: And on the tennis court?

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: Oh, this is an incident where I'd gone to get my husband's racket. We had left our rackets at the opposite end of the tennis court. We were having a lesson, and I forgot mine. So I ran down and got both rackets, brought them back, gave my husband his racket. And one of the young women in the class looked at me and she said, "Oh, I was hoping you'd make him get it himself." And it was one of -- I call it a "clack moment." Feminists used to say they had "click moments" when all became clear, and I call this a clack moment, because I realized, where did that come -- why would I not show courtesy and get someone else their racket if they had forgotten it? And again, it was just a kind of good-natured reflexive hostility towards men.

DAVID GERGEN: What is the evidence that women are less happy today after women have made so many strides forward in the workplace, have changed their lifestyles in a good many ways?

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: Well, one of the things, you see it constantly in the surveys, there's this sense of feeling trapped. One of the things I write about in the book is how women now feel almost as trapped in their jobs as they did, or were told they did, in their suburban ranch homes in the 1950's. I've heard many accomplished women who seem to have -- who so-call "have it all" in their work, say without any sense of irony, "I don't have the same choices my own mother did," meaning, "I don't have the choice to leave the work force, to have children, often even to have a husband," that there is a kind of -- our marriages are more likely to fail. We're more likely to be substance abusers. We're more likely to have an abortion. We're more likely to have babies out of wedlock. I mean, I think there is a general sense that things have gone wrong, but why they've gone wrong is what I've tried to address in the book. And I think it comes a lot from this set of shared beliefs about how our lives should go, and also, I think one of the most damaging beliefs of the women's movement was a sense of equality, meaning sameness with men -- not just equal before the law, equal politically, which I think we all feel today, that we feel equal in every meaningful way, but we're not the same as men.

DAVID GERGEN: Do you worry that if women adopt more traditional lifestyles, marrying earlier, staying home more, mother and children, that the advances that they've seen in the workplace will diminish, that they'll go backwards?

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: No, because actually, we're getting into this situation where women are doing it anyway. I mean, they're having children and they're leaving the work force, or they're getting into these highly pressured situations where they're working ten hours a day, coming home, being with their children in the evening, and getting satisfaction out of neither. And one of the things, when I was looking at this problem, thinking, "Well, who are the role models? Who are women I admire that who really did manage to have it all?"-- and every example I could come up with, women who managed to be home with their kids when their kids were small and growing up, who then went on to do interesting things: Sandra Day O'Connor, Supreme Court Justice; my own mother; in fact, my late mother-in-law, who was a broadcaster in Canada, had all done it in ways that are exactly the opposite from what we are told to do today, which is, had their kids young in their 20's, their lives had opened up, they'd married young, and they'd gone into the work force.

DAVID GERGEN: When you tell young women, "Hey, don't wait so long to get married," which has been -- you know, is a central argument in your book, "Try to do it earlier. Don't wait until you're 29, 30" -- that sort of thing -- what do you say to the young woman that comes back to you and says, "Look, we have two problems with that. First of all, there are a lot of young guys out there who don't want to get married at 22 or 23, and what he wants to do; and secondly, in today's world, if you want to move up economically and participate, you often have to have a graduate degree, and when am I going to go to business school or law school or public policy school, or what have you?"

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: It's absolutely true that I know a lot of 24- and 25-year-olds who say, "Well, Danielle, please, I'd like to get married; introduce me to someone." And again, when you change female expectations, as we've done, you change male expectations. And there's been so much, I think, abuse heaped on marriage, that men are not being raised either to think about getting into marriage earlier, to look at marriage as anything but something you put off as long as possible. We're less willing to commit ourselves to each other. I think we're just not raised having that attitude that marriage is important, and we should look to doing it sooner, rather than later. So I think that's going to take a social change, or a change of attitude.

DAVID GERGEN: On both sides?

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: On both sides. As to the attitude about, you know, "I do want to go to graduate school," et cetera, I think that's very true. I think you can -- women have gone to -- other generations have gone graduate school and had children, too. It might just take you a bit longer. I think the bigger danger that women worry about is if they don't get that experience on in their 20's, what will they do in their 30's? I think the economy today, the labor shortage today, is much better for women, because it makes it easier to go in and out of the work force. And it's also not productive now, the way we're doing it, which is to leave our careers often in our mid-30's, right when we've invested all that time.

DAVID GERGEN: You seem to come down very hard on the notion that sexual liberation has wound up imprisoning women in some fashion.

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: Well, not imprisoning, but it was a kind of shooting-yourself-in-the-foot element, that -- I think there's now a consensus that it was great for men, and that we are -- that sexual freedom is not the same thing as sexual equality; that as women, we want different things, ultimately, out of our relationships. If you want a committed relationship -- I write in my book that in your 20's, you have this illusion that you are so sexually powerful; you can have all these men. They come along with the regularity of subway trains. And suddenly, though, when you're 28, 29, 30, it starts to creep up on you. Those trains cease to come in so regularly, and then you start looking around, and there's none at all. And I think that's been one of the things that we've disconnected, commitment from sex. And that's hurt women, because ultimately, we do want commitment.

DAVID GERGEN: The final question, the classic male question.

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: Yes.

DAVID GERGEN: Should we, the men, look upon women as different, or as the same and equal?

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: Well, I think you're going to anyway. Yes, I think what we should strive for is an equality of respect, to accept that we have these differences. That doesn't make us less equal as citizens, less equal in what we do in our daily lives. And I think if we can recapture some of that lost respect that we had between the sexes, an acknowledgment of differences, and also accept that today, we really do have these enormous opportunities. We are the freest and most equal generation of women in history. And I think so long as we are captive of certain ideas or certain notions of having to be precisely like men, having to work the same 50-hour weeks, we are not going to be able to realize those extraordinary opportunities.

DAVID GERGEN: Danielle Crittenden, thank you very much.

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN: Thank you for having me.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday: A special US Commission criticized a culture of improper gift-giving by Olympic committees at all levels. Commission Chairman George Mitchell said on the NewsHour tonight, "The Olympic movement won't regain its integrity without adopting reforms." And in Nigeria, a retired general was declared the winner of a presidential election; he'll be the first civilian ruler in 15 years. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.