The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then what happened today in the presidential campaign; a look at the campaign debate over medical liability lawsuits; a report on the race for the U.S. Senate in Colorado; the analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks; and more about Margaret Hassan, the care executive being held hostage in Iraq.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Bush and Sen. Kerry made fresh appeals today on national security and the economy. In Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, the president said Americans face a variety of key issues, but security tops them all. He said: "All progress on every other issue depends on the safety of our citizens." Sen. Kerry campaigned in Milwaukee and urged women to vote Democratic if they want a better economy. He said: "No matter how tough it gets, no one in the White House seems to be listening." We'll have more on this campaign day right after this News Summary. The president signed into law today the most extensive rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly 20 years. He did it on Air Force One with no ceremony. The bill includes $136 billion of tax breaks for businesses, farmers, fishermen and oil and gas producers, among others. It also includes a $10 billion buyout for tobacco farmers. Supporters in Congress said it will make U.S. companies more competitive. Opponents said it's an unjustified tax giveaway. The kidnapped director of CARE International in Iraq pleaded for her life today. Margaret Hassan made a tearful appeal in a video aired on al- Jazeera television. We have a report narrated by Jonathan Miller of Independent Television News.

JONATHAN MILLER: Al Jazeera didn't say how it had obtained the tape.

CORRESPONDENT: ( Speaking Arabic )

JONATHAN MILLER: It's the second video of Margaret Hassan to emerge since her abduction on Tuesday, and it's deeply distressing. "Please help me," she pleads. "These might be my last hours. Please help me." The video, as broadcast, is 35 seconds long, and Margaret Hassan, clearly under great duress, makes a direct plea.

MARGARET HASSAN: Please, the British people, ask Mr. Blair to take the troops out of Iraq and not to bring them here to Baghdad.

JONATHAN MILLER: Reporter: Margaret Hassan's abductors are politically astute. This, an apparent reference to the planned redeployment of British Black Watch soldiers, announced just yesterday. They've been ordered north to volatile areas near Baghdad in response to an American request. Margaret Hassan, who works for the aid agency CARE International, has dual nationality, British and Iraqi. She's married to an Iraqi and has devoted much of her life to helping the sick and the poor in her adopted country. Tonight, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, released this statement: "The video of Margaret Hassan which has been released by her kidnappers is extremely distressing. I have the greatest sympathy for what her family is suffering. Margaret Hassan has spent more than 30 years working for the Iraqi people. We hope all Iraqis will join us in calling for her immediate release."

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on Margaret Hassan later in the program. U.S. Marines fought with insurgents outside Fallujah today, and American planes staged more air raids there. The U.S. Military said the marines struck back after coming under fire. Local residents said U.S. loudspeakers warned them to hand over terrorists. Iraq's government has vowed to secure Fallujah before national elections in January. A published report today said U.S. officials believe the Iraqi insurgency is larger than first believed. The New York Times cited un- named pentagon officials. They said the resistance numbers between 8,000 and 12,000 rebels. Earlier estimates ranged from 2,000 to 7,000. In Washington, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld did not directly address the new figures. But he did say violence in Iraq is not universal.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It's also true that it is very uneven around that country. There are 18 provinces, as I recall. In 14 of them, the number of incidents per day is five or less. In the other four, there are quite a few incidents, Baghdad being the prime one, where the bulk of the incidents a day occur. It seems to me that that's not news at all.

JIM LEHRER: The report also said the militants have nearly "unlimited money" drawn from Saudi backers and former Saddam supporters. The U.N.'s chief election advisor in Iraq now says the country is "on track" for a Jan. 31 vote. Carlos Valenzuela told news organizations Thursday that voter lists are taking shape. Iraqi officials have complained the U.N. sent too few experts to organize things. Valenzuela said Iraqis themselves will do the work. Thousands of angry Palestinians took to the streets of Gaza City today. They joined the funeral for a top Hamas military leader killed yesterday by an Israeli air strike. His coffin was carried through the crowd as mourners vowed revenge. Also today, a U.N. aid agency reported Israel's offensive into Gaza this month killed 107 Palestinians and left nearly 700 homeless. Israel launched the operation to stop the firing of rockets into Israeli towns. The Kyoto Treaty on global warming moved a major step forward today. The lower House of Russia's parliament voted to ratify it. The upper House is expected to follow suit. The treaty gives industrial nations eight years to cut emissions of key

greenhouse gases below 1990 levels. The United States has rejected the pact, but Russian approval allows it to take effect anyway in countries that adopt it. On Wall Street today, stocks fell amid concerns about oil prices and corporate earnings. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly 108 points to close below 9758, its lowest point of the year. The NASDAQ fell 38 points to close at 1915. For the week, the Dow lost nearly 2 percent; the NASDAQ was down 1 percent. The 2004 World Series is set, and it's a field of red. The St. Louis Cardinals won the national league title last night. They beat Houston in game seven of their series. The Cardinals face the American league champion, Boston Red Sox, starting tomorrow night in Boston. Boston's mayor threatened today to curb alcohol sales to stop rowdy celebrations. Early yesterday, a college student was killed when a police officer fired a plastic projectile to break up a crowd. The fans were celebrating Boston's win over the New York Yankees. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: Our campaign roundup; the medical liability issue; the Colorado Senate race; Shields and Brooks; and the hostage from CARE.

FOCUS - CAMPAIGN DAY

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman has our report on this day in the presidential campaign.

KWAME HOLMAN: John Kerry worked to build his support among women during a campaign stop at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee this morning. After an introduction by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, the daughter of the late president, Sen. Kerry charged the Bush White House has turned its back on working women.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: Everywhere I go, I meet women working two jobs, three jobs, just to get by. And the jobs that are replacing the jobs that are going overseas are jobs that are either part- time or jobs without benefits, and that's only the jobs that they're paid for. No one in the White House seems to be listening. The women I meet, they don't expect the government to do their jobs for them, but they do want leaders who are on their side as they try to do their jobs. We believe that the middle class is the backbone of this country and that hard-working women are the bedrock of our families in America. We believe that women deserve more than false assurances and empty promises from their president.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: Sen. Kerry said he would boost the minimum wage, improve education and expand health care to help women struggling to care for their families, all issues polls show are important to women. Meanwhile, President Bush campaigned through two battleground states today. His first stop was a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Thank you all for coming.

KWAME HOLMAN: And this afternoon in Canton, Ohio, the president argued the need for medical liability reform, which he has called for repeatedly during the campaign.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The difference between some lawyers and personal injury trial lawyers. They're constantly out there trying to convert this legal system into what looks like a lottery. Guess who ends up paying for the ticket? The taxpayers and the people because the quality of health care is going down; if you've got a lawsuit or you think you're going to get sued, you're going to practice more medicine than is needed so you can defend yourself in a court of law. Secondly, because of the lawsuits, because many people just settle whether the suit has merit or not, premiums go up. And guess who pays the premiums? You do. And thirdly as a result of a lot of these lawsuits, people simply can't practice medicine anymore. This country needs medical liability reform now.

KWAME HOLMAN: Medical liability reform also was a key issue during the recent debates. Norma-Jean Laurent brought it up during the town hall meeting in St. Louis.

NORMA-JEAN LAURENT: Sen. Kerry, you've stated your concern for the rising cost of health care. Yet you chose a vice presidential candidate who has made millions of dollars successfully suing medical professionals. How do you reconcile this with the voters?

SEN. JOHN KERRY: Very easily. John Edwards is the author of the patients' bill of rights. He wanted to give people rights. John Edwards and I support tort reform. We both believe that, as lawyers... I'm a lawyer, too. And I believe that we will be able to get a fix that has eluded everybody else because we know how to do it. Now, ladies and gentlemen, it's important to understand, the president and his friends try to make a big deal out of it. Is it a problem? Yes, it's a problem. Do we need to fix it, particularly for ob-gyns and for brain surgeons and others? Yes. But it's less than 1 percent of the total cost of health care.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: He says that medical liability costs only cause a 1 percent increase. That shows a lack of understanding. Doctors practice defensive medicine because of all the frivolous lawsuits that cost our government $28 billion a year.

DEBATE MODERATOR: Sen. Kerry, we got several questions along this line, and I'm just curious if you'd go further on what you talked about with tort reform. Would you be favoring capping awards on pain and suffering? Would you limit attorneys' fees?

SEN. JOHN KERRY: A follow-up.

DEBATE MODERATOR: Yes, a follow-up on this for...

SEN. JOHN KERRY: Yes, I think we should look at the punitive and we should have some limitations.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You're now for capping punitive damages? That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then. We passed it out of the House of Representatives. Guess where it's stuck? It's stuck in the Senate because the trial lawyers won't act on it. And he put a trial lawyer on the ticket.

KWAME HOLMAN: That trial lawyer, of course, is Sen. John Edwards. And during his debate with Vice President Cheney in Cleveland, they took turns responding the question from our own Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: Are you willing to say that John Edwards, sitting here, has been part of

the problem? ( Laughter )

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Well, Gwen...

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Vice President? (Laughter)

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: First of all, I'm not familiar with his cases. My concern is specifically with what's happened to our medical care system because of rising malpractice insurance rates, because we failed to adequately reform our medical liability structure. Now, specifically, what we need to do is cap non-economic damages, and we also think you need to limit the awards that the trial attorneys take out of all of this. Over 50 percent of the settlements go to the attorneys and for administrative overhead.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: We do have too many lawsuits, and the reality is there's something that we can do about it. John Kerry and I have a plan to do something about it. We want to put more responsibility on the lawyers to require, before a case, malpractice, which the vice president just spoke about; have the case reviewed by independent experts to determine if the case is serious and meritorious before it can be filed; hold the lawyers responsible for that, certify that and hold the lawyer financially responsible if they don't do it; have a three- strikes-and-you're-out rule so that a lawyer who files three of these cases without meeting this requirement loses their right to file these cases. That way we keep the cases out of the system that don't belong in the system.

KWAME HOLMAN: And as to the Bush campaign's constant reminder that Edwards once was a successful trial lawyer, the senator said he was proud of the work he did on behalf of children and families against big insurance and drug companies and big HMO's.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner looks further at the medical liability issue.

MARGARET WARNER: Warner: As we just saw, medical liability is a big issue on the campaign trail. But how significant a problem is it? And which candidate has the better proposal to deal with it? We get two perspectives. Frank Sloan is a professor of health policy and economics at Duke University; and Philip Howard is a lawyer, and chairman of Common Good, a bipartisan coalition working for liability reform. Neither man is affiliated with either presidential campaign. All right, gentlemen, let's start with the issue that they had a big argument about in their second debate, which is the cost which is the cost of medical liability lawsuits. Let me begin with Professor Sloan. We heard President Bush say it's a major factor driving health care costs. It's $28 billion to the government and in another debate he said it could be $160 billion total cost. Sen. Kerry said it is less than 1 percent. Who is right?

FRANK SLOAN: In terms of premium, Sen. Kerry is right. What is paid in premiums at least historically has been 1 percent. Then you have this defensive medicine factor. But the problem is defensive medicine is very hard to define. There is no operational definition of defensive medicine. Is defensive medicine talking more to patients? Is defensive medicine ordering an additional test? Those tests may have some benefit. If they had absolutely no benefit, they wouldn't be any value in the courtroom.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And, Mr. Howard, your view on the cost; is it a hard thing to get a handle on?

PHILIP HOWARD: It is a hard thing to get a handle on but not hard to understand that it has dramatically increased the cost. We commissioned a poll a couple years ago where four out of five doctors said they regularly ordered tests they did not think were necessary. If you visit any hospital and talk to administrators or doctors, you'll get a litany of the way they practice that drives up the cost of health care and it's a lot more than the total amount of the premiums.

MARGARET WARNER: Back to you, Professor, is that really where the distinction lies here, whether you are talking about the cost of premiums and perhaps jury awards verses the costs that permeate the system throughout?

FRANK SLOAN: These kinds of surveys of doctors are not very convincing. It doesn't mean that the doctors never ordered a test or maybe even the doctor has frequently ordered a test but we don't have any idea what the dollar value of what those tests are. The other thing is the income goes to the doctors. Tests are very profitable. If we did reduce a number of tests, it would cause a dramatic drop in physician income.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Howard.

PHILIP HOWARD: Well, I would agree there are mixed motives and this needs further study but there has been a lot of work that has gone into it and even though it is hard to quantify the pervasive sense of medicine is a reality. And, again, all you have to do is go to the hospital. Another thing we don't have discussion is the whole idea of cost containment. There is no discussion about the ethics of the end of life. A huge amount of money is spent there, often in inhumane ways when people are sent from a nursing home to an emergency care unit when they're about to die; very expensive, and you can't fix that without a reliable system of justice that people trust.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's stick with medical liability since this is the issue on the campaign trail. I'll stay with you, Mr. Howard. What effect does the fact of these lawsuits have on the quality of medicine? Advocates clearly say it keeps doctors and hospitals accountable.

PHILIP HOWARD: Well, a system of justice should keep doctors accountable if it were reliable to distinguish ten mistakes and claims that don't involve doctors but the studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Harvard School of Public Health and others have demonstrated that distrust of the justice is causing thousands perhaps even more unnecessary errors constantly because doctors so distrust justice that they're afraid to be candid with each other so they don't say things like gee, are you sure that's the right prescription or right dosage or the like?

MARGARET WARNER: Professor, is that happening? That it is having a counter effect?

FRANK SLOAN: Well, I've reviewed the same studies and I just don't read them that way. I think that's maybe over interpreting what the studies show. In fat, there are studies that show there are many medical errors in the system. The problem is not so much that there is no error because there are errors. The question is the extent to which the tort system lowers errors. But clearly will are errors out there and, you know, so it's not like we don't have a problem and it's not just liability. We have many other problems with the health care system.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's go to the two men's proposals and I'll start with you, Mr. Howard. Let's talk about the question of damages. Neither man is proposing capping economic damages; that is, if were you damages by bad medical care but President Bush would cap non-economic damages, that is, pain and suffering at $250,000. Mr. Kerry would not. What is your view of the impact would have?

PHILIP HOWARD: Well, the studies indicate that putting limits on economic damages would tend to stabilize the cost of malpractice insurance. And to the extent that that keeps obstetricians and neurosurgeons practicing, then that's a good effect. But it doesn't really address the systemic problems that we were discussing a minute ago about the distrust of the justice.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Professor, what is your view of capping non-economic damages?

FRANK SLOAN: Capping non-economic damages would reduce premiums over the very long run. The question is: what will that do to the supply of physicians? We don't have documentation about this. There is a lot of talk about it but we don't have documentation of linking physician supply to malpractice premiums. Clearly at some level there must be a relationship, but over time there has been a dramatic increase in physician supply; even in the areas that are now saying that they're losing doctors.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Howard, do you see it that way because we heard President Bush say that essentially some doctors are being driven out of practice?

PHILIP HOWARD: I think there's an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence that some doctors in certain specialties in certain areas, not most doctors, have left the practice. Or, for example, a lot of ob/gyn's don't deliver babies, although they practice gynecology, so I think there is a fair amount of evidence of that. But again, it is not getting to the heart of the problem here.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me just ask you. Then I'll let you get back to the heart of the problem, and I'll stay with you, Mr. Howard because you are the lawyer here. Sen. Kerry's main proposal has to do with putting some sort of curbs on the filing of these lawsuits at the front end, for instance, they'd have to go through some kind of panel of independent experts to make sure it's reasonable that there be a sort of three strikes and you're out policy for lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. He would require states, as I understand it, to have some sort of non-binding arbitration option before you go to trial. Would those reduce at least the frivolous suits?

PHILIP HOWARD: Well, the idea of having an authority which actually has expertise to make binding decisions about what is a valid claim I think is critical to fixing the system. The problem with the three panel expert is they don't have the authority. So a number of states have these, and the way they work is they do weed out some cases. But in the tragic circumstances, the baby born with cerebral palsy, even though the science says that the doctor could not have caused the harm, the lawyers just ignore it, go to the jury and more often than not the jury awards more damages because it is a tragic situation. It is those cases or cases like that that have infected system with distrust.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with that, Professor?

FRANK SLOAN: I do agree with that. In fact, the evidence suggests these are called certificate of merit. These reforms do not have any effect on the system at all. I mean there may be some effect but not one that we can measure.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally they both have a proposal to cap what they call punitive damages. Professor, explain what that is and the differences that I think Sen. Kerry would like to limit them to egregious cases and I think the Bush campaign is saying something that are reasonable caps, but how much is a problem is punitive damages in driving the costs and how would it work?

FRANK SLOAN: I don't have data from the most recent crises. That's one of the problems. Nobody has it. But from previous study that I have done, punitive damages rarely awarded in medical malpractice. We hear about the ones that are awarded because they're, you know, very big and very news worthy. But in terms of the overall picture, they're very small. Now a punitive damage is designed to punish the defendant in this case the doctor, for some wrongdoing like arriving at the operating room under the influence of alcohol, raping a patient, taking off possibly the wrong body part in a way that the physician should have known. The much more usual case is one where a large non-economic damage is awarded and....

MARGARET WARNER: For pain and suffering and that is the one that the bush bill seeks to cap.

MARGARET WARNER: Quick final comment from you, Mr. Sloan, about the punitive damages. Do you agree they're really not a big factor?

FRANK SLOAN: Yes. I agree with that. The issue is pain and suffering -- on the damages part.

MARGARET WARNER: Thank you. Mr. Howard and Professor Sloan. Thanks a lot.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: The Senate race in Colorado; Shields and Brooks; and the CARE kidnapping in Iraq.

FOCUS - ROCKY MOUNTAIN RACE

JIM LEHRER: Tom Bearden has our Colorado story.

KEN SALAZAR: And we were poor as we were growing up.

TOM BEARDEN: To some, Colorado's Senate candidate, Ken Salazar, might look like he's straight out of central casting.

KEN SALAZAR: My family has farmed the same place now for five generations.

TOM BEARDEN: A child of a rural ranch family who excelled in academics, Democrat Salazar was elected Colorado attorney general to serve alongside a Republican governor and a Republican-controlled legislature. In fact, Salazar is the only Democrat elected to a major statewide office.

KEN SALAZAR: It's like, you know, the kids used to get on a bucking horse, or you get on a calf and see how long you could stay. That's how this campaign is, you know?

TOM BEARDEN: For Salazar, the trail to Washington, so far, has been anything but smooth. Republican leaders recruited the most famous name in all of Colorado to oppose Salazar in the race to replace retiring Republican Sen. Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell. (Cheers and applause) Enter Pete Coors, chairman of Coors Brewing Company. The 58-year-old Coors is a familiar face. He's the one you may have seen on television selling his household-name product, Coors beer.

PETE COORS: Now, Coors' barley is grown only in the Rockies.

TOM BEARDEN: Polls say the race is a dead-heat.

SPOKESMAN: Thank you for your energy.

SPOKESMAN: Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you.

TOM BEARDEN: The Democrats need to pick up only two seats to gain control of the Senate, so both parties have targeted this currently Republican seat, and thus have made it the most expensive Senate campaign in state history. Not surprisingly, the candidates' very different personal stories are front and center in the campaign. For Coors, name recognition is a given.

PETE COORS: In our family, my great- grandfather started to brew in 1873. Our family has been very successful. The culture that we have, to be active in the community, has certainly been instilled in me during my lifetime of community service.

TOM BEARDEN: The Coors family has a political history, as well. They are long-time major donors to the Republican Party. And Coors' father, Joe, created a conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation. But Pete Coors says he's running on his 35-year record as a businessman.

PETE COORS: It's going to be a very clear choice. I'm for less taxes; he's for more taxes. He's a lawyer; I'm a businessman. My leadership skills that I've developed over 35 years in our business I think are skills that will be very helpful in the United States Senate.

KEN SALAZAR: See the calluses on the hand?

MAN: Yeah.

KEN SALAZAR: They never go away. The cuts, you know. They've been there for a long time.

TOM BEARDEN: Salazar grew up poor on a ranch in the San Luis Valley. No electricity, no telephone and no running water. His Spanish-speaking parents raised eight children, who all graduated from college-- the family's first generation to do so.

KEN SALAZAR: I've been a farmer and a rancher for most of my life. I understand the importance of education in the history of my family. I understand the economic insecurities that many families are facing here in Colorado today.

TOM BEARDEN: Salazar says his modest upbringing influenced his record as a two-term attorney general working for Colorado families.

KEN SALAZAR: The people of Colorado know me for the positions that I have taken. You know, I have protected seniors; I've protected schools and communities from crime. I've worked to protect the water for the people of Colorado. So they know that history.

TOM BEARDEN: Both candidates' campaign messages resonate with partisan voters.

MAN: Where are the shoes?

TOM BEARDEN: In the Denver area, Democrat Brian Rosengarten says Salazar is more in touch with the concerns of middle class families like his.

BRIAN ROSENGARTEN: Well, he seems a little more down to earth. He seems to know what people, at least in the middle class, are going through. You know, people are losing their jobs and they're having a hard time finding work and the work that's available is actually not as high-paying as the jobs that were lost.

TOM BEARDEN: In conservative Colorado Springs, Republican Linn Pickard supports Coors because she likes his corporate background.

LINN PICKARD: I like the fact that he comes out of business and that he has a less government-type approach. That's very compatible with what I believe at this time. I think that, you know, he's done a lot for Colorado. I think he's done it with the right attitude and the right heart and the right base of belief.

TOM BEARDEN: But the real battle is less over party loyalists and more for the crucial independent vote. In Colorado, Republicans are 36 percent of the electorate, independents are 33 percent and Democrats are 31 percent. In fact, the voting history for this Senate seat is a perfect example of the state's independent-minded electorate. Retiring Sen. Campbell was elected here first as a Democrat, then reelected as a Republican after he switched parties. Pollster Floyd Ciruli:

FLOYD CIRULI, Pollster: There are a lot of independent voters out here, and they sort of pride themselves on being independent. You know, Ben Campbell was an incredibly successful Democratic U.S. senator and congressperson, made a switch to become a Republican and was a successful Republican U.S. senator who probably would have gone to a relatively easy reelection. So voters out here, they like independents, they like interesting characters, and they're, you know, inclined to vote the person more than the party.

TOM BEARDEN: That tendency to vote for the person instead of the party may be the reason Salazar, who grew up ranching, is polling well in rural areas that usually lean toward Republicans. But Coors has a powerful political force on his side.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Honored to be on the platform with the next United States senator for Colorado, Pete Coors. (Cheers and applause)

TOM BEARDEN: In every visit to Colorado, Coors has been at President Bush's side.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I hope when you turn out to vote for me, you turn out to vote for Pete, as well.

PETE COORS: I'm very proud to support George W. Bush. I feel that he's been a great president. He's lead us through some most difficult times, and he's done it with decisiveness, resolution, clear vision.

KEN SALAZAR: My opponent is a rubber stamp for what's going on.

TOM BEARDEN: Salazar is critical of Coors' fervent support for the president.

KEN SALAZAR: My opponent believes that everything is hunky-dory, you know, whether it's on homeland security or the national security issues, he believes that we are headed in the right direction and we ought not to question whether or not we could be doing a better job. I think we need to bring a greater sense of urgency. You know, on the economic front, he was quoted in one of our major newspapers, saying that this was the very best economy that he had ever seen. You know, I don't think that the people of Colorado-- who have lost nearly 100,000 jobs and whose household incomes have gone down $2,700 while health insurance premiums have gone up $2,700-- really feel that this is the best economy of their lifetime.

PETE COORS: I've never been a rubber stamp all my life, and kind of, in many ways, gone against the grain, done things differently. We've got a company that really thrives on that kind of appreciating that character.

PETE COORS: I think we know what we're going to get if we get Ken Salazar in the United States Senate.

TOM BEARDEN: Coors fired back with commercials that accused Salazar of being weak on terrorism and attempt to link him to presidential candidate John Kerry.

AD: On terrorism, Ken Salazar stands with John Kerry's supporters. Salazar is endorsed and funded by an anti-defense group praising his opposition to a missile defense system.

TOM BEARDEN: The commercials attempt to paint Salazar as being more liberal than Coloradoans.

FLOYD CIRULI: Politically, Colorado is closer to Texas than Massachusetts. Massachusetts has... Democrats, for example, Michael Dukakis did very, very poorly out here. National Democrats that are seen as liberal-- for example, Walter Mondale-- did very, very poorly out here. George Bush did well last time. Ronald Reagan just ruled the state. He was very, very popular here. So that's the context that they're looking for in trying to tie Salazar with Kerry and some liberal policies.

TOM BEARDEN: In fact, although Kerry has campaigned in Colorado several times, Salazar will make his first appearance with Kerry tomorrow, only 11 days before the election. Salazar has focuses on Coors' enormous wealth, saying he's the one who's out of touch.

SALAZAR CAMPAIGN AD:

PETE COORS: I don't know what a common man is.

VOICE IN AD: And that's Pete Coors' problem: He doesn't understand that middle class families are struggling with high health care costs.

PETE COORS: I don't know what a common man is.

TOM BEARDEN: Some polls show that, while Salazar has cemented the support of his Democratic base, Republican support for Coors has not been as solid. Coors espouses classic conservatism. He wants to reduce government spending, keep cutting taxes, and he's against gay marriage and civil unions. Even so, Coors had to undergo a bruising Republican primary battle, where some conservatives said he wasn't far enough to the right. They cited his beer company giving health benefits to gay couples and its sexually provocative commercials, like those featuring scantily-dressed twins.

COORS AD: And those twins!

PETE COORS: Look, we're not... as I say, we don't sell marshmallows and popsicles. We're in the beer business. Our beer... our product is designed for adults.

TOM BEARDEN: In a state where Republicans and independent voters dominate, the Salazar campaign knows it must turn out Democrats in high numbers if it hopes to win. They also hope to get additional votes from the state's 17 percent Hispanic population. Perla Gheiler is a volunteer for the Latina Initiative, a group that registered new voters.

PERLA GHEILER, The Latina Initiative: We did this thing where we picked one person and you have to bring ten with you. Like, you register to vote; now find ten people in your family to register to vote. So it kind of adds more than just that one person.

TOM BEARDEN: If Hispanics do turn out for Salazar, Democrats believe that could substantially help John Kerry in a state Democrats have only carried twice in the last 50 years. In contrast, Republicans believe President Bush's popularity will give Coors a big boost.

PETE COORS: It's good to see you.

TOM BEARDEN: As the election approaches, both sides will focus their efforts on the independents, who will ultimately decide which one goes to the Senate and, perhaps, which party will control it for the next two years.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, the presidential race, we sit here 11 days before the election. What is the most important thing that's happening right now?

MARK SHIELDS: The most important thing, Jim, that makes this race unique is the intensity and the passion of the electorate in this race. Peter Hart, the pollster for the Wall Street Journal/NBC, asked the question: Does this race make a great deal of difference to your family, could you rate it one to ten in base difference; 75 percent of people said this election and its outcome makes a great deal -- 10, that's a maximum difference. So this is... I mean it's unlike... I mean this is centuries from 2000. I mean that was a peaceful and prosperous America. It was an election not about major issues, about -- drunk driving arrests and whatever else, I mean, this is really - it's war and peace. It's, you know, jobs, unemployment rate in 43 states higher than it was when the president came in -- all of those things in that mix and under the background of security. That's what's driving this race right now and it's what makes...

JIM LEHRER: 9/11 and Iraq.

MARK SHIELDS: Particularly the president has been able to convince people that security and that he is a safer bet on that than is John Kerry. That's John Kerry's task, is to make people feel they will be safe under him, not safer than under George Bush but safe.

JIM LEHRER: Safe. Yes. What do you think is the most important thing going on right now?

DAVID BROOKS: I guess I hate to sound like a French intellectual.

JIM LEHRER: What kind?

DAVID BROOKS: A French intellectual.

JIM LEHRER: Oh.

DAVID BROOKS: It's very unlike 2000 but it's also very like 2000. It's unlike, as Mark said, in the intensity but if you look at the actual results of the polls, it's very, very much like 2000. As in 2000, it's divided straight down the middle. As in 2000 we are looking at states like Florida where it is razor thin margins. You look at some of the demographics, breakdown of the votes of college educated white women and that sort of thing, very similar to 2000. To me, the biggest mystery of this election is in the past four years we've had a terrorist attack, we've had the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; we have the recession.com; we have the tumultuous presidency of George Bush; everything in America changes except politics. So what is the fissure that's deeper than all things that have just happened to us in four years that has made the country break down exactly as they did four years ago? That's the big mystery to me.

JIM LEHRER: You don't have an answer to that?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I do have an answer.

JIM LEHRER: What is it?

DAVID BROOKS: My quick answer is, one, partisanship. Once you become a Republican or a Democrat, you stay there because of team tribal loyalty. And you stay like a Red Sox fan --

JIM LEHRER: No matter what the facts are.

DAVID BROOKS: Exactly. That's very powerful. The second thing is we're having a fundamental debate about leadership. What qualities do we want in a leader? Some people take a look at George Bush and they see a guy who is a straight talking man of faith. And they say that's what I want. Some people look at John Kerry and Al Gore, and say, thoughtful, complex, knowledgeable guys, who can see nuances; that's what I want. And that fundamental debate of our leadership is a difference between the two parties that under girds all the other issues that come and go.

JIM LEHRER: Does that make sense to you?

MARK SHIELDS: Yes. I think David's dichotomy is a little overdrawn perhaps on his side. I mean, you know, the nuance -- one can be strong and wrong is the formulation was in the debate. It is a question of strength versus thoughtfulness, reflectiveness, introspection and paralysis.

DAVID BROOKS: You would put those words paralysis in there.

MARK SHIELDS: I think there is something very deep, Jim. Obviously there are changes. I mean, there are changes you can see, changes on the landscape. I mean that's the reason George Bush is campaigning in Minnesota and Wisconsin and Iowa, states that he lost, albeit....

JIM LEHRER: Because he has a chance this time....

MARK SHIELDS: That's right and why he is defending Florida and why he's defending Ohio, and why he's defending Colorado, which we just saw in the piece. So I think in that sense there is a different view of the country as well as the leadership.

JIM LEHRER: Starting with you, Mark, help all of us lay folks who look at these every day now there are new polls out, and there's going to be scads of them between now and Election Day. Give us some guidance on what they mean now. This close to an election, what is their relevance; what should we -- how serious should we take them and in what way should we take them?

MARK SHIELDS: If it is a phone-in poll for your weekend shopper, don't pay much attention to it. I mean, online poll ignore them. Okay. I think there are two things: It's a major institution, an ongoing institution that has a stake and a certain professional prestige and pride in it, they've got a certain track record.

JIM LEHRER: But that aside, the figures, what do they mean now? What do they mean now?

MARK SHIELDS: What the figures mean at this point, Jim, are when you look at how the votes, the first thing you have to understand is the difference between registered voters and likely voters. Okay? When people say registered voters, you can find out that's scientific. I can find out. You're a registered voter. I'm a registered voter.

JIM LEHRER: You go to the county clerk.

MARK SHIELDS: Likely voter is an art form and it's subjective. So that's where the breakdown is. I just look at registered voters at this point. The other thing I'd look at and I think is the key to understanding this is any race involving an incumbent, any race involving an incumbent, incumbent president running for reelection, the race is about the president and about the incumbent. So what he is getting in the polls means more than what his challenger is getting. And 155 elections and over 80 percent of them, the undecideds break overwhelmingly for challenger. The exception is when the challenger is as well known as the incumbent -- like a governor running for senator. So in this case, if you're rooting for George Bush, you want him to be 51-52 percent in those polls, 53, 54 even going into the Election Day. If you are rooting for John Kerry, you want, you know, obviously you'd like to have John Kerry ahead but you want to be sure that George Bush is 47, 48 percent going into Election Day, by averaging those polls, and I think that's a pretty good rule of thumb.

JIM LEHRER: Do you have rules of thumb --

DAVID BROOKS: That's possible. If you look at the last nine polls by reputable organizations, Bush has like a 2.8 percent lead, with some small percent still undecided, and so there are two theories of how secure that lead is. One, Mark's theory, which is that the undecideds will break late against the president. The other theory is that in times of war, people who are doubting are going to stay a little more with the president than they normally would at other elections.

JIM LEHRER: On the ground - say we're at war and...

DAVID BROOKS: And know what - and those people point to the 2002 election which is not a perfect analogy where the last days from the last polls to the final results, there was a shift in favor of the Republicans of significance, six points in many Senate races, because people wanted the side they felt was safer on national security. But we really are in the territory of nobody knows, and there are just various competing theories.

JIM LEHRER: The other question, the conventional wisdom now is that no matter how all this goes, whatever the polls say, this is going to be a very, very close election and it could end up as close as 2000, and could end up as challenged and as questionable as 2000. Do you agree with that?

DAVID BROOKS: Not really. I think we should resist over generalizing from 2000, which was a freakish circumstance. Now, if you look at the polls now, it will be close within say a three-point range probably, but that means there is a range, and a statistical range. Getting where it's 50-50 where have you lawsuits in state after state, means you have got to be right in the middle. The odds are it is going to be somewhere else on that range. So I think it is unlikely, possible but unlikely that we will be in the horrible mess we were four years ago.

JIM LEHRER: Do you see a horrible mess?

MARK SHIELDS: I hope and pray as a citizen we don't have it but I'm fearful.

JIM LEHRER: What makes you fearful?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, we've got - first of all, we've got 13,000 towns, counties where there is brand-new equipment that's never tested before that they're using for the first time. We've got lawyers lined up on each side, an array of attorneys. In addition to that, we've got electronic voting where there is no paper trail. I mean I go in vote, I mean, I don't even get a receipt. There is equipment that hasn't been tested, brand-new equipment. I mean, there is just - there is an awful lot of opportunities for foul-ups and the stakes are so high. Just one point I'd add to David. Six of those polls that David cited were a dead heat between Kerry and Bush. There were only two really that were outside of that. And I think if you look at it --

JIM LEHRER: He doesn't agree with you.

MARK SHIELDS: Margin of error. Only two. Fox and Gallup were the only two. But what I think makes it interesting is that all of them are within this incredibly close race. I mean so, you know, pollsters I know, politicians I've never seen people more reluctant to make a prediction on a race.

JIM LEHRER: Is that true to the people you talked to, as well?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, absolutely. I think Mark said the crucial moment - that deciding who is going to turn out to vote is the crucial issue and everybody is just guessing. I think there are - I'd say there are a few more who have significant Bush lead but there are sort of two clumps of polls; one that show them dead even; one that show a Bush lead - in the Washington Post - was six today; so two clumps. But it's based on them guessing who is going to turn out. There are perfectly good reasons for Democrats to be optimistic they're registering more people and those people are going to turn out.

JIM LEHRER: As a practical matter David, quickly and then to you, Mark, on this as well, is there any single thing either candidate could do to turn it around at this point or has the train already left the station?

DAVID BROOKS: Unless there is an amazing gaffe, I think the landscape is really very solid. So unless there is an amazing gaffe, I don't think --

MARK SHIELDS: If the Red Sox win....

JIM LEHRER: Mark, shameless.

DAVID BROOKS: Hell will have frozen over, so....

MARK SHIELDS: Missouri is no longer a battleground state.

JIM LEHRER: So your theory here as a pundit is that if the Red Sox win, Kerry rides on the Red Sox coattails to victory? Is that your theory?

MARK SHIELDS: I have to say I know one Democratic couple where the wife asked the husband who was a Red Sox fan if you had to choose between the Red Sox winning or John Kerry getting elected and the husband answered, you don't really want to know. So I think it has been that John Kerry doesn't begin to rise to the level of the intensity and passion of the Red Sox fans. What John Kerry has to do is get that share of women voters that he didn't have that Al Gore won in 2000, Jim, and add to that, he has to make people feel safe and secure with him and that he share their values. I mean, if he does those two things, then it's up to the gods.

JIM LEHRER: I feel safe and secure with both of you and I share both of your values.

Thank you.

FOCUS - HOSTAGE PLEA

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the kidnapping of Margaret Hassan, CARE International's Iraq director, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The international aid director was kidnapped four days ago.

For more on Margaret Hassan's kidnapping we turn to Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post correspondent, who just ended his tour as the paper's Baghdad bureau chief. Welcome. Margaret Hassan is someone you've met, used as a resource in your reporting. Tell me your impressions of the woman.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Margaret Hassan is just an incredible woman who literally has devoted the plus ten years of her life of helping the Iraqi people out. I first met her almost two years ago in my first trip to Iraq in the fall of 2002, and I wanted to find out what was really happening with Iraqi civilians living under the U.N. economic sanctions that were placed on the country. Margaret was one of a very few number of international aid workers operating in there and she had been heading up the CARE office in Iraq for more than a decade. Prior to that, she had been teaching English for the British Council in Iraq, a position that made her very well known among educated Iraqis and even before that actually had a brief career reading the English news on Iraqi TV, so a very prominent person and a woman who really had devoted her life to helping the situation of ordinary Iraqis both before the war who were suffering under economic sanctions and after the war in the very sort of chaotic climate that was there helping out and directing projects involving water, sanitation and health care.

RAY SUAREZ: So there's that background you cite 30 years on the ground in Iraq. She remained in Baghdad when the invasion was under way. She even traveled to Britain to speak against the war and speak to the members of the British parliament to advise them against joining the invasion. Didn'tthese things make her an unlikely kidnap target?

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Certainly. I mean she's the last possible person you might imagine being at risk for kidnapping because she was... she had very clear views about the military invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq and really was somebody who was out in an apolitical way helping the people of Iraq. But this demonstrates yet again there really is no litmus test here for the sorts of work foreigners do in Iraq in the eyes of the insurgents; a number of foreign aid workers now have been kidnapped. Two Italian aid workers were taken, subsequently released, thankfully. But headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross was bombed last year. Nothing is sacrosanct to the insurgents these days and even a woman like Margaret Hassan, although she holds Iraqi nationality being of British origin and holding British citizenship is seen as a prominent and legitimate target for the insurgents in Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: Is there any pattern at all not to who is being kidnapped but to who is being killed?

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Well, you know, to date one thing that we can take a little comfort from is the insurgents have not yet killed any female captives. As I mentioned just a moment ago, two Italian aid workers were kidnapped but they were subsequently released, although in that case, even though Italy, like Britain, has troops in Iraq, there were reports, unconfirmed reports but many reports nonetheless, that the government of Italy had paid about a million euros to secure their release. Now, Britain, like the United States, is much firmer in its refusal to negotiate with hostage takers. Remember the very sad story of the British engineer Kenneth Bigley, who was kidnapped, along with two Americans several weeks back in Baghdad; after several tearful pleas for his life, not unlike the recent plea that Margaret Hassan made that was broadcast on al-Jazeera Television tonight, Mr. Bigley was beheaded by his captors. So history here is a mixed bag. And certainly I think she at t his point remains in very grave danger.

RAY SUAREZ: Margaret Hassan's CARE International aid agency pulled out workers and suspended operations in Iraq totally. Has Iraq been gradually emptied of people like Margaret Hassan?

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Most certainly Ray. The NGO community which has small has shrunk to almost nothing. That's the great tragedy here because Iraq's needs are so great. The work that needs to be done in providing clean water and sanitation and medical care and education is so great, much greater than the Iraqi government even with the aid of the United States can provide. And, as we know, there is only a very skeletal United Nations presence there. This is a classic case where international aid organizations really can provide very meaningful assistance but the security situation evidenced by this latest kidnapping, the latest in a string of attacks and acts of intimidation against the NGO community really has sent many of these workers fleeing out of the country. It's just too dangerous for them to operate. If anything now, there's no more than a handful of aid workers that are still left in Baghdad today.

RAY SUAREZ: Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post, good to talk to you.

RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: A pleasure, Ray.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the other major developments of this day: In the presidential race, President Bush told crowds security is the top issue facing the country, and he said Sen. Kerry doesn't take it seriously. The senator charged Mr. Bush doesn't understand the country's economic troubles. And the president signed the most extensive rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly 20 years. A reminder: Washington Week can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.