The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight another important day for President Clinton. Dan Balz of the "Washington Post" tracks developments in the investigation story; our regional commentators react to Hillary Clinton's charge it's all a right-wing conspiracy; and Mark Shields & Paul Gigot, joined by Norman Ornstein, preview the President's State of the Union address. We close with a Tom Bearden report on the cars of the future. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: First Lady Hillary Clinton today blamed a vast right-wing conspiracy for the new investigation of the President. She charged allegations her husband had sexual relations with a former White House intern and then urged her to lie about it under oath were politically motivated. Mrs. Clinton spoke this morning to Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today" show. Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr later issued a written statement calling her charge "nonsense." Meanwhile, a federal grand jury met today in Washington to hear evidence in the matter. One of the witnesses who appeared at the federal courthouse was the President's personal secretary, Betty Currie. She declined comment to reporters. We'll have more on all of this right after the News Summary, including an update on today's events from the "Washington Post" newsroom. Senators and representatives returned to the capitol today for tonight's State of the Union address and the second session of the 105th Congress. Republicans generally declined to comment on the President's problems, but the Democratic Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle had this to say.

SEN. THOMAS DASCHLE, Minority Leader: It's obvious we return under very difficult circumstances. Allegations have been made against the President and have been vehemently denied. The legal process continues, flawed as it may be. And while the circumstances may be extraordinary, the work of this government must go on. The American system is uniquely constructed to withstand the winds of controversy and crisis, which howl throughout history. And this moment is no exception.

JIM LEHRER: High administration officials said President Clinton will not mention the investigation in his speech tonight. The centerpiece of the address is expected to be a call for saving future budget surpluses until Social Security is reformed. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott will deliver the Republican response.We'll have both in a special edition of the NewsHour at 9 PM Eastern Time on most PBS stations. On the Iraq story today the President spoke by phone to British Prime Minister Tony Blair about the standoff. They agreed the situation was serious. Secretary of State Albright leaves tomorrow for a series of meetings with European foreign ministers. They're to discuss what should happen next. A military strike is being considered. Today in Baghdad a Russian envoy said President Yeltsin firmly opposes the use of force. In U.S. economic news today the Conference Board reported consumer confidence was down this month. It fell from a 28-year high in December. Some economists blamed it on the Asian financial crisis. The board is a private business group that measures consumer sentiment by polling 5,000 U.S. households. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the President's crisis, an update from the "Washington Post" newsroom, reaction from our regional commentators, and analysis by Shields & Gigot plus Ornstein. We close with a report on the cars of the future. FOCUS - THE PRESIDENT'S CRISIS

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton's crisis. First Lady Hillary Clinton went on the offensive this morning. She appeared on the NBC "Today" show with host Matt Lauer. Here are edited excerpts from that interview.

MATT LAUER: There has been one question on the minds of a lot of people in this country, Mrs. Clinton, lately, and that is: What is the exact nature of the relationship between your husband and Monica Lewinsky? Has he described that relationship in detail to you?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, we've talked at great length. And I think as this matter unfolds, the entire country will have more information. But we're right in the middle of a rather vigorous feeding frenzy right now. And people are saying all kinds of things and putting out rumor and innuendo. And I have learned over the last many years being involved in politics, and especially since my husband first started running for president, that the best thing to do in these cases is just to be patient, take a deep breath, and the truth will come out. But there's nothing we can do to fight this firestorm of allegations that are out there.

MATT LAUER: But he has described to the American people what this relationship was not in his words.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: That's right.

MATT LAUER: Has he described to you what it was?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Yes. And we'll find that out as time goes by, Matt, but I think the important thing now is to stand as firmly as I can and say that, you know, the President has denied these allegations on all counts unequivocally, and we'll see how this plays out. I guess everybody says to me, how can you be so calm, or how can you just--you know--look like you're not upset, and I guess I've just been through it so many times. I mean, Bill and I have been accused of everything, including murder, by some of the very same people who are behind these allegations. So from my perspective, this is part of the continuing political campaign against my husband.

MATT LAUER: Your message is: Where there's smoke--

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: There isn't any fire, because think of what we've been through for the last six years and think of everything we've been accused of. Having seen so many of these accusations come and go, having seen people profit, you know, like Jerry Falwell, with videos accusing my husband of murder, of drug running, seeing some of the things that are written and said about him, my attitude is, you know, we've been there before, wehave seen this before, and I am just going to wait patiently until the truth comes out.

MATT LAUER: So if what you have heard is something you can believe and if what the President has told the nation is the whole truth and nothing but the truth--

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Right.

MATT LAUER: -- then you'd have to agree that this is the worst and most damaging smear of the 20th century.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, I don't know. There have been a lot of smears in the 20th century.

MATT LAUER: This is pretty devastating.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: But it's a pretty bad one. Well, just think about it. And this is what concerns me. This started out as an investigation of a failed land deal. We get a politically-motivated prosecutor who is allied with the right-wing opponents of my husband, who has literally spent four years looking at every telephone--

MATT LAUER: And $30 million.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: More than that now. But looking at every telephone call we've made, every check we've ever written, scratching for dirt, intimidating witnesses, doing everything possible to try to make some accusation against my husband.

MATT LAUER: We're talking about Kenneth Starr, so let's use his name because--

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, we're talking about--

MATT LAUER: --he is the independent counsel.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: But it's the whole operation. It's not just one person. It's an entire operation.

MATT LAUER: Did he go outside of his rights, in your opinion, to expand this investigation? After all, he got permission to expand the investigation from a three-judge panel.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: The same three-judge panel that removed Robert Fisk and appointed him, the same three-judge panel that is headed by someone who was appointed by Jesse Helms and Lock Faircloth.

MATT LAUER: Also Janet Reno approved--

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, of course.

MATT LAUER: --this expansion of an investigation.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, of course, she is, because she doesn't want to appear as though she's interfering with an investigation. This is--the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for President. A few journalists have kind of caught on to it and explained it, but it has not yet been fully revealed to the American public. And actually, you know, in a bizarre sort of way, this may do it.

JIM LEHRER: Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr dismissed the First Lady's charge. He issued a statement reading: "The First Lady today accused this office of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. That is nonsense. Our current investigation began when we received credible evidence of serious federal crimes. We promptly informed Attorney General Reno, and she determined that the allegations merited further investigation. The attorney general and the special division of the D.C. Circuit then authorized us to conduct the investigation. Our investigation is being carried out by highly experienced federal prosecutors, FBI agents, and other law enforcement professionals, with major decisions made through a deliberative process. We are working to complete the inquiry as quickly and thoroughly as possible." This is not the first time the Clintons have raised the conspiracy issue. President Clinton made a similar charge about Starr when we interviewed in September of 1996.

JIM LEHRER: [September 23, 1996] One of the negatives, of course, is the Whitewater thing. I want to ask you one question aboutthat. Susan McDougal told a federal judge in Little Rock the other day that the reason she was refusing to testify before a grand jury is that she believed Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, was "out to get the Clintons." Do you agree with her?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I think the facts speak for themselves. All we know about her is she said what she said, and then her lawyer said that he felt they did not want her to tell the truth; they wanted her to say something bad about us, whether it was the truth or not, and if it was false, it would still be perfectly all right, and if she told the truth and it wasn't bad about us, she'd simply be punished for it. That's what her lawyer said.

JIM LEHRER: Do you believe him?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think that the facts speak for themselves. I think there's a lot of evidence to support that.

JIM LEHRER: But do you personally believe that that's what this is all about, is to get you and Mrs. Clinton?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Isn't it obvious?

JIM LEHRER: You obviously believe that, right?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I--

JIM LEHRER: It's obvious to you.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Isn't it obvious?

JIM LEHRER: Now, tracking these and other developments and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Once again we return to the "Washington Post" newsroom, and joining us is Dan Balz, a correspondent on the Post's national staff. Welcome back, Dan.

DAN BALZ, Washington Post: Thank you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Update what happened today. First of all, Mrs. Clinton's comments. What was the thinking in the White House behind having her go out and do this extensive interview?

DAN BALZ: Margaret, I think there are two things involved here. One is to raise morale of people around the country and particularly in the White House who want to believe in President Clinton in this case, and second is to re-focus some of the discussion that's going on now and aim it back at Kenneth Starr.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying is this part of a deliberate strategy to actually introduce or reintroduce this issue in the public, whether this is part of a right- wing conspiracy?

DAN BALZ: Very much so. I think that one of the things that has happened over the last week is that the people who are around the President feel that last week was, as one person said to us today, a disaster; that there was nothing clear that came out of the White House in terms of a denial and that the President and the First Lady were either out of sight, or when they were in public looked as if they were defensive, you know, worried, nervous, et cetera. The last two days what you've seen is a very vigorous denial on the part of the President and a very strong statement of support by the First Lady today and an attack on Kenneth Starr, so for the first time since this happened, people around the Clintons feel much more up about whether they might be able to get through this. They know they've got a long way to go, but they feel better. And that was an important thing. But the second thing, and an important element of their strategy at this point is to raise doubts about Kenneth Starr's motivations. They've done this in the past, and they want to do it at this point. They feel that since this started, this has been a one-sided story; that essentially what's happened is that there has been a huge amount, just a cheer volume of accusations leveled at President Clinton, that he's not answered or he's been able to answer for a variety of reasons. What they want to do is change the nature of the debate. They don't feel--I believe, based on conversations we've had today--that Kenneth Starr can engage in a back and forth with them on this issue every day, and to some extent the Republicans, who have remained silent up to now, have to remain silent because it's the view of people around the Clintons at this point if the Republicans get in to defend Ken Starr, or to try to say this isn't a conspiracy of the right wing, that it will prove that it is, because they will be taking Ken Starr's position. So they feel that it is a way to focus public discussion on something other than the pure allegations. And they think that they may have some success with it.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, now, moving on to another front in this story, the negotiations between Kenneth Starr and the lawyer for Monica Lewinsky, just update what's happened since you and I talked last night.

DAN BALZ: Margaret, I think the simplest thing to say is that this is a day in which there are more questions than there are answers. There is not yet an agreement between the independent counsel and Monica Lewinsky's attorneys as to immunity. To some extent this was--this was a result of the fact that Starr's team was involved in grand jury proceedings today. They were, in essence, distracted by that, so they have not been able to do much on the negotiating front. As we understand it, there's another meeting that will go on tonight where they will examine further the proffer that Ms. Lewinsky's attorney made yesterday, but at this point we don't have an agreement. I would have to say that not a lot of progress has been made so far today on that front.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, we should explain that this proffer was made last night after our show. What can you tell us about, I think Mr. Ginsburg called it a complete proffer--what was he offering last night that he hadn't been offering in the days running up to this?

DAN BALZ: I think we would all like to know what's in that proffer, and we're all trying to find out. At this point we don't know a lot. What we do believe is that over the--over the course of the days in which there have been discussions between Ken Starr's office and Mr. Ginsburg that more and more information has been forthcoming from Ginsburg about what Monica Lewinsky might be prepared to testify. Most of this has been verbal information. It has been accumulated by the independent counsel's office. They feel they now have more information than they had before, but we think there are probably still a number of loose ends that have to be tied up before they can reach any agreement.

MARGARET WARNER: And from your reporting, do you know how much Monica Lewinsky is ready to confirm about what's on the tapes of her conversations with her friend, Linda Tripp?

DAN BALZ: We, like everyone else, are trying to find out exactly what she's prepared to testify.

MARGARET WARNER: There was also a curious thing that Mr. Ginsburg said this morning in an interview with NPR, that seemed curious to me, that he was perfectly willing to have her take a polygraph. Can you explain that.

DAN BALZ: I think, frankly, that that is something that many lawyers do in a situation like this. Part of what he needs to do is to reassure people that Monica Lewinsky will be telling the truth when she comes forward; that what she has to say is factual. Saying that she's prepared to take a polygraph test suggests that she is not defensive about what's about to unfold and that she--she is telling the full truth.

MARGARET WARNER: And then finally moving on now to the grand jury that met today in Washington, Betty Currie, the President's secretary, was seen going in and coming out. First of all, explain to us who is Betty Currie, why is she important?

DAN BALZ: Betty Currie is the President's secretary. She sits right outside the Oval Office. She's a person who would have access to know who's going in and out of the Oval Office, certainly most of the day. Secondly, she's important because it is alleged that Monica Lewinsky sent some packages from her office at the Pentagon to the White House and that they were sent to Betty Currie, or through Betty Currie to the President. So she is the person who would have received those packages, if they existed.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you know anything about her testimony today--of course, grand jury testimony is secret--but how long she was in there, whether she really testified, anything about what she said?

DAN BALZ: She was there for about three hours. She had nothing to say to reporters, nor did her attorney when she left the building. At this point we don't know what she had to say.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the other--one other question on that--there have been reports today, this morning, that Kenneth Starr was not going to call any significant witnesses today to the grand jury. Yet, she was called. Can you explain that.

DAN BALZ: Well, there were intimations yesterday coming out of the independent counsel's team that they might not call significant witnesses today in deference to the President's State of the Union address tonight, that they did not necessarily want to cause a major distraction from that. It's not clear whether this was a change of heart at the last minute, or whether they always intended to have Betty Currie go, but not a significant witness, such as Vernon Jordan, who would--who would have probably caused an even greater media scene down in front of federal district court.

MARGARET WARNER: If such a thing is possible.

DAN BALZ: If such a thing is possible, that's right.

MARGARET WARNER: Then also called today was John Whitehead, who's president of the Rutherford Institute. First, again, explain who he is and what the Rutherford Institute's role is in all this.

DAN BALZ: Well, the Rutherford Institute is funding Paula Jones's legal defense. And so he is there as part of that in the sense that the Paula Jones case and this have become intertwined.

MARGARET WARNER: And so he brought some documents. Do you know anything about those documents?

DAN BALZ: I don't know a lot about what those documents are at this point. We think that perhaps it has to do with some of the records that they might have accumulated over time as they learned about the existence of Monica Lewinsky, or whatever they knew about it at the time, but not much is known right now about the kinds of documents he may have produced.

MARGARET WARNER: But now isn't there a gag order in that Paula Jones case? How was he able to bring documents in--

DAN BALZ: Well, some of these things--

MARGARET WARNER: --this case?

DAN BALZ: Well, some of these things would not necessarily be covered by the gag order. I mean, much of it is, but apparently what he was able to bring in today probably would not have been.

MARGARET WARNER: So that would mean that the President's own deposition in the Paula Jones case or the affidavit by Monica Lewinsky, if this is correct, would not have been among those documents?

DAN BALZ: That is our understanding, yes.

MARGARET WARNER: And do you--do you know when Vernon Jordan and, for that matter, Monica Lewinsky, but Vernon Jordan will be asked to come to the grand jury?

DAN BALZ: We don't know at this point. The grand jury is scheduled to reconvene tomorrow and Thursday, as we understand it, but they have not put out a witness list, and we'll just have to wait and see as that unfolds.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Dan, thanks again.

DAN BALZ: You're welcome. Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: We will be going to the "Washington Post" newsroom each evening for an update on this story. The Post coverage is available in full after 10:30 Eastern Time on the Internet at its web site: www.washingtonpost.com or ours: www.pbs.org/newshour. FOCUS - CONSPIRACY?

JIM LEHRER: Now reaction from our regional commentators to Hillary Clinton's conspiracy comments. Elizabeth Farnsworth, who's in Denver tonight, is in charge.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And with us are NewsHour regulars Patrick McGuigan of the "Daily Oklahoman;" Lee Cullum of the "Dallas Morning News;" Bob Kittle of the "San Diego Union Tribune;" Cynthia Tucker of the "Atlanta Constitution;" and Mike Barnicle of the "Boston Globe." And joining them tonight is Gene Lyons, columnist with the "Arkansas Democrat-Gazette" in Little Rock.Pat McGuigan, are the allegations now swirling around the President part of a vast right-wing conspiracy as the First Lady suggested today?

PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: It's an amazing comment by the First Lady this morning. I'm still kind of stupefied by it. The only thing I can say is it's kind of amazing to propose that "Newsweek," the "Washington Post," the "Los Angeles Times," for that matter Jim Lehrer in his interview last week on the NewsHour, and all these other players are part of a right-wing conspiracy. I think there are varying shades of grade all across the political spectrum. And what the First Lady has done is to take some of the more outlandish things that have never been mainstreamed even in most of the conservative publications in the country, and she's using those as a basis not only to tar conservatives in general but very intriguingly to begin to seem to propose that any of us who ask questions in the press corps are part of that right-wing conspiracy. I think that her comments were designed to intimidate people and keep them from pursuing this story, which has finally broken into the mainstream of the American news media.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Gene Lyons, do you think her comments were designed to intimidate other press people?

GENE LYONS, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: Oh, gee, I think that's a little hypersensitive. I don't think there's any sign that people are going to slow down. I think possibly she's selected her terminology infelicitously. Conspiracy has criminal overtones. I think it's a bad--I think it's a bad word. But it's very difficult not to conclude that these kinds of charges and some of the individuals, indeed, who would be involved in the Paula Jones case and involved in the background of these charges have, indeed, also fostered charge-- bizarre charges about drug smuggling and murder and all of that kind of business about the Clintons since they came into office. These things have been published in journals such as the "American Spectator," and the "American Spectator" is substantially funded by a man named Richard Mellon Scaife, who also has underwritten Kenneth Starr's--put about a million dollars into Kenneth Starr's presumptive chair in Pepperdine University, also funds Vince Foster conspiracy theorists and various organizations promoting that idea. So I don't think she's crazy or wacko or off the wall, and I don't think she's raising an issue that's mad.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Cynthia Tucker, but on the current charges now, do you buy her explanation that they are politically motivated?

CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: Well, back in the 60's there used to be a saying that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. I think that there's an interesting corollary in this case just because they're out to get you doesn't mean perhaps you didn't do something. I think that this story is complicated because the president may well have behaved inappropriately, but it is also true, as Gene pointed out, that even in these allegations there are people involved who clearly had it out for Bill Clinton and perhaps Hillary Clinton as well. You have Linda Tripp, who sent the tapes to Kenneth Starr. Now, how many of us when a friend calls to complain who's distraught about a love affair going badly, how many of us think to run to turn on a tape recorder? That strikes me as unusual. And then there's that woman Goldberg in New York who is Linda Tripp's agent, who is involved in this. She suggested Linda Tripp start the tapes rolling. She said that in the 70's she was a spy for Richard Nixon on the McGovern campaign trail. So there's a very odd cast of characters here. And I think Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying her very best to change the subject by drawing our attention to those characters; however, there is also very strong evidence being investigated by journalists and by Ken Starr that the President may well have behaved inappropriately. So if they were out to get them, it seems to me that Bill Clinton has helped them along.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Bob Kittle, where do you come down on this?

ROBERT KITTLE, San Diego Union Tribune: I'm afraid I just cannot buy the notion that a vast right-wing conspiracy is somehow responsible for this. If there is a vast right-wing conspiracy, then Janet Reno, the attorney general, is part of it because she okayed Kenneth Starr's expansion of the probe to include the Monica Lewinsky matter. The three-judge federal panel, which also approved that expansion, must be in on the conspiracy. And I guess the FBI is also because the FBI, after all, collected the evidence of the taped conversation between Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky at a hotel near the Pentagon. So I just cannot accept this notion. I think it makes for an interesting political defense. But to somehow suggest that Jerry Falwell and Jesse Helms are orchestrating all of this is simply not credible. This investigation is going on because Kenneth Starr was presented with credible evidence of potential wrongdoing by the President and perhaps some of his aides. And he would have been irresponsible not to follow up on that information, not to present it to the attorney general to show what he had and to seek an expansion of his probe. That's simply the objective case. Regardless of his motives or the motives of anyone else, there is evidence there that must be examined to determine whether crimes were committed.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mike Barnicle, do you agree with that, that Kenneth Starr's actions are quite understandable?

MIKE BARNICLE, Boston Globe: Well, I think Kenneth Starr's actions, his one action with regard to potentially involving the President of the United States in a sting operation with a 24-year-old former intern is ludicrous. But let's just say that there is a conspiracy about in this country. Let's just say that there's a lot of maliciousness and venom in the air, which there is. Let's say that there's mean- spiritedness in the coverage of politics, which I think there is. There is one defense that is more powerful than any deposition, more powerful than any allegations made or perhaps yet to be made. And that's the truth. You come right out and you say what the truth is quickly and honorably and effectively. And you end the conspiracy, and you short-stop the allegations, and the depositions no longer mean anything if you have the truth on your side. I think the basic problem here is that this country feels that we have not yet heard the truth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Lee Cullum, is that right, that the truth is the best defense here?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: Yes. I think so. In fact, I think there's a saying, Elizabeth, that says in times of crisis the safest place is in the hard proof. And I think that is the case here. I can understand why the First Lady feels besieged, and I can understand why she identifies some of her enemies as right wing. The Rutherford Institute, for example, is certainly very conservative, and it is funding the Paula Jones case. You can be sure that it's not interested in abused women, that it is interested in a political figure. It's interested in the politics of the case. That's my assessment of it. However, you don't have to be a right-winger to be disturbed if a president uses sexually a 21-year-old intern, assuming that happened, and then pressures her to perjure herself. It seems to me that while there may be those on the right who are out to bring down the Clintons, the President, if he did what Monica Lewinsky alleges he did, certainly has given them some ammunition.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Lee Cullum, you heard Dan Balz tell Margaret just before this that what the First Lady hoped to do was to change the terms of the debate, to get the story off on a different way. Do you think this will succeed in doing that so that the focus is elsewhere?

LEE CULLUM: No, Elizabeth, I don't see how it can possibly succeed in that regard. I can understand her trying to say change the subject. I can--and I can also understand why she sees a web of wrongdoing that's quite ominous for her and the President and all of these characters. And I think Gene Lyons is right; there have been some reprehensible things said about the Clintons by various characters in the drama. But we have a young woman, Monica Lewinsky, who said certain things on tape. You can say that it was a fantasy, but I don't see how she fantasized the perjury. And from what I've read of those tapes, she talks a great deal about her distress about the perjury, and my reading of Linda Tripp is she feared that she was going to be called to testify and was worried about protecting herself. I'm not saying that that is--she's going to have stars in her crown for that, but I can understand it. I think that the facts in these allegations are going to prevent a conspiracy theory from getting very far.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Pat McGuigan, what do you think about that? You think the debate is going to turn the corner now, take a different turn, take a different--there will be a different focus?

PATRICK McGUIGAN: Well, I think that people in the mainstream press corps are paying attention at long last to a lot of allegations about Mr. Clinton's habitual misbehavior that have had a lot of substance to them for many years. I'm sorry to say that one of the things that happens in situations like this is that truly innocent people begin to have their reputations smeared. And that might be the case with John Whitehead. I think it's safe to say that he and the Rutherford Institute are very conservative, but Whitehead is an outstanding attorney who has a great heart, if you will, that's an evangelical term, for those who have no voice in the legal system.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Remind people of--

PATRICK McGUIGAN: And that's the motivation behind him getting involved in providing some legal help to Paula Jones, in my opinion.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Bob Kittle, is this story as big in your part of California as it is in Washington, D.C.?

ROBERT KITTLE: Absolutely, Elizabeth. It's the topic of endless conversation and speculation and worry about where the presidency is headed. Unfortunately, here, as elsewhere, it also--this whole situation has become the butt of a lot of jokes and a lot of ridicule. The presidency, regrettably, whatever the facts will ultimately show, today the presidency is being dragged through the gutter by this. And it's a very unfortunate situation, and I don't find anyone, including longtime opponents of the President, taking much glee in the sordid nature of this particular scandal. It's a very uncomfortable thing for people to talk about, but yet everyone is riveted by it, and everyone is talking about it. I'm sure it's just as much a topic of conversation here around the dinner tables as it is inside the beltway.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Gene Lyons, tell me about how Little Rock, which has such a direct interest in this story is reacting from what you can see.

GENE LYONS: Depression, defensiveness, disbelief, anger, all the standard emotions that you would expect to feel that the native son--there's great fear. Some people who I've never heard doubt--who don't believe any of the previous allegations--are very troubled by this, and they do want to hear Bill Clinton's defense. I would say, however, that if this were the publisher of the newspaper I work for, any other prominent public citizen in Arkansas, these allegations in the form they're in would never have been published unless and until the investigation. And the investigation would have been conducted in private. Once the media gets involved you got a very strange situation. People do want to hear Bill Clinton's explanation, but they do understand, I think most people understand, that he's in a very bad position to give a full explanation of what his story is until her story is in the can, more or less, so that you can only tell the truth once in a situation like this, if you're facing someone who for the sake of argument now is making something up. Second, I would add that we're talking about John Whitehead and the Rutherford Foundation. This is the same Mr. Whitehead who in June 1995 wrote an article endorsing Jerry Falwell's charges of drug smuggling and murder in the Rutherford Institute magazine. This is the kind of thing Mrs. Clinton's talking about.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I've lost my audio.

JIM LEHRER: We have a problem.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sorry. I've lost my audio. I can't hear anymore. Sorry.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Elizabeth can't hear anymore. Can you all still hear me out there around--all right. Right. Live television. What is your reaction to what Gene Lyons just said, Cynthia Tucker?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, I think that he mentioned the fact that there are a lot of people in Arkansas who are very concerned, very depressed, very angry. I think that that has been the reaction in Atlanta, throughout much of Georgia as well. I am fascinated by the fact that though Georgia is a conservative state and certainly we have heard from many readers who've said, didn't we tell you that this was Bill Clinton's character all along, there have been many people alternately who said, wait a minute, none of this has been proved. If he had engaged in sexual activity with this young woman, he's still been a good president. I think most of us, however, are still desperately waiting for the President to give some definitive explanations for this.

JIM LEHRER: All right quickly, Mike Barnicle, what's the reading in Boston?

MIKE BARNICLE: Jim, I'll tell you, I don't think--this is no longer a story about politics or ideology. When people are worried about the news coming on their car radios, when they're giving 13-year-old boys a ride to hockey games, for fear of the fact that something will be mentioned that the President may have been up to, we're into something entirely different now. I think there's a weight on this country, a burden on the shoulders of this country that the President and only the President can lift by telling the truth, by telling us of his relationship with this woman, telling us what happened, telling us why she went to the White House and what the deal is.

JIM LEHRER: Okay, Mike, and all six of you all, thank you very much. And I hope--we'll get Elizabeth's audio fixed, I promise.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight--I wasn't going anywhere--Shields & Gigot plus Ornstein and the cars of the future. FOCUS - STATE OF THE UNION

JIM LEHRER: Now, a State of the Union preview and other analysis from syndicated columnist Mark Shields, "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot, joined tonight by Congress watcher Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.Paul, first, on the conspiracy charge by the First Lady, do you think she's going to be successful in changing the subject?

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: Well, the first thing I think you have to say is that this is a familiar strategy. It's worked for them in the past. Accuse the accuser, attack the accuser. It's been successful in the past. But I don't think it's going to work this time, and I don't think it's going to because it doesn't matter who was the agent that brought this story to light. The "Washington Post" happened to have broken the story in a big way, "Newsweek." They're not part of any right-wing conspiracy. The "New York Times" has been critical in asking for answers; they're not part of any right-wing conspiracy. There are a lot of people who haven't liked the Clinton presidency, but a lot of the people who are asking the questions now are people who have liked the Clinton presidency. And I think ultimately this is one that the truth is going to set him free, or it is going to hurt him badly.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, what's your view of this?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Jim, whether there's a right-wing conspiracy, there certainly is a right-wing industry in the United States of America from the hucksters of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell pushing hate videos, charging the President involved in a murder, from the Vince Foster conspiracies promulgated on the vitriolic pages of the "American Spectator," from all that ugliness, the charges about meaner Arkansas that not only Bill Clinton, that George Bush was involved in drug dealing, I mean, this is pretty ugly, ugly stuff. Is Ken Starr a part of it? No, I don't believe so, not for a minute. I mean, Ken Starr is an established prosecutor and judge. As he becomes zealous and overzealous, we'll know that at some point, but I think in the final analysis there are powerful, very powerful forces and individuals in this country who have never accepted the legitimacy of Bill Clinton's election, who deny it, who insist that the people somehow were conned, that he obfuscated everything about it. They knew what Bill Clinton was when they elected him in 1992; they knew in 1996. But I think the final analysis--it isn't the source of the story, it's the substance of the story. And the President has to respond.

JIM LEHRER: Tonight he's going to give his State of the Union address, but the word is definitively now he's not going to mention this at all. Wise decision?

PAUL GIGOT: I think so. The word out of the White House in a briefing, I was over there today, as was Mark was. It's not the time or the place. And I think that that's right. This is--this is a chance for the President, frankly, to change the subject, to change the subject from him and him as a man as President to the presidency. And he wants to sell and say to the country, quite apart from these allegations about me, this has been a successful presidency. Look at the state of the country, the economy and so on, and he'd like to change the subject. So I think it's a smart decision.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I'm not sure he won't. I think--

JIM LEHRER: They sure said it all.

MARK SHIELDS: But the way of saying that this is not about me. This is not about me tonight. This is not about when our president--this is about the nation we all love and live in and serve and want to pass on to our children. I think Paul is right there. Bill Clinton does this very well. This is the greatest ceremonial moment of a president, of an inaugural. The State of the Union, the arrayed powers, the diplomatic corps, the cabinet, and both Houses of Congress, who's in the galleries, and he does it well. And he's done it well--he's got two audiences tonight he has to talk to, Jim. First is the public, who are right now, according to every measurement of public opinion, think he's doing a good job and want him to stay there. They're not pleased with the behavior. They're perplexed. They have questions they want answered, but they think he's doing a good job; they don't want to change; and he's got to somehow reinforce their present position, and second is the Democrats because ten days ago Democrats had planned to go in, in the unified party behind a popular leader, and what he doesn't need is his party leaving.

JIM LEHRER: All right, now, Norm, one of the--he isn't going to talk about that, and the centerpiece of this tonight is supposed to be Social Security; that he is saying this, if there is a budget surplus, it should not be touched until Social Security is reformed. Explain what he wants to do that, how--what that's all about and how the Congress is likely to respond.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Institute: Before all these other things arose, remember a week ago what we were looking towards and talking about was what will Bill Clinton's legacy be, how will Bill Clinton go through the sixth year of his presidency and approach the first presidency, at least for a short while, as it was supposed to be, of the 21st century? And what we expected in the State of the Union message if he was up to his game, that Bill Clinton would talk about the agenda that he's laid out in the last couple of weeks and also pick an issue--the obvious one was Social Security, the entitlement questions, that would provide that kind of legacy stretch us to the 21st century and provide some kind of action plan, and now clearly that is the major focus, and it's not that he's presenting a detailed plan, or any great revelation here, but what he's suggesting is first reminding us that we're going to have budget surpluses, saying we've got one big issue that we need to deal with over the long-term suggesting that we're going to have a powerful use of the bully pulpit over the course of the next year through town meetings and other things and really try and push this to the front burner of the American agenda. If he has any success in that regard overnight, that'll have at least some modest impact on what we'll be reading about tomorrow.

JIM LEHRER: How are the Republicans likely to receive this?

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Well, frankly, I think everybody in Congress doesn't know how to receive anything at the moment. They don't know how to react to the speech, or where we'll go. Clearly, Republicans are going to be a little bit reluctant to suggest that we should take whatever surpluses we have and apply them anywhere at this point, other than to perhaps drawing down the debt. Now, it may very well be that drawing down the national debt would be the best place, since Social Security is a significant part of it, to preserve the program. But I suspect Republicans are also going to welcome the President's call to grapple with Social Security better sooner than later, if we ever get to discussion on this subject in the course of the next week or so.

JIM LEHRER: I'm determined we're going to talk about it here, a few minutes here.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read the politics of the Social Security proposal, the other things that go with that?

PAUL GIGOT: It is something of a long pass. There's no question about it. But I think it's going to be received--

JIM LEHRER: That's a football analogy, right?

PAUL GIGOT: That's a football analogy, which I am loathe to mention since the--

JIM LEHRER: Ladies and gentlemen, this man is from Green Bay, Wisconsin.

PAUL GIGOT: But I think it's going to be received warily by both parties. I think Republicans have been burned on entitlements--Medicare by this President--and they're going to worry about that he's setting a trap, and that he's trying to prevent them from trying to cut taxes this year. The Democrats are also going to be a bit wary because a lot of them want no changes in Social Security. They view it as an inviolable program, which covers all people, and that if you open it up, you could get some ideas that they don't like, for example, individual retirement accounts, that Bob Kerrey, the Nebraska Democrat has proposed. So I think it's going to--he has a very hard job with both parties. He's opening up a real big political issue.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

MARK SHIELDS: It's a big political issue. It's a bold political move. It's--

JIM LEHRER: Bold, why is it bold?

MARK SHIELDS: It's bold because you are addressing what has been commonly known as--of American politics, the subway turn, third rail is full of electricity, and it is fatal to get anywhere near it.

JIM LEHRER: For those of us who don't have subways--

MARK SHIELDS: For those of us who don't travel in subways, but we in Washington do. And that he is confronting it, and Paul put his finger on Republicans want to cut taxes, Democrats want to initiate and expand programs, and he's saying no to both sides. It is the kind of idea that presidents do come up with in the third year of their second term when they're thinking about history.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Jim, one thing that will work to his advantage here, there are a lot of outside groups gearing up to put Social Security on the front burner anyhow. He's reportedly going to do some of these meetings in conjunction with the Concord Coalition, which had pushed for budget discipline and now is going to move beyond that. There's a major effort funded by the Pew Charitable Trust called Americans Discuss Social Security that's going to be out there holding forums around the country anyhow and doing ads of different sorts. We've got the retired people--the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons--that wants to focus on this. So there are a lot of people out there who believe it's the right to focus on Social Security. And he might--if he we can get past this week's events--catch the wave.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking--back to this week's events, the focus tonight--he's got a major problem. You're suggesting that really nobody is going to be listening to really the words; they're only going to be watching the expressions and the mood and all of that sort of stuff.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Well, I'm afraid that although we have seen Bill Clinton in the past be able to transcend pressures on him and give a tremendous speech and a dynamite speech, but it's going to be very, very hard to go beyond whether he has the right demeanor or the right delivery to focus on the substance. And what a week ago looked like a tremendous opportunity for the President, a really important State of the Union message where he was already beginning to dominate the policy agenda. He filled a vacuum with Congress--

JIM LEHRER: These daily announcements he was making.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: The daily announcements, those were the dominant news. Now, he's filling a vacuum in a different way, and I suspect that no matter what we are not going to be able to pass this firestorm to put these issues out there and have them be the subject for discussion for a while.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

PAUL GIGOT: I sure do. The presidency is a constitutionally weak office on domestic affairs in peacetime. It depends on the power to persuade, which relies upon the moral authority of the persuader, and this President's moral authority and judgment is called into question right now.

MARK SHIELDS: Paul, there is also the perception of power. If a week from today or 24 hours from today people on Capitol Hill think he is popular and has power and the American people think he's doing a good job as President, then he is enhanced his position and perhaps stanched the hemorrhaging, at least temporarily.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, look, thank you all three very much. And Mike, Paul, and Norm, we'll return later tonight on most PBS stations as part of our State of the Union coverage. FINALLY - CARS OF THE FUTURE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight the cars of the future. Tom Bearden looks at some alternatives to gas-powered cars.

TOM BEARDEN: Marvin Rush is a cinematographer on the TV show "Star Trek Voyager," which takes place aboard a starship 300 years in the future. When it's time to go home, Rush jumps into another futuristic vehicle, an EV-1 electric car. General Motors began leasing these cars in California last year.

MARVIN RUSH, Electric Car Owner: It's a great car. They just built so many great features into this car.

TOM BEARDEN: The EV-1 runs off a large battery, which is recharged from the electric power grid. The body is made of plastic to reduce weight.

MARVIN RUSH: It's fast. People think electric cars are slow, but the EV-1 is a rocket ship. It's really fast--zero to sixty in 7.6 seconds, which means that almost every other car on the road is my rearview mirror.

TOM BEARDEN: But Rush also likes the fact that the car doesn't have a tailpipe.

MARVIN RUSH: I like clean air. I really like blue skies. And I live near a mountain that in the summertime I can't see it because there's smog. And I know that I'm doing something. And I'm proud of that fact, and I'm glad to be a part of it.

TOM BEARDEN: GM introduced the EV-1 in California last year, but only about 300 people have leased the vehicles, which have limited range, about 80 miles on one charge, and are relatively expensive at $399 a month. Critics charge that electric cars aren't really pollution free either because they use electricity produced by power plants that often burn fossil fuel. At this year's North American International Auto Show in Detroit GM introduced a new battery which extends the range to 160 miles. Other automakers also offer electric vehicles. Ford has an electric Ranger pickup truck, and Toyota is now selling an electric RAV-4. But pure electric cars at this stage of development still have limitations that raise questions about their mass marketability. That's why the vehicles that got the most attention at the auto show are hybrids, cars that use combinations of power sources like small combustion engines and electric motors to produce much more efficient and much cleaner transportation.

ANNOUNCER: The ESX-II produces 70 miles per gallon. And that's combined city and highway, and, unlike electric vehicles, the battery is charged as the car is driven.

TOM BEARDEN: Chrysler's Peter Rosenfeld.

PETER ROSENFELD, Chrysler Corporation: In a hybrid configuration there's usually a combustion engine and a battery pack, and those two are combined. And in between them is a computer that tries to make each one of those systems operate at its peak performance level. When you get into the car and you hit the accelerator pedal, typically the car will start in battery mode. And as it hits the right efficiency level, when that engine can operate at its perfect level, the computer will turn on the engine, or switch over to using that engine as you propel yourself down the road. Then if you hit the accelerator, again, as you're trying to pass somebody, the battery pack may come in for some extra power. The result is reduced emissions because you have each system operating at its peak efficiency and more fuel economy.

TOM BEARDEN: Chrysler, GM, and Ford claim these hybrid cars will ultimately be able to get 70, 80, or even 100 miles to a gallon of fuel. They say they have plans to begin producing hybrid cars within the next four to six years.

SPOKESMAN: The screen on the center console of the dash will tell the driver exactly what the vehicle is doing in terms of using the gasoline engine or the battery power through the electric motor, or, in fact, recharging the batteries during braking.

TOM BEARDEN: Toyota already has a hybrid car for sale in Japan. It's called the Prius, and Toyota claims it gets 66 miles to the gallon. It uses a 1.5 liter gasoline engine and batteries. Toyota hopes to bring the car to the U.S. within the next three years. But at the moment, the car is heavily subsidized. The purchase price is $17,000. But it costs nearly $40,000 to build. That would come down if production is ramped up. All of these new car announcements took place against a background of increasingly stringent emission regulations in the U.S. and the recently signed global warming treaty. If ratified, the treaty would commit the U.S. and other industrialized nations to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. David Cole is the director of the Institute for the Study of Automotive Transportation at the University of Michigan. He says the hybrids are the most viable approach in the short term.

DAVID COLE, Auto Industry Analyst: We do a forecast every two years that looks out five and ten years into the future of the industry. And the forecast that the industry is providing us for things like say hybrid vehicles in passenger cars or hybrid--this is an internal combustion engine coupled with an electric drive train that they expect by the year 2007 to see 5 percent of the vehicles produced in this country of that hybrid configuration. And that's a very significant number in terms of where we are today, the programs that are underway.

TOM BEARDEN: By hybrids still pollute. Regulators say nearly zero pollution vehicles are needed to counter the eventual growth of population. Most observers think fuel cells are the long-term answer.

SPOKESMAN: Three, two, one, and liftoff of the Space Shuttle Discovery.

TOM BEARDEN: Fuel cells have long supplied the electricity that runs American spacecraft. These fuel cells extract hydrogen from fuel and then combine it with oxygen; the chemical reaction generates electricity.

SPOKESMAN: This was an electric vehicle powered by a fuel cell. The efficiency of a fuel cell in terms of energy in to power out at the wheels is just in excess of 50 percent. Now compare that to the fuel efficiency of any of the other vehicles here at the North American Auto Show, which is about 18 percent.

TOM BEARDEN: Ford has invested $450 million in a joint fuel cell development project with Mercedes Benz, and GM is working on a fuel cell it thinks will be ready for production in 2004. But they are all quick to admit that much development work remains. Ross Witschonke directs Ford's new generation of vehicles program.

ROSS WITSCHONKE, Ford Motor Company: There's many, many new things that we're learning about it, and we have to develop. The automobile is a very severe environment for new technology. And so we have a great deal of testing to do to be sure that this vehicle offers all of the quality and reliability and durability that our customers are looking for.

TOM BEARDEN: The fuel cells the automakers are looking at use hydrogen, but hydrogen is highly flammable. An exploding fuel cell nearly killed the Apollo 13 astronauts in 1970.

GEORGE OLAH, Chemist: It works most of the time, but it's sophisticated technology and if something goes wrong, you can have a disaster.

TOM BEARDEN: Prof. George Olah won the 1994 Nobel Prize for his hydrocarbon research. Olah and his colleagues at the University of Southern California are working on a fuel cell that doesn't extract hydrogen; it chemically burns methyl alcohol.

GEORGE OLAH: It's a very convenient way to store energy and produce a safe and convenient fuel.

TOM BEARDEN: Other scientists are skeptical of the automaker's motivations. Ronald Hwang is the director of transportation at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Berkeley, California.

ROLAND HWANG, Union of Concerned Scientists: I think what we're seeing out in Detroit is far from Detroit embracing a new religion, embracing environmental values. Detroit is fundamentally driven by profits. They will build clean cars if they think that there's going to be a market for clean cars in the future. And what's driving a lot of the announcements that we see today is that the fear that in the 21st century some of these auto companies will not survive because they don't have the right technologies.

TOM BEARDEN: The automakers say they have many reasons to be serious about the new technologies, environmental reasons as well as business reasons. But they also freely acknowledged that the internal combustion engine is far from dead. Ken Baker is vice president of global research at General Motors.

KEN BAKER, General Motors: You may see 20to 25 percent of the vehicles worldwide with advanced propulsion systems within the next 20 years. Of course, it's got a tough act to follow because we've done a very good job with the internal combustion engine. You know, it's like 96/97 percent cleaner than when we started in an unregulated internal combustion, and it's twice the efficiency. And people are very used to having a gasoline-powered vehicle. So that's why I think that the majority of vehicles, at least for the next 25 years, will probably still be internal combustion engines.

MARVIN RUSH: There's a little slot on the nose right here. You just open this up, and there's a little plastic paddle.

TOM BEARDEN: But Marvin Rush says people are fascinated by the EV-1, that he's constantly being asked about it. He thinks people will demand alternatives much more quickly than 25 years from now as they learn more about electric vehicles.

MARVIN RUSH: I believe that Americans, when they're confronted with the reality of it, that they can do something, they can actually do something tangible, they will do it. It's a matter of time and thoughtfulness.

TOM BEARDEN: And perhaps also a matter of regulation. California already has a law on the books requiring that 10 percent of all new vehicles sold in the state after 2003 have zero emissions. And several Northeastern states are expected to follow suit. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the developments in the major story of this Tuesday, First Lady Hillary Clinton blamed a vast right-wing conspiracy for allegations of misconduct against the President. Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr dismissed her comments as nonsense, and he convened a federal grand jury in Washington to investigate whether federal crimes have been committed. We'll be back on most PBS stations at 9 PM Eastern Time with live coverage and analysis of the President's State of the Union address and the Republican response. We'll see you then on-line and again here at our regular time tomorrow. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.