The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, Joe Biden dropped out of the 1988 Presidential race. President Reagan said it would be a great mistake to restrict U. S. convoy escorts in the Persian Gulf, and the President of Iran accused the United States of dragging the Persian Gulf into war. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary, we go first to the Biden withdrawal as seen by a close friend, a key campaign aide, and two political analysts. Then, more special coverage of the still hot Bork battle, and finally, an essay on a man's best friend. News Summary LEHRER: Joe Biden called it quits for 1988 today. The Delaware senator said he was a victim of his own mistakes, referring to a series of revelations, ranging from his unattributed use of other people's speeches, to misstatements about his college academic record. He said he was withdrawing as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, but not from participating in the fight over the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork.

JOE BIDEN, former presidential candidate: I made some mistakes. But now the exaggerated shadow of those mistakes has begun to obscure the essence of my candidacy and the essence of Joe Biden. At the same time, all of my energy and skill is required to deal with President Reagan's effort to reshape the Supreme Court in a way that I truly believe will be harmful for this country. And therefore it seems to me I have a choice. I have to choose between running for President and doing my job to keep the Supreme Court from moving in a direction that I believe to be truly harmful. LEHRER: And meanwhile the battle of opinions over Robert Bork continued before Biden's Senate Judiciary Committee. Offering pro Bork opinions today were former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, and former Carter White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler. Speaking against were a panel of law professors among others. Charlayne? HUNTER-GAULT: President Reagan warned Congress today against putting any time limits on U. S. tanker escorts in the Persian Gulf. In the wake of Monday's attack on an Iranian ship, some congressmen said they would try to put a 90 day limit on the deployment because of President Reagan's refusal to invoke the War Powers Act. The President was asked about this during a photo opportunity with Soviet dissident Natan Shchransky and his wife.

REPORTER: Since you will not go for the War Powers Act, Congress is looking for new ways to limit the length of time Americans could remain in the Gulf. They want to limit it to 90 days. Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I think that Congress will be making a great mistake if they put any limit of that kind on it. HUNTER-GAULT: Meanwhile in New York today, Iranian President Ali Khamenei charged that the United States was not telling the whole truth about the U. S. Naval attack against an Iranian ship on Monday, and claimed that the United States was dragging the Persian Gulf to war. At a news conference today, Khamenei had this to say about how Iran would respond.

Pres. SAYYED ALI-KHAMENEI [through translator]: We in no way are willing to start an all out war with the United States. But if it so happens, we will inevitably put up a very strong defense. And any way we shall reserve the right of retaliation and response for ourselves. HUNTER-GAULT: At the U. N. today, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze gave the Kremlin's view of the Persian Gulf. He said a cease fire between Iran and Iraq was the key to ending hostilities, along with the removal of foreign forces.

EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE, Soviet Foreign Minister [through translator]: The greater the military presence, the higher probability of yet another conflict and of involvement in it of a state not belonging to the region. This is a source of great anxiety to us. It also strengthens our resolve to act in a sober, pondered manner, and once again to emphasize the question of removing the danger of massive military presence. HUNTER-GAULT: Shevardnadze went on to urge that a United Nations force patrol the Gulf. The Foreign Minister stopped short of supporting a call by the U. S. for worldwide arms embargo against Iran, adding that it is very important now to maintain composure. LEHRER: The Sandinista's unilateral cease fire proposal got a cool reception today. In Miami, one of the six members of the anti Sandinista contra directorates said his forces would ignore it. Aristides Sanchez said it was a publicity stunt by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. Assistant U. S. Secretary of State Eliot Abrams called it a trick. State Dept. spokeswoman Phyllis Oakley said the additional Sandinista decision to allow the reopening of an opposition newspaper and radio station were mere cosmetic gestures. HUNTER-GAULT: In U. S. economic news, higher energy and housing costs caused an unexpected heating up of inflation last month. The Labor Department said consumer prices rose a half percent in August, compared with . 2% the previous month. Most economists now expect inflation in 1987 to return to the 3 to 4% range after last year's l. l% rise. Also, the Senate voted today to restore the Gramm Rudman budget balancing law. This could mean across the board budget cuts, unless the federal deficit is cut. LEHRER: The owners and the players started talking late today in an effort to settle the two day old pro football strike. Representatives of both sides met in Philadelphia. The major issue is the right of veteran players to switch teams like baseball players are allowed to do. There were signs a quick settlement might be possible. But probably not in time to play this Sunday's already cancelled games. Meanwhile, nonunion players reported for training today. Owners have threatened to field nonunion teams on Sunday, October 4, if the strike is not settled. In Washington, striking members of the Redskins team tried to block the early morning arrival of the substitute players. HUNTER-GAULT: An 18 mile square oil slick is threatening sea life some six miles off the Southern California coast. The slick formed when a Liberian freighter collided with another freighter in fog. The Liberian ship with its cargo of 23,000 tons of toxic materials, sank in about 3,000 feet of water two days ago. Environmental officials said the freighter's toxic cargo poses significant environmental problems if released into the ocean. But any attempt to retrieve the cargo was unlikely, because of the depth of the water. That's our news summary. Still ahead on the NewsHour, Biden bows out, the Bork battle stays hot, and recollections of a faithful dog. Quits Race LEHRER: The going of Sen. Joe Biden is the lead story of this day. He stood down as a 1988 candidate for president, ending 12 days of snowballing embarrassment to the Delaware Democrat -- first, over the revelation that he used, without attribution, the words of American political figures Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy, and British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock, then that he also had plagiarized material for a law school paper 20 years earlier, that he lied about where he ranked in law school, and about scholarships and awards he won in undergraduate school. He stopped that story and his presidential candidacy with a statement at a Washington news conference this afternoon. Here's an extended excerpt from it.

JOE BIDEN, former presidential candidate: I made some mistakes. But now the exaggerated shadow of those mistakes has begun to obscure the essence of my candidacy and the essence of Joe Biden. And folks -- I see my good friend Fritz Hollings over there -- I've been here long enough to know that when the tide starts to roll, when things start to move, and things like this begin to happen, it requires all of one's time, energy and concentration to put it back on track. It would involve all of my time, my commitment in the weeks ahead, and then who knows? Maybe I would or would not be able to put it back on track. At the same time, somewhat coincidentally, all of my energy and skill is required to deal with President Reagan's effort to reshape the Supreme Court in a way that I truly believe will be harmful for this country. And therefore it seems to me I have a choice. I have to choose between running for President, and doing my job to keep the Supreme Court from moving in a direction that I believe to be truly harmful. There'll be other opportunities for me to campaign for President, but there will not be many other opportunities for me to influence President Reagan's choice on the Supreme Court. And although it's awfully clear to me what choice I have to make, I have to tell you honestly, I do it with incredible reluctance, and it makes me angry. Angry at myself for having been put in the position -- put myself in the position -- of having to make this choice. And I am no less frustrated with the environment of presidential politics that makes it so difficult to let the American people measure the whole Joe Biden and not just misstatements that I've made. But folks, be that as it may, I concluded that I will stop being a candidate for President of the United States. I learned several other things from this whole experience. I learned, notwithstanding our political differences in this body, that honor, integrity, treating people honorably and acting with integrity, count for a whole lot, even when you're political opponents. Not a single public official who announced for me has withdrawn his support. And my colleagues in both political parties needed no explanation of my conduct before they immediately stood up and vouched for my honor and integrity, and my credibility. And those who taught me in school -- law school -- those who went to school with me, law school, high school and grade school, also did the same exact thing. Notwithstanding the fact that I was not the valedictorian. I want to tell you, and tell them, that means more to me than they will ever know. I also want to thank those who have given so much of themselves to try to get me nominated this time. Those who helped me raise money, those who organized, Iowa, New Hampshire, and other parts of the country, and those who have done everything from lick envelopes to travel thousands of miles on my behalf. Most of all I want to thank my Delaware for standing with me. You know, this is presidential politics. One of you press folks asked me, said, ''Biden, what's going to happen when the white hot heat turns on?'' You warned me what it was going to be like. I thought I knew. It's a tough arena. I'm a big boy. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. But now it's time for me to do just what I would have done had I not won in Iowa, and just what I would have done had I lost on the convention floor. It's time for me to assess my mistakes and make sure I don't make them again. It's time for me to remind myself of why I got involved in politics in the first place. Because I believed, as I believe now, that I can make a little bit of a difference. To use a Biden phrase that others seem to use these days, that I can bend history just a little bit. I still believe that. And for me, the next battle has already been engaged. For me, there is no doubt that the appointment of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court would profoundly affect our future. I intend to be deeply involved in that battle. I intend to attempt to bring it to victory. And let me tell you, folks, one other thing, I still believe it's time to rekindle the spirit of idealism in this country. I think it's time for the world once again to look at America and be proud of what we stand for. I think it's time the Democratic Party demonstrates to the American people that we have that sense of idealism and we're not ashamed of it. And I think the Democratic party will do that in 1988. But for me, the effort now shifts. First of all to the Judiciary Committee, in the Foreign Relations Committee, and the great debates on the floor of the United States Senate. There'll be other presidential campaigns. And I'll be there (unintelligible). I'll be there. There will be other opportunities, there'll be other battles, in other places, other times. And I'll be there. And I'll be there seeking to share with all Americans and those who'll stand with me, the promise proclaimed in the communion hymn you heard me recite all across this country: ''And he will lift you up on eagle's wings, and bear you on the breath of dawn, and make the sun to shine on you. '' This country's going to be lifted up. And I'm going to play a big part in doing it. But for now, folks, gotta go handle the Bork hearings. I had no questions. I appreciate your consideration. I appreciate your being here. And lest I say something that might be somewhat sarcastic, I should go to the Bork hearing. Thanks, folks. My wife and I thank you very much. And (unintelligible) thanks for being here (applause). LEHRER: We get an inside perspective first on the Biden decision to quit. It comes from Boston media consultant John Marttila. He is a close personal friend and has been a senior political consultant to Joe Biden in his past Senate campaigns, as well as the presidential campaign that ended today. Mr. Marttila, was this a difficult decision, or did events kind of make it for him? JOHN MARTTILA, Biden Campaign Advisor: Oh, sure, it was a very difficult decision. And I think Sen. Biden and many of his advisors were deeply conflicted about getting out of the race. I think all of us were anxious to take this entire case to the American people. But I think ultimately what happened was that he did not feel it was possible to run for President, to manage the Bork nomination hearings, and deal with this crisis. Several months ago when the Supreme Court vacancy became a reality, there was a long, careful discussion about the impact of that development as it affected Joe's campaign. And there was a clear, considered decision that the Presidential campaign had to take a backseat to the hearings. And that's the way the hearings have been conducted. During the past 45 days or so, I think Joe has done less campaigning than any other candidate by a long shot. LEHRER: Yes, but the decision to withdraw is related, of course, to the revelations of the last 12 days. When did he make the decision to quit? Mr. MARTTILA: Late last night. I would think that -- I spoke with him by phone I think around midnight. And I would say sometime thereafter. LEHRER: Was there a lot of argument about it, is that what -- when you say ''conflicted,'' or was it, when it finally came down to it -- Mr. MARTTILA: No, people were torn -- torn's a better word, not conflicted. LEHRER: I see. Mr. MARTTILA: And I think that, as I said, I was not in Delaware last night, but I know what happened -- Joe came home, he spent two or three hours with his family, and I think talked the decision -- I'm quite convinced he probably came to the determination as a result of meeting with his family, and then afterwards he met with some of the key staff people. LEHRER: You know Joe Biden very well. What is there about him that caused him to plagiarize other people's material, and to distort what his personal record was -- in schools, etc. -- that caused this problem? Mr. MARTTILA: Well, you know, the -- let me answer your question with a question. Because I think the issue that we have been debating for the past ten days is whether these 10 minutes of campaign activity -- the Kinnock tape and the speeches and so forth -- are really a fair representation of what his candidacy stood for, and what his senate record stood for, and whether they're a fair reflection of what this campaign was all about. Obviously, we don't believe they were. I mean, I think that the campaign was conducted with great honor, great enthusiasm, we had wonderful organizations in Iowa, New Hampshire, and throughout the country, great fundraising capacity, and I think that these events which were real and which Joe said on the tape were mistakes -- it's to me it's a very troubling issues when events which are real, but nevertheless, I think, not all that significant in the total evaluation and measurement of Joe Biden as a human being -- LEHRER: You use the word honor. Are you saying that it is not dishonorable to use other people's words the way he did and not attribute them? Mr. MARTTILA: Well, let me give you one example. Not to rearrange what has taken place. But let's deal with the Bobby Kennedy quote. Joe gave a speech in California, the California Democratic Convention. It was a 40 minute speech, 45 minute speech, pure Biden speech, a long speech. As you may be aware, he writes most of his material, and he takes great pride in doing that. He flew across to California the night before, still working on his speech. There was a fairly celebrated incident which took place the following morning. The speech was supposed to be typed, and the typist never showed up, and so Joe went on to the convention floor with -- it was not the back of an envelope, but it was the functional equivalent of it in modern times -- and gave a speech which was literally pieced together over the past two or three days in terms of his own personal participation. I spoke with him last week. I had seen the speech, I read the speech a couple of times, I saw the tape several times. I didn't know it was a Bobby Kennedy quote, and I'm a fan of Bobby Kennedy. I guess I should have known, I didn't know. He just didn't know. And I think that -- LEHRER: Joe Biden did not know. Mr. MARTTILA: Did not know. LEHRER: Did he know it was a Neil Kinnock speech? Mr. MARTTILA: Oh, sure he did. I think he did. And I think the Newsweek account of what happened I think is precisely accurate. David Wilhelm will talk about this in a few seconds, but he -- on previous occasions, he had attributed the Kinnock quote. And David and Sen. Biden were driving on the way to the debate, and David was the one who suggested to Joe, ''Why don't you kind of retell the Kinnock tale?'' In the previous treatment of this Kinnock tape, Joe attributed Kinnock's involvement and how the tape came about, and all the rest of this thing freely. So -- and again, my question is that he must have spoken about Kinnock in the past month and a half, I don't know, 25, 30 times. And he failed to attribute it on two or three occasions. Most regrettably, it was that Iowa television -- I don't know if we can draw such widespread -- LEHRER: Well, what it really comes down to, I think -- let me ask you this. When Gary Hart withdrew, people sat around this table and other tables, and said, ''Well, Gary Hart was always an accident, or a disaster ready to happen. '' Because of various flaws in his character, etc. Does Joe Biden and what happened today fit into that same category? Mr. MARTTILA: As a 15 year friend, of course, I don't believe that's the case. And I think that my judgment is borne out by the testimony, unsolicited testimony, he received from Senate colleagues, Democratic and Republican, on the Judiciary Committee, throughout the Senate, there was -- our national organization, which consisted of many elected officials throughout America, was completely steadfast. Nobody moved. People -- I would say, by and large if I were to characterize the mood of our national organization, it was they wanted Joe to stay in this election. Let me clarify one thing, because I don't want to have the point I made about the Kinnock tape misunderstood. Joe didn't attribute Kinnock in the Iowa debate, which was on television. But previously, when he had presented this material in Iowa, it had been in the presence of other reporters. And many reporters had heard him do it. So it's not a question of in television -- I think television cameras, I don't know that for a certainty -- and so presidential campaigns are enormous ordeals for the people who are involved in them. And I think the -- not to make excuses, because this I think is a fair test of a candidate who goes through this ordeal -- I think he was carrying the extra weight of the Bork hearings. I think that possibly that could account for why he didn't attribute it that particular night. It's a regrettable mistake, he apologized for it. I just -- to me, I guess the question is perspective. If he properly dealt with this issue, 95% of the time, the two or three times he didn't, is that a -- LEHRER: Well, we'll leave it there, and we'll be back to you in a few minutes. Charlayne? HUNTER-GAULT: The next view of the Biden pull out comes from a key campaign aide. He is David Wilhelm, Biden's campaign manager in Iowa. Mr. Wilhelm, how difficult is this pullout for you and the people in the Iowa campaign? DAVID WILHELM, Biden campaign organizer: Well, we've had better weeks. But nobody's hanging their head. We'll proud to have worked for Joe Biden. His campaign, his message was important to all of us. He talked about a return to idealism, getting this country moving again. And that's attracted a lot of people, a lot of support. That's why I'm here, that's why more than 30 people have been on our staff working for next to nothing. And we're not hanging our heads, and we're ready to move on to the next battle. HUNTER-GAULT: Were you surprised? I mean, you've just heard Mr. Marttila talk about when the decision was made -- were you consulted and when did you find out? Mr. WILHELM: Well, we found out this morning, and we were consulted. Frankly, my opinion was that Joe Biden could come out to Iowa and make his case and state his point of view directly to the people of Iowa. We could have turned this thing around. People in Iowa know Joe Biden perhaps better than people in the rest of the country know him, and he has a huge reservoir of good will to draw down on. I think that had he been able to come out here, state his case directly, I think Iowans, who are slow to turn on you, and are fair minded people, I think would have rallied to his cause. HUNTER-GAULT: What is that case? That he should have stated, or could have stated, in your view? Mr. WILHELM: I think he stated it very clearly. He's made mistakes. He's been very forthright about that and he's been very honest about it. There's been no dissembling, there's been no excuses. He said, ''I did these things. I'm sorry. '' And I think Iowans understand that much of this is much ado about nothing. What they want to know about, and what they want to hear about is where are we going after President Reagan? What is it that this country is all about? HUNTER-GAULT: Can you shed any further light on the Kinnock episode, which Mr. Marttila said you were involved in that? Mr. WILHELM: I was involved in it. As the campaign manager out here, I have heard Joe Biden use that quote a number of times, in every single instance, attributing that quote to Neil Kinnock at great lengths, talking about who Neil Kinnock was, is, what he stands for, what his family's like. And on our way over, we were practicing the closing to the state fair debate, and neither one of us liked the closing that had been prepared for him. So I suggested to Sen. Biden, ''Why don't we use the government as a platform theme?'' which is the Kinnock quote. And the reason for that is because Joe Biden represents middle class dreams, hopes, fears. And that quote gets to the heart of that. So on the way over, we talked about it, he used it, he failed to attribute it. Bit deal! HUNTER-GAULT: But of course that wasn't the only thing, I mean, there were other things that were building, like the misstatements of facts about law school placement, and various other things. Mr. WILHELM: Well, certainly, that was the case, and certainly it was building, and it put our campaign in a tough position. But I think that had Joe Biden come out here, if he had the time to do it, he could get these things behind him, he's been forthright with people, he's been honest, he's been direct. That's who Joe Biden is. And I think we could have gotten a different message out. And that's one of idealism, that's one of a new sense of community. That's one that we need to get this country moving in a different direction. HUNTER-GAULT: He says there will be other campaigns and he'll be there after this. How do you think his future chances look, and how do you think people will be lining up next time around to support the candidacy, the envelope lickers, all those invisible people who work on a campaign? Mr. WILHELM: I think that they will be there for him. Joe Biden is the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he's the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's going to be in the national spotlight for a long time to come. He's made a lot of friends. The people of Iowa know the kind of leader that he is and I think will be. And I think that a lot of people from Sioux City to Burlington to Des Moines, to Council Bluffs, are ready for the next Biden campaign. HUNTER-GAULT: All right, stay with us, we'll be back. Jim? LEHRER: Two outside views of it now. From David Gergen, former Reagan White House Communications Director, who is now editor of U. S. News & World Report Magazine, and Democratic activist Ann Lewis, former Executive Director of the National Democratic Party and the Liberal Americans for Democratic Action. David Gergen, could he have turned it around, or did he have any choice? DAVID GERGEN, U. S. News & World Report: He had no choice. He made a very realistic decision. As a practical matter, I think the money would have dried up, he could not have run a campaign effectively in Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond. But more than that, this was the moment when people were just beginning to examine Joe Biden. Attitudes and opinions had not crystallized about who he was. He was in the spotlight for the first time as a presidential candidate. And all the opinions that were formed about him would have been negative, his campaign would have gone into a tailspin in Iowa. LEHRER: Do you agree? ANN LEWIS, Democratic Political Analyst: I think he did the right thing. There comes a point -- maybe there's an internal world, but after you've been a running joke on Johnny Carson so many nights in a row, it's very hard to get public attention back to the substance of what you're talking about. And I think Joe Biden was in danger of getting to that point. LEHRER: The -- you heard what Mr. Wilhelm said -- and Marttila also, that this is kind of much ado about nothing, that what he did was really not that much of a mortal sin. Mr. GERGEN: Well, it was silly. And it was sort of needless. I mean, to have so many things like that to trip up over this, obviously, you can understand from the Biden campaign's point of view how they feel that there's something trivial that's really sort of stolen their case. But I don't think from the point of view of the public, a voting public, in a year when character really is much in the saddle, in a year when people are trying to weight fundamentally the judgment of the candidates and how mature they are, how honest they are, how straightforward they are. I think these go to the heart of those kinds of questions, and I don't think in that sense it was trivial. He should not have done it. They were stupid things to do. I don't -- by the way, I think he is an honest man, but I think the voters have to sort of say, is he honest, or is he dishonest, or is he dumb? If he's honest, then they have to conclude he's dumb, and that goes for his judgment. And I think people are not looking for that kind of candidate in the White House. LEHRER: Do you agree, Ann Lewis? Ms. LEWIS: I'd say some of it is by, ironically, the very standards that Joe Biden set. He talked about being in a tradition of heroes. Well, those are very high standards to live up to, but it was sort of central to the theme of his campaign. Second, he talked about people, he talked about one of his great resources was his ability as an orator. That was coming into question. Finally, and I agree with David, this is a year in which questions of character are being asked. More than I can remember, I am asked about candidates -- is he or she -- what's he like as a person -- what's she like -- can I trust them? That's very much what's on the mind. Not just the voters who'll focus later, but those grassroots activists who are starting to make up their minds now. LEHRER: Is it just the times, I mean, the times that we sit in right now that have brought Biden down? Or did he do something that most political candidates do not do, or do the others all do it and he just got caught, David Gergen? Mr. GERGEN: In general, political candidates do not do this. There is some rhetorical borrowing along the way. We do live in an age when we have tape recordings, and we actually get the words taken down, and if you have someone who suffers, I think, from Ed (unintelligible) perfectly called a radio rhetorical kleptomaniac, it's a problem. It does come back to haunt you. And there's a -- I think in the presidential election in the late '40s, if you had all these quotes, it would have doomed the candidate then. I don't think it's simply the morality of the '80s, I think it's a question of something that's caught up us. LEHRER: Ann Lewis, the question that's been raised, is there something in the water now that causes the Joe Bidens, the political candidates to think that they can get away with this kind of thing? What's happening? Why have we had Gary Hart -- forget the sex part -- the issue of candidness, and now we have Joe Biden caught up on essentially the same issue? Ms. LEWIS: I'm sure it's not something in the water. And I honestly don't believe that Joe Biden -- for whom I have great respect -- especially over the last two weeks -- thought he was getting away with something. You know, to watch him come in and chair those hearings day after day, while he's had this excruciating sort of agony going on on the other side of his life, and still see him maintain his composure, be fair to people, give everybody their chance. That was something that deserves marks, especially today when we're talking about him in this way. So, no, I don't think he was trying to sneak anything by us. I think he honestly got caught by surprise. LEHRER: I missed -- my question -- I was really trying to restate actually a point that Richard Cohen made in the Washington Post this morning, that he -- Richard Cohen was putting it on -- your man -- President Reagan has gotten away with sort of sliding around the facts, and Joe Biden and others in politics have decided that they can do it, too. And, is that -- do you buy Ms. LEWIS: All right, let's make history here. I will not blame this one on Ronald Reagan. I do think there are at least two things going on. One is on the Democratic side, we don't have a lot of issues dividing the candidates. They're really very similar in age and experience and outlook. And so questions of character, personality, become more important, and are getting far more scrutiny than they did before. Secondly, we got into this a little bit, is the technological age. Once upon a time when you wrote speeches or advised the candidate on issues, you'd say, ''Well, now, you can't say one thing in Maine and another in Georgia, because the networks will pick it up. '' The media has nationalized the country. What we were talking about were major events. We now live in a world in which everybody brings a tape recorder to the neighborhood coffee, and where colleges have superb videotape equipment, so anything you say in an after dinner speech with a student audience is going to be recorded. And there was a new standard of consistency, word by word, that really hasn't existed before. LEHRER: So that goes to your point, David Gergen, that stupidity is involved here. Mr. GERGEN: Well, we could blame it on fluoride -- (chuckle) But nonetheless, I did think -- yeah, I think he made a series of misjudgments. I think that he apparently suffers a -- all of us know him to be an engaging man, he is an honest man. He is a man I think that's made contributions in public life. But he clearly suffers from flaws in character, and the way he thinks and speaks. He speaks in a sloppy way. He speaks in a way that doesn't show much self discipline. I mean, nobody goes out and talks about their college record, and how they finished in the top half of their class if they know in the back of their mind they -- LEHRER: That's just not so -- Mr. GERGEN: -- well, it's not so. It's fundamental to who you are, and your own biography as a politician, you think about those, and if you inflate all of those, it raises questions in people's minds, well how would he be as president. And I think that's what did him in. A lot of people are being asked to give him money, and being asked to line up with a candidate -- and his candidacy I think was beginning to take life in Iowa. He was ready to move. LEHRER: Mr. Wilhelm, what about that? That there were some flaws in your candidate, that this has really just brought out? Mr. WILHELM: Well, there are flaws in Joe Biden, Joe Biden's a human being, he wasn't running for sainthood, he was running for President. Do we have to have candidates to decide that they're going to run for President when they're ten years of age? That's the only way they'll live a life that's so blameless, so -- LEHRER: Let me be more specific. When you were riding in the car with Joe Biden, and you suggested that he use the Neil Kinnock thing, were you surprised when he didn't say, ''No, I couldn't do that, that wouldn't be right to use that without attribution? That just happened, you know, a few weeks ago. That didn't happen when he was a child. Mr. WILHELM: That's true. But in the van on the way over, I did not refer to the section of the closing as the Kinnock quote. I talked about it as the ''government as a platform theme. '' Perhaps if I'd said at the time, ''the Kinnock quote'' it would have registered something in his mind, and he would have said that. It was a (unintelligible) close at the end of a debate, and I just think in the scheme of things, it's relatively unimportant compared to arms control agreements and the Bork nomination. And leadership and the direction of the country. LEHRER: David Gergen? Mr. GERGEN: Well -- but the question that many people have -- as a leader you have to marshall support, you have be credible, you have to be someone people can look up to. When you show these kinds of misjudgment, people have a hard time looking up to you, and you have a hard time being a leader. It would have crippled him, I think, in terms of his candidacy, and if he'd been president, to be caught in this sort of situation, it would very, very badly have hurt him as a leader. He's better off, the country's better off with this decision. He made the right decision. LEHRER: Do you think that's true, Mr. Marttila? That the country's better off, and that he, Joe Biden, is better off for having gotten out? Mr. MARTTILA: Well, it's a personal decision for Joe. And I think that's the most important test. I believe he and his family are better off, and therefore I'm happy for him. Again, I would accept David Gergen's characterization, some of them were silly mistakes. I think the Kennedy quote, the Humphrey quote, and so forth, which happen so infrequently, and without, I believe very genuinely without, his knowledge, I just wish we had the ability to look at these with a little greater perspective. LEHRER: Meaning somebody else wrote these for him, gave them to him, and he did not realize they were Humphrey or Kennedy quotes? Mr. MARTTILA: Right. I'm convinced that's what happened. I know -- I described the kind of crazed circumstances of the California speech -- I don't think Joe knew he was giving a Bobby Kennedy quote. Nor do I believe he knew he was giving a Humphrey quote -- LEHRER: What about his academic record, though. David Gergen's point -- a man says, ''Hey, look, I graduated in the top half of my class'' when he knows that -- Mr. MARTTILA: It was clearly a mistake, and I think he was angry that night, and he obviously reacted in anger to that particular situation. If I might say one thing before we close this discussion, first of all, I think Joe in a way which very few public figures have to, has owned up to his mistake. He's the person who supplied the law school record. Frankly, I don't think he had an absolutely clear sense of where he finished in his class, frankly. But moreover, when you look at those -- I'm just trying to establish the issue of perspective. And whether there was such a flagrant pattern of Joe lifting Bobby Kennedy quotes and Hubert Humphrey quotes -- there just wasn't. Joe Biden is someone who has written a lot of material on his own, if not most of his material, not all of it, but a great deal of it. And he's created a lot of interesting political language over the past 5, 6, 10 years. He doesn't need to have to depend upon other people's ideas. But moreover, the most important thing, is that from a national perspective, we have a President who is talking -- who did not tell the American people the truth about arms sales to Iran. And I think when you juxtapose that event, and the importance to the American people of that particular issue, vs. these campaign incidents, I just wish we had a better chance to establish some perspective. LEHRER: David Gergen, what about that? Mr. GERGEN: Well, I think that it's true that the Administration did not tell the truth about Iran and the contra affair, and they paid a heavy price for it. That's why this system works. They pay a price, and now Joe Biden's paid a price. LEHRER: And we have to leave it there. David Gergen, Ann Lewis, John Marttila, David Wilhelm in Des Moines, thank you very much for being with us on this. Battling over Bork HUNTER-GAULT: We return our focus now to the battle over the Bork nomination to the Supreme Court. It did not cool down today. Judy Woodruff continues our special coverage on the hearing. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Despite all the attention generated by Sen. Biden, the hearings he had been presiding over did go forward, with the star witness being the recently retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger. He came to urge the Senate to confirm Robert Bork. In an appearance almost unprecedented for a sitting or former justice, Burger insisted that Bork is, in his words, ''no more an extremist than I am. '' Burger said he decided to testify because of the amount of what he called ''hype and disinformation that has been spread about Bork. '' WARREN BURGER, former Chief Justice: The determination of a nominee in my view as a citizen, ought to be -- and as a member of the bar -- ought to be on the whole person, and the totality of the record. And on that score, for example, Justice Black might not today be confirmed. As it developed, if you'll recall, notwithstanding the courtesy of the Senate, there was evidence that he'd been a member of an odious organization, the Klan, and yet, if anyone could find any trace, any trace, in Hugo Black's work as a justice, that he had once been a member of the Klan, if that were the case, I think I would be astonished.

WOODRUFF: Republican Senator Arlen Specter, one of the undecideds on the committee, zeroed in on Bork's testimony last week that even though he disagreed with some Supreme Court decisions, he would accept them as precedent anyway. Sen. ARLEN SPECTER, (R) Pennsylvania: Is it realistic to expect a sitting justice to interpret fairly a decision, settled law, where he disagrees fundamentally with the underlying philosophy, considering the various factual situations which come before the court? Justice BURGER: There were a number of opinions the Supreme Court decided while I was in the bar and while I was on the court of appeals that I didn't agree with. But when I got to the court, I followed them. I don't see the difficulty that some others do with that. It goes back to Justice Jackson's statement. I was solicitor general when I said that, and now I'm on the court. I had -- of course in many conversations, conferences, which are always kept in complete secrecy in the courts -- many times when it was perfectly clear that half of the court didn't agree, but felt bound by the precedent. That's so common in the judiciary that it's taken for granted. WOODRUFF: Republican Senator Gordon Humphrey, a Bork supporter, asked the former Chief Justice about some of the charges leveled against Bork. Sen. GORDON HUMPHREY, (R) New Hampshire: The harsher critics say that Robert Bork would turn back the clock. Do you agree with that? Justice BURGER: No. Not at all. In the first place, he couldn't if he wanted to. No single judge can turn back the clock. Even if he or she tried. There are nine people there. And all of them listen to each other. Sen. HUMPHREY: Irrespective of that safeguard, would Robert Bork turn back the clock? Justice BURGER: Not on anything that I know about his opinions or his work, or his writings as a whole. When I was teaching in law school for 12 years, I was practicing law fulltime. At that stage, the slogan, ''Publish or perish,'' for law school professors had not emerged. And there weren't all that many law reviews in the country. Now, the law reviews are churning out thousands and thousands of pages, and it's a good thing. This is debate, this is given and take. And just as I said when I would challenge the students in a course on contracts I was teaching, ''Why do we need a contract clause?'' That wasn't because I thought we didn't need one. I wanted to stir them up. Sen. HUMPHREY: Mr. Chief Justice, is Robert Bork someone whom black citizens and minorities and women need to fear? Justice BURGER: If they need to fear him, they should have been fearful of me. I can see nothing in his record that would suggest that. I support it.

WOODRUFF: Next up was a panel of college professors, including historian John Hope Franklin of Duke University. He told of his experiences growing up in a racist society, and charged that Bork was unsympathetic to the sort of treatment once accorded to blacks in this country. JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN, Duke University: There is no indication in his writing, teachings, or his rulings that this nominee has any deeply held commitment to the eradication of the problem of race, or even of its mitigation. One searches his record in vain, to find a civil rights advance that he supported from its inception. The landmark cases I cited earlier have done much to make this a tolerable, tolerant land, in which persons of African descent can live. I shudder to think how Judge Bork would have ruled in any of them had he served on the court at the time they were decided. We cannot afford the risk of having a person on the United States Supreme Court whose views make it clear to me that his decisions in this area would be (unintelligible) to the best interests to this nation and to the world.

WOODRUFF: Republic Senator Alan Simpson took issue with the panel's portrayal of Bork's role in the Civil Rights movement. Sen. ALAN SIMPSON, (R) Wyoming: How long are we going to pick old scabs in this country? It stalls us from progress. Those things happened, they were repugnant, they were repulsive. We've made tremendous strides. And your remarks were powerful and intimate and painful, and anguishing. But Robert Bork did not place those roadblocks in your path. He helped tear them down. WILLIAM LEUCHTENBURG, University of North Carolina: I would just like to comment on what Senator Simpson said by saying it's simply not true that the nominee did not put roadblocks in the way of civil rights. He was an outspoken opponent of the most important civil rights legislation of this century, and he was not a senator from a southern state who was facing difficulties. He was a member of the faculty of Yale Law School. And if he had had his way, we would not have had the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and he would not have had the opportunity to recant his views about that legislation as he has recanted so much in the past week.

WOODRUFF: The first witness in the afternoon was Democratic attorney Lloyd Cutler, President Carter's Chief White House Counsel, who has surprised many of his liberal colleagues with his support for Bork. Cutler urged Bork opponents in the Senate to think carefully about their opposition. LLOYD CUTLER, former Chief White House Counsel: I would submit that those who prefer the status quo -- and there is every reason why the disadvantaged groups in society whom the Warren Court reached out to protect should prefer the status quo -- but those who prefer the status quo ought not to convert this preference into a rigid orthodoxy that bars the confirmation of any nominee who has at some times been critical of one or more prevailing majority views. The time is going to come -- and it can't come too soon for me -- when there is going to be a Democratic president. And given our rolling national penchant for ticket splitting and lack of party sensitivity and loyalty on the part of voters, a Democratic president may well come to office with a Republican Senate. It's necessary for Democrats who would vote against a moderate conservative nominee to the court to recall or remember that they are giving a hostage to the time when a Democratic president will be appointing a moderate liberal, or perhaps a very liberal member of the court, who will be judged by the same standard in reverse that you would be applying, in my view, if you rejected Judge Bork today.

WOODRUFF: Both supporters and opponents of Bork asked what his confirmation would mean for the future of the Supreme Court. Sen. ORRIN HATCH, (R) Ohio: We've heard Judge Bork attacked, or even criticized because some have said that he would shift the balance of the court to the right. Now, is it not true that any change in the court sometimes shifts its balance to a certain degree, to some extent. Do you think that Judge Bork would actually shift the balance of the court from where it stood when Justice Powell sat on it? Mr. CUTLER: It's certainly possible it would shift some. It always shifts some, as I said earlier. No two justices are mirror images of one another. In most of the cases, probably 90% of the cases, the conservative, liberal rating doesn't make much difference. There are many -- probably well over half the cases in which, let us say, Justice Rehnquist and Justice Marshall and Justice Brennan are in agreement. I would think Judge Bork is certainly a conservative in this spectrum of judicial thinking. But I would place him closer to the center than to the right, and closer to the center than some of the sitting justices -- and I hope you'll forgive me not to identify particular names. I think, as I said, he would come fairly close to Justice Powell. Sen. HOWARD METZENBAUM, (D) Ohio: Don't you have some concern that if Judge Bork's views were to prevail, regardless of who agrees or disagrees with them, that it will have a tremendous unsettling effect upon the community in America? Doesn't that bother you? Mr. CUTLER: I do agree, Senator Metzenbaum, that if all of the decisions of the Warren and Burger courts upholding the rights of the disadvantaged, and of the press, were set aside, that would be a very grave thing for the country. I don't think that is going to happen with the appointment of Judge Bork.

WOODRUFF: After Cutler's testimony, the committee heard from IllinoisRepublican Governor James Thompson, who also spoke in favor of the Bork nomination. Semper Fido LEHRER: Finally tonight, our man in Kansas City, Jim Fisher, has some thoughts about his best friend.

JIM FISHER: This is my dog Tramp, an animal of dubious parentage, a refugee off the mean streets of downtown Kansas City. Now a farm dog. Which isn't a bad life. I haven't figured out what he's good for, except for eating, chewing on his favorite bone, my hand, or running. Tramp and I have a deal. We trust each other to love one another. Trust. A word you don't hear much these days. And maybe with good reason. We wonder if we can trust the President, or his minions, or various preachers. Even the Marines seem suspect. You can't trust the airlines to get you there on time. Drive on a freeway, and somebody might take a shot at you. You have to be a magician to open an aspirin bottle, lest it be laced with cyanide. Or look at a milk carton. There you'll see the ultimate betrayal of trust. And now the pit bull. The pictures, the stories. I've no truck with pit bulls. You want one? Well, get a chain link fence, padlocks and muzzles. Keep them out of neighborhoods and away from children, mailmen and everybody else. Yet with all this, there's something else, something we don't talk about. How many of us with a dog bigger than a poodle haven't wondered a little, a twinge here, a doubt there. Look at Tramp. He's got teeth. Can you trust him? If you can't trust your dog, who can you trust? Which brings us to Warrensburg, Missouri, where some years ago folks hereabouts did a sensible thing. They put up a statue to a dog. Old Rum. The statue sort of puts things in perspective. Dogs are dogs. Pit bulls are aberrations, a product of the times. No different from some of the youngsters that come off the mean streets in 1980s America. But Old Rum was a fine Missouri hound, owned by Charlie Burton. In 1870, Old Rum was shot dead by a neighbor for allegedly killing a sheep. Burton promptly sued for the loss of his hound. His lawyer, George Vest, later a U. S. Senator, gave this closing address to the jury. We might think about what Vest said. ''Gentlemen of the jury, the best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter may prove ungrateful. But the one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful, or treacherous, is his dog. A man's dog stands behind him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground where the wintery winds blow and the snow drives fiercely if only he may be near his master's side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will guard the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. And when the last scene comes, when death takes the master, and the body is lain in the cold ground, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad, but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true, even in death. '' Vest won his case. Burton got $50. And Old Rum, quite properly, got his statue. Recap HUNTER-GAULT: Again, the main points in the news, Senator Joseph Biden dropped out of the 1988 presidential race. President Reagan said it would be a great mistake to restrict U. S. convoy escorts in the Persian Gulf. And the President of Iran accused the U. S. of dragging the Persian Gulf into war. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.