The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then, a Newsmaker interview with King Abdullah of Jordan; a special report from Moscow on the weekend elections in Russia; and the weekly analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Unemployment in the United States edged down again last month, but there still weren't as many new jobs as expected. The Labor Department reported today the jobless rate was 5.9 percent in November, the lowest since March. U.S. companies added 57,000 new jobs, but that was nearly 100,000 short of forecasts, and it disappointed Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 68 points to close at 9862. The NASDAQ fell nearly 31 points to close under 1938. For the week, the Dow was up less than 1 percent , the NASDAQ down 1 percent . The U.S. and 15 other nations committed more than $2 billion in loan guarantees today to help Iraq. The money insures payment for much-needed goods, including medical supplies. Also today, President Bush named former Secretary of State James Baker to re-negotiate and reduce Iraq's foreign debt. It could be as much as $125 billion. Another American soldier was killed in Baghdad today. A remote-controlled bomb blew up as a U.S. convoy passed. The explosion also killed at least two Iraqi civilians and hurt more than a dozen on a bus nearby. In all, 443 American soldiers have died in Iraq from combatand other causes since the war began in March.More than 2,100 have been wounded or hurt in accidents. The U.S. Administrator in Iraq today warned today of increased attacks in the coming months. Paul Bremer said loyalists to Saddam Hussein want to disrupt a planned return to Iraqi rule next summer.

L. PAUL BREMER: Between now and the end of June, we will actually see an increase in attacks because the people who are against us now realize that there is huge momentum behind both the economic and political reconstruction of this country, plus the fact that the Iraqi people are going to get their sovereignty back. This spells trouble for them. So I think we will actually go through a phase now where we will see increased attacks.

JIM LEHRER: Bremer also said members of Saddam's intelligence services are playing an increased role in the insurgency. The Associated Press reported today that Iraq's governing council is ready to create a tribunal on crimes against humanity. It could hear cases involving hundreds of members of the former regime. A suicide bomber blew himself up on a commuter train in southern Russia today. At least 42 people were killed, nearly 200 wounded. The attack was about 750 miles from Moscow, near Chechnya. Rebels there have been trying to win independence for a decade. We have a report on today's bombing from Lindsay Taylor of Independent Television News.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: The blast ripped through the second carriage of the train, reducing it to tangled metal. It happened just before 8 in the morning, when the train was packed with students and people heading for work. As the injured were recovered, initial reports spoke of a woman suicide bomber. Later, officials said the body of a man had been found with grenades still strapped to his legs. Three other women were said to be involved, two leaping from the train before the blast. The third's alive, but unlikely to survive. It was the second such attack on the same rail line within three months, September's killing six people. The Russian authorities have been quick to suggest Chechen militants were behind today's explosion. At the hospital at Kislovodsk, relatives crowded outside, anxious for news, desperate to know whether their loved ones are among the dead and injured. The attack prompted an angry response from Moscow, where the Russian president said it was an attempt to disrupt this weekend's elections that would not succeed.

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russia ( Translated ): I am sure that the criminals won't get away with what they want. The Russian citizens won't allow this.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: If today's attack is an attempt to force the Chechen issue onto the election agenda, observers say it's likely to increase electoral support for allies of the president and his hard-line approach to the separatists.

JIM LEHRER: In a statement today, a top leader of the Chechen rebels denied his forces were behind the attack. There have been two more shootings along Interstate 270 south of Columbus, Ohio. Police said today a house and car were targeted this week. No one was hurt. That makes 14 shootings in the area going back to May. One was fatal. A federal judge in Salt Lake City dismissed all charges today in a Winter Olympics bribery trial. Tom Welch and Dave Johnson led the city's effort to win the 2002 games. They were accused of bribing members of the International Olympic Committee. The judge ruled today the prosecution failed to show enough evidence to continue the trial. The two makers of flu shots in the United States announced today they've run out of vaccine. The companies made about 80 million doses, but demand surged after a deadly outbreak in Colorado. They can't make more vaccine this year because it takes four months. A more expensive inhaled version is still available. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to the king of Jordan, the elections in Russia, and the analysis of Shields and Brooks.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: And to our Newsmaker interview with King Abdullah of Jordan. I talked with him this morning at his Washington hotel, asking him first about a Palestinian ceasefire proposal that he discussed with President Bush yesterday.

KING ABDULLAH II: This new prime minister is obviously trying to reach out to the Israelis to find some grounds of solving the security issue. A comprehensive cease-fire is what he is trying to do within the Palestinian community. But at the same time he needs the Israelis who meet him halfway. The problem that happened with Abu Mazen was, that there was a lot for him to do on the ground, but nothing in the return.

JIM LEHRER: He was the former prime minister.

KING ABDULLAH II: The former prime minister and so what we need to be able to do is to make sure that the Israelis meet this new prime minister halfway, which would mean ceasing the targeted assassinations, easing up on checkpoints, easing up basically on the social fabric of Palestinian society, which is pretty dismal at the moment. So we have a lot of homework to do actually.

JIM LEHRER: Do you still believe, your Majesty, that the United States has the ability to persuade Israel to do certain things at certain times?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I have to say yes, but the issue is that we have to give something tangible to the process for the Americans to get engaged with...always the argument of the security issue...unless we can solve that, then it is difficult for the Americans to come and be specific. There's a lot of pressure on, as I said, the prime minister of the Palestinians at the moment to try to come to some sort of accommodation with the Israelis which will then lead on to the Americans re-engaging on the road map.

JIM LEHRER: Do you personally believe that the people in charge of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, the new prime minister, and all the others, have the power to stop the terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians if they wanted to?

KING ABDULLAH II: There will always be extremists on either side that you can never be able to control. But I do believe that this prime minister is working as hard as he can to reach out to all the different parts of Palestinian society to create a cease-fire. There is an issue, obviously within the Palestinians because there is a bit of competitiveness between certain groups and so the overall authority to be able to create the cease-fire is the problem that we are trying to work out at the moment.

JIM LEHRER: As you know, many Israelis and also some Americans believe that there never will be peace between Israelis and Palestinians as long as Yasser Arafat is calling the shots on the Palestinian side. Do you share that?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, the issue at the moment is really trying to strengthen the prime minister and have a reflection of a government that we can all understand. And this is part of the confusion that is happening inside of Palestinian society at the moment. There is obviously, I wouldn't say a power struggle, but everybody wants to keep part of his turf. I believe that if you want Palestinian society to move forward, the prime minister needs to be empowered. And this is the problem the prime minister is having with, as he said, his very good friend President Arafat. This is an issue they have to resolve between themselves.

JIM LEHRER: And it is not resolved as we sit here now.

KING ABDULLAH II: Not to the extent that I would I feel comfortable that I can I see the process moving forward.

JIM LEHRER: So you essentially agree that as long as it is believed or even if it's true, that Arafat is still in charge, there is not going to be a lot of movement.

KING ABDULLAH II: There's different angles to this. Arafat has a lot of authority and if he feels that he is being engaged-- I mean there is a bit of a game going on here, too-- that he has the ability to bring things under control, but he wants people to talk to him. It's a complicated issue that we are trying to get through, to put personalities aside and sort of go back to the larger picture, which is, you know, the cycle of violence that both the Israelis and Palestinians are suffering from.

JIM LEHRER: Now the other side of the coin is, there are many in the Arab world who believe there will never be peace as long as Ariel Sharon is the prime minister of Israel. Do you share that view?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, no, I mean, I'm, from my experience is, is that the leaderships want to have peace, they have different views and this is part of the issue. I think that there are those in the Israeli government that would like to take more time in other words, the interim solution, which is let us take our time over the next five to ten years and I don't prescribe to that point of view because every day we waste means the loss of life for Israelis and Palestinians and an increase in the cycle of violence. So we have different emphasis on how we want to achieve it-- at the end of the day, everybody wants peace-- but it's compromise at the end of the day. And both sides, it's difficult to get them to compromise promise for the bigger picture.

JIM LEHRER: But in terms of personalities and history between these two men, Arafat and Sharon, at the end of their days, do you think they have the ability and the capability and the desire to make...

KING ABDULLAH II: They have the ability and the capability. But the animosity between them is an issue that makes it very difficult to achieve, unfortunately.

JIM LEHRER: Did you come away from your conversation with the president believing that he is fully engaged in trying to make something work in the Middle East?

KING ABDULLAH II: Yes, and we had a lot more time to delve into this when we were at Camp David several months ago. But again, the president has certain capital that he can expand on to the peace process. And it is up to the rest of us, the international community, Jordanians and even many people in Washington, to create the circumstances so that when the president gets engaged, we actually can move the process forward. At the moment, there is nothing tangible-- the president can give his support-- but you know, it's a presidential card as he said to me several years ago, and when you use that, you can only out use it sort of once. And we have to make sure that all the ducks are lined up in a row, so to speak.

JIM LEHRER: On Iraq, you supported the U.S. and coalition action against Iraq in March. Do you still feel supportive about it?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, we always believed that there should be the future of Iraqis for Iraqis. It looks to sort of, to most people, pretty dismal state of affairs inside Iraq at the moment. The security situation is pretty bad. The only way to solve that is to get Iraqis back on the street as opposed to coalition forces. So the quicker we can train police and military, Iraqi police and military to take over for the coalition forces, the security situation will improve. The difficulty, there's a parallel track, also, the government's problem of of handing the governing capabilities back to the Iraqis. My only concern is that if you move too quickly on that, then if you can't hand over to the Iraqis an authority that is going to succeed, and you pull out, then things will fall apart. You are going to have to come back and revisit the problem, so I want to be cautious that the two tracks, the security aspect of it and handing over the powers to the Iraqis is done systematically. Now all of us would like to do it sooner, would like to see the Iraqis be responsible for their future. But I think as a soldier for the most part of my life, there are some practicalities on the ground that may take a lot longer than people would actually want.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think the current plan for the turnover of power for this, sometime this summer, June, July, somewhere in there, is realistic?

KING ABDULLAH II: It can be achieved, but it needs a lot of coordination and a lot of work. And again, who are you handing power over to... the interim government, was a good start, it's a step in the right direction. I don't think it is as representative as it should be of the Iraqi people. I think there should be more investment in the Sunni constituency. And if these issues are not properly tackled, then we could be creating more problems for us further down the line.

JIM LEHRER: Have you expressed that to the...

KING ABDULLAH II: Yeah.

JIM LEHRER: ...President and others in the administration?

KING ABDULLAH II: We've had very clear discussions and very open discussions with this administration. They've always been very interested and supportive of our views. It was a very healthy atmosphere. We said what we thought the problems were. We heard the American point of view, and I think we came to some constructive ideas on how to move forward on making Iraq a better place for the Iraqis.

JIM LEHRER: Your majesty, I was struck by looking at the results of a poll that the Pew Organization did-- it was a worldwide poll-- but the results from Jordan are stunning and I'm sure you're aware of them, an overwhelming majority of your people did not support the U.S. action, in fact, wished that the Iraqis had put up a larger resistance and believe the country is worse off without Saddam Hussein. How do you explain that?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, again, there's national pride, regional pride. At the end of the day for most Arabs, it was an invading power from across the sea, you know, if some European countries got involved over here in North America, whether it was a neighbor of yours or one further afield, there is a national affinity to be sort of supportive of those closer to you. And, again, unfortunately, I think there was a misperception of the views of why this war, I mean the president wanted to give a better life for Iraqis, but the way it was transferred to most Arab minds was that this was all about oil, so that these misconceptions didn't help the situation. Unfortunately, to the average person looking at Iraq now with, the chaos that's going on, it looks worse than it was with Saddam in power. But we hope that as time over this year translates to improving the situation on the ground, Iraqis will be able to look to the future and know that it is going to be brighter than it was yesterday.

JIM LEHRER: How do you deal with this public opinion problem here? I mean, you have your position as the king of your country and you've taken very public positions in support of what the U.S. is doing, and yet your public is not with you. How do you deal with that?

KING ABDULLAH II: In Jordan, I mean it's... sometimes have to take one step back to take two forward. I mean, no process in moving societies forward has ever been easy. But I think at the end of the day, Iraqis, and I think hopefully in this year, the next 12 months will feel once they have more control of their lives, they'll look back on this recent history and know that they've moved beyond that. At the end of the day, it's what the Iraqis feel as opposed to all of us in the region. Saddam was far more popular in the Middle East than he was on his own street. And I think most Arabs understand that. He was popular because he used his political weight as being sort of a force against Israel. I don't think there were any Iraqis that would tell you they were a great fan of him inside of Iraq. At the end of the day, what happened in Iraq is for Iraqis, not for Jordanians or Saudis or other people.

JIM LEHRER: There was another element in that poll that showed that 1 percent of the people in Jordan, at least 1 percent of the people, according to this poll, had a favorable view toward the United States. And yet the president said yesterday, you know, he considers you one of America's greatest friends in that part of the world. How do you reconcile that?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, again, you have to be careful how you...you ask questions in a poll.

JIM LEHRER: Sure, sure.

KING ABDULLAH II: You get the answer that you want it's a poll. The poll, the way it was asked, there are two elements of that question, it was what you think of American foreign policy. Now the overwhelming majority of Jordanians have been very bitter from what they feel was a one handed approach, a one-sided approach of American foreign policy in the region and mainly towards...

JIM LEHRER: In other words, too pro-Israeli.

KING ABDULLAH II: ...Too pro-Israeli. This is the impression. And Jordan is a far more open minded liberal pro-western country than a lot of others in the region. Now the second part of the question was, what do you think about America. The overwhelming majority says we love what America stands for, we like Americans, we like the American way of life. But we have an issue with American foreign policy. So you can love America, you have American friends, but you can be pretty disgruntled with American policy. And I think that is the truth of the polling that was done in Jordan.

JIM LEHRER: But in a general way, does the United States have a serious problem in the Arab world that it should be dealing with, above and beyond what it is doing right now?

KING ABDULLAH II: As I said, I think if Jordan is reflective of the mood, I think Jordan will probably be on the more moderate response that you'd get from a lot of other Arab countries. And I think what worries me as a friend of the United States is not just the feeling in the Arab world towards America, I'm seeing this in Europe, I'm seeing this in Asia. America has a serious issue with the way the international community looks towards the United States, which is nothing but negative. And I hope that our friends can work to overcome those issues.

JIM LEHRER: Does it relate solely to Iraq or does it go beyond that?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well I think that because the perception in the international community that Iraq issue was taken onby the United States and somewhat alone, has disgruntled a lot of views in the international community. But the friends of the United States are concerned that the anti-American feeling throughout the international community, and I hope we can get beyond this, weather the storm, so to speak, and get beyond this.

JIM LEHRER: Again, did you discuss this kind of thing with the president?

KING ABDULLAH II: No, I mean, we usually just jump straight into the specifics of what needs to be done on the ground in the Iraqi issue or the Israeli-Palestinian...

JIM LEHRER: What about other U.S. officials? In other words, is this such a concern of yours that you believe, I mean, that have communicated the concerns you just did now to me with people who are in charge of our government?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I think it's also members of the government that have been also been supporting me in arguments we've had or discussions over the past two or three years that are very familiar with the Middle East that they're concerned, with their experiences as Americans in the Middle East feel that the animosity towards the United States is of their concern and this is something we all agreed on. I mean, I think people understand there is an issue in the international community that needs to be overcome. I'm hoping, as Iraq settles into place, as we move the peace process forward, at least for our part of the world, people will say that the hard work that was invested actually, at the end of the day, was for the values that the Americans wanted to, you know, pass on to our part of the world, to have freedom, to have a chance at a better life. But at the moment, the mood is pretty sour unfortunately.

JIM LEHRER: Your Majesty, thank you very much.

KING ABDULLAH II: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: A Russian elections preview, and Shields and Brooks.

FOCUS - MANAGING DEMOCRACY

JIM LEHRER: Now, a Russian election, and the man who dominates Moscow politics. Our report is by special correspondent Simon Marks in Moscow.

SIMON MARKS: On sale in Moscow today, a new portrait of President Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader's image is slowly becoming more visible here. This picture is made entirely of chocolate. It has pride of place in a downtown cafe, where it's on sale to members of Russia's nouveau riche for nearly 700 U.S. Dollars. The artist says it's a tribute to Russia's leader, not part of a growing personality cult around him.

VITALI PONOMARYOV, Chocolate Artist ( Translated ): I don't think I am contributing to this. What I like about Putin is that he can unite so many people around him. We're not drawing this just to sell it. This is to express what we feel.

SIMON MARKS:: But the chocolate portrait is, say some Russians, by far the sweetest thing about the Russian president. Over the past six months, while the world's attention has been focused on Iraq, he has moved aggressively to consolidate his power base here. And no one has felt the power of the presidency more than Russia's most successful businessman, oil baron Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Six weeks ago, Mr. Khodorkovsky was suddenly arrested during a routine business trip to Siberia. He has been in jail ever since, accused of fraud and tax evasion. He denies the charges; the courts have denied all applications for bail. Attorney Karina Moskalenko has spent the past three decades representing victims of human rights abuses, first in the Soviet Union, now in Russia. Today, she's also representing Mr. Khodorkovsky. She says he's being held by the state illegally.

KARINA MOSKALENKO, Attorney ( Translated ): I've worked as an attorney in this country for 26 years, in the '70s, the '80s and the '90s. And I want to tell you that my clients never have the feeling of hopelessness that they have now. People feel more and more unprotected from the tyranny of the authorities. And you know this is a very unpleasant signal to society.

SIMON MARKS: The Russian authorities argue that Mr. Khodorkovsky is simply a crook who became Russia's richest man by expropriating state assets during the Yeltsin era free-for- all. Many of the nation's riches were doled at giveaway prices by a Russian government that desperately needed cash. But Mr. Khodorkovsky's arrest sent Russia's markets into a tailspin because most analysts argue that whatever the origins of his wealth, Mr. Khodorkovsky has gone to great lengths in recent years to legitimize himself and his business operations. He had also been slowly expressing political ambitions, and funding some of Russia's opposition political parties: Parties like Yabloko, campaigning for liberal reform here in Sunday's parliamentary elections. Yabloko's leaders say Mr. Khodorkovsky's detention plunged their efforts to secure campaign funds into a deep freeze.

GRIGORY YAVLINSKY, Leader, Yabloko Party: Simply that event threatened the business to such extent that they are even afraid simply to speak to you after that.

SIMON MARKS: And that may have doomed Yabloko. Its candidates are battling to win 5 percent of the vote on Sunday, the threshold they must cross to win seats in the new Russian parliament. Some analysts say they won't make it. Other opposition parties like the Communists and the Ultra-Nationalists, led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, are easily expected to pass the 5 percent threshold. As Russia's political season gets underway here-- Sunday's parliamentary elections will be followed by a presidential election in March-- it isn't just big business that is feeling the growing reach of the Kremlin. In a whole host of areas, the Russian state is expanding its influence in what Vladimir Putin's detractors say is a coordinated effort to limit freedoms and turn back the clock. Take opinion polls, for example. Over the past decade, a polling organization called Vtsiom, the Russian Center for Public Opinion and Research, won international respect for the integrity of its numbers. Headed by sociologist Yuri Levada, whose work in the '70s was banned by the Communists, Vtsiom was suddenly reorganized by the current Russian government earlier this year. Mr. Levada and his colleagues promptly quit, and set up a new company, which for the moment at least, is being allowed to function. Others encountering difficulties in the new Russia include defense analyst Igor Sutyagin-- he's been jailed for the past four years on charges of espionage. He says the information he revealed was already in the public domain; the Open Society Institute, funded by financier George Soros-- its offices were raided twice and its records seized after Mr. Soros accused the Putin government of persecution. Russian television-- it's now entirely in the hands of government loyalists after independent broadcasters were forced off the air; and Otto Latsis, a prominent reformist journalist-- he was mysteriously mugged a month ago, and says old-style fears are stalking the press.

OTTO LATSIS, Journalist ( Translated ): There's no formal censorship, but I know how my colleagues are now writing their articles. Their inner censor has woken up. It's something that I've been seeing for 50 years in my journalistic career. When you edit yourself even before you start to write, and you know what you cannot write because it will never be published anyway. This is all working again now.

SIMON MARKS: But supporters of the Russian president insist he is misunderstood. Vladimir Putin enjoys a 73 percent approval rating in Russia today, and United Russia, a Kremlin- backed political party, is coasting to victory in Sunday's elections. The only element of suspense concerns the size of the party's win. The president himself is vowing to stay true to a reformist path. He recently told a group of Italian journalists that Russian democrats and foreign investors have no cause for concern.

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN ( Translated ): What I can tell you for sure is that we will continue to firm up the institution of private property, we will work on protecting the rights of property owners and investors, we will continue market reforms, and cement democratic institutions-- parties, elections, the electoral system and so on. All of that, together with the determination of the state to fight corruption and crime, will finally create a normal investor-friendly climate".

SIMON MARKS: And it is that mixture of capitalism with a determined, strong state-- "a dictatorship of law" Mr. Putin once called it-- that is proving so popular here. Many Russians seem prepared to trade away a few liberties in exchange for the economic stability that Mr. Putin has brought, and the appearance on the world stage of a Russian leader who doesn't embarrass the country like Boris Yeltsin did just a few years ago. The war in the breakaway region of Chechnya, suddenly back on the nation's front pages following today's deadly explosion on a crowded commuter train in southern Russia, has barely been an issue in the election campaign. Most voters seem unconcerned about the Russian military's exposure in the region. Sergei Markov describes himself as a "Kremlin-connected political analyst." He's an architect and defender of President Putin's policy of managed democracy.

SERGEI MARKOV: Managed democracy, it means a combination of democratic institutions and authoritarian institutions. Of course, it's clear. Russia now is in the process... in the process not from communist dictatorship, but from the stage of Yeltsin anarchy and chaos to the functioning democratic institutions. And on this way, to make situation stable, Kremlin has to use both democratic and not democratic methods. It's just rule of nature.

SIMON MARKS: Others here argue that Russian democracy doesn't need managing, and that a nation emerging from 70 years of authoritarianism doesn't need any more.

LILIA SHEVTSOVA: Well, this feeling of fear is creeping again.

SIMON MARKS: Lilia Shevtsova, a political analyst with ties to some of Russia's opposition political parties, says managed democracy is democracy delayed.

LILIA SHEVTSOVA: When you don't give society an opportunity to mature, when you don't give society an opportunity to raise its voice and to choose the position, to build its own parties and societies, society will never mature. And in the end frustrated, unhappy society can become a real threat for the authorities, and we again will come to the same political cycle that Russia has become accustomed to: Bloody revolutions.

SIMON MARKS: And there are other prominent Russian voices now warning of a massive upheaval they say lies ahead. A dozen years after the fall of the Soviet Union and the fall of the statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the feared founder of the KGB, The influence of former KGB men is gradually spreading throughout the Putin administration. The president, himself a former KGB officer, is surrounding himself with his one-time colleagues. Some of the architects of Russia's free-market reforms, like former Yeltsin Finance Minister Anatoly Chubais, say members of the old guard are preparing to enrich themselves, and further consolidate their power by nationalizing recently- privatized industries.

ANATOLY CHUBAIS: We really have the political forces which is really against the freedom, which is against the democracy, which is against the private property. Or at least they would like to re-privatize the Russian economy. They would like to start this process again with the hope that they would able to get some private property under their control.

SIMON MARKS: On the ballot on Sunday, Russians will choose between 23 parties to fill the duma's 450 seats. The outcome is important because if more than 300 duma members prove loyal to Mr. Putin, he would be able to change the Russian constitution which currently limits the president to two terms. The president's supporters say Vladimir Putin doesn't want a third term, but they also acknowledge he's unlikely to agree to an orderly transfer of power to any of his opponents either.

SPOKESMAN: I think that year 2008, Vladimir Putin will prefer not to have absolutely free and fair elections, but will prefer to give power to his own successor.

SIMON MARKS: Earlier today in Moscow, with a degree of fanfare, the Russian government officially opened the press center, where results from Sunday's elections will be pronounced. The election commission that is overseeing the process underwent a change of management earlier in the year. The agency running the elections is now directly accountable to the FSB, the secret police agency that in former times was known as the KGB.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the analysis of Shields and Brooks, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks. The president's field decision this week, David, let's just look at the crass politics of it how big a role does politics play in this?

DAVID BROOKS: Everything of the there may have been a substantive issue buried in there but politics mostly. He betrayed his principles and went for a protectionist steel policy because of two key states, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. I think what the administration was surprised by was the backlash, first domestically by all the people who use steel, who make cars, who make refrigerators and all that kind of stuff. And other key states like Wisconsin and Michigan, they saw their prices go up and they were angry, and they were mobilized, much more than previously. The second problem was international. The WTO and Europe mobilized much more than the administration thought they would and threatened retaliation, which would have gone into effect at the end of the month. Not only retaliation, which is normal, but targeted intelligent retaliation against oranges and, thus, key swing states in Florida and places like that. So the people in Europe can read our election map as well. It was those two political considerations which I think forced their hand to climb down.

MARK SHIELDS: Margaret, when the president put the tariffs in, I think I was one of the few people who saluted him for doing it because he was keeping a promise made in the 2000 campaign. It is very rare when a candidate, especially a winning candidate, remembers promises inconvenient with his political base. He did do that; there was no question. David's point is well taken. I think the key moment in this whole negotiation is when the European Union started to playing electoral politics in this country. That the reprisals in the form of tariffs would be imposed upon citrus products, Florida, textile products, the Carolinas, and all of a sudden it became big man on campus, the trade minister of those countries that said, hey, let's do this. I don't think that there is any question it had an effect on the president's decision. But they held off making the decision until they had better economic news to report. So they could say a variation of mission accomplished, it wasn't the Lincoln carrier but there was a sense that things have improved. But I think that David remains right in the sense that once you deviate from your own beliefs, stated beliefs and constituencies to support those, it's always a political risk because you don't pick up on the other side to the same degree. I think that's what happened with the president.

DAVID BROOKS: I'd say the larger lesson is don't enact a policy that Mark will applaud.

MARGARET WARNER: So now if we look at say the states that are steel producing states, is the president going to pay a price there? We're talking about West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania primarily. He won two of those three in 2000.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. And he will pay a price, but I really would not overestimate the issue. It always seems, and when you go out on the campaign trail, it is always true, especially the Democratic campaign trail, trade is a huge issue. It always comes up in every meeting, somebody who has lost their jobs, and people really have lost their jobs from manufacturing. On the other hand, this is a service economy. The service workers like free trade. On the polling, the people who have high school degrees tend to like some protectionism. People with college degrees making up a larger part of the electorate, they like free trade. So it's generally been a winning issue if you can tap into that silent majority that supports free trade.

MARGARET WARNER: And then, Mark, if you play the state game, if you take the states that have the most steel consuming industries, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, does this actually help the president or does it just help neutralize a problem he had there?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, a serious problem he had there. You have to understand that unemployment has more than doubled in the state of Michigan since George Bush has become president, 80 percent unemployment rate in Wisconsin.

MARGARET WARNER: A lot of jobs --

MARK SHIELDS: A lot of jobs -- the loss in manufacturing jobs and I don't quibble with David's point about the trade issue. The trade issue, you have to understand, I think the press is accused of bias, I think it is fair to say the press is probably more pro-abortion rights, more pro-gun rights, it's more gay rights, and on free trade it is too. That's because we've never had an 11 year old Sri Lanken bureau chief in Washington willing to work for $40 a month. I mean, so none of the jobs have been lost there. There is a real class gulf in the country between the people who are paid --157,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio in the last three years -- it is going to have a political effect on the president that I think there is no question about it. It is tough to make the case -- you are better off than you were in the year 2000.

MARGARET WARNER: What about the Democrats on this issue, David? Can the Democrats exploit this at all or is it just as complicated a calculation for them?

DAVID BROOKS: For them, too. You're fighting the auto workers on one hand and the steelworkers on the other. Though I do think the Democratic story is an interesting story. They have transition in two years from Bill Clinton's party, the NAFTA party, free trade party to the anti-free trade party -- mostly Richard Gephardt. He has been there all along -- a principled believer in these policies say we can't have free trade. We have to have a much more complicated trade policy. He has been there all along and swung the party around so he and Howard Dean are not free traders at all and the whole party has shifted. It is impossible to imagine a Democratic president doing what Bill Clinton did, supporting NAFTA, supporting free trade agreements.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you explain that, Mark? Howard Dean actually supported NAFTA; now he absolutely says he has changed his mind and he is for fair trade, which is putting in labor and environmental standards. How do you explain that happening?

MARK SHIELDS: There's an old Latin phrase, "post talk, therefore ergo propter hoc." Something happened after something, it happened because of that. I wear my blue shirt and the Red Sox win, is that why the Red Sox won? Well, the reality is, Margaret, that all the dire predictions of the 1992 campaign, mostly originated with Ross Perot, have come home to an awful lot of places in the United States. The loss of manufacturing jobs, the loss of the manufacturing base, and you can make the case as long as the economy is growing, expanding, as it was in the Clinton years, 22 million new jobs, all of a sudden now, saying wait a minute, the race to the bottom has begun. And jobs that went to Mexico have now gone into Asia. One can say this is an inevitable development and so forth but is one is paying the price because you've lost the job that provides medical benefits, retirement benefit and job security, that community is affected, the state is affected, the family is affected and I think that's why the saying now, and you see Kerrey and Edwards, no question about it and Dean, moving toward the Gephardt position, which is that worker rights and environmental rights must be included in all future trade agreements. This seems to be an emerging consensus on the part of Democrats on that.

MARGARET WARNER: There's a lot there is not an emerging consensus on, David. Let's talk about the Democratic field. Today there was a new poll out showing that Dean as head by a teeny bit in South Carolina. Earlier polls this week had him ahead by 30 points in New Hampshire?

DAVID BROOKS: I think that is an emerging consensus. Listen, there's a nine-person field in New Hampshire. He has got 40 or 45 percent. That is amazing.

MARGARET WARNER: In two different polls.

DAVID BROOKS: In two different polls. He has had a tremendous couple of weeks. I think he has shown his message stays fresh. He gets even more aggressive and more anti-Bush as the weeks go on. He has got all the money he can spend. He has a very impressive organization. I think the thing that has happened in the past couple of weeks is that even in this city, in Washington, some of the people who, especially Clintonites, who were very suspicious of it, the rats have started jumping on the ship. They've said okay, he is not unstoppable - let's not get ahead of ourselves -- but he is doing great. And they're beginning to, the resistance is lowering.

MARGARET WARNER: How do explain, Mark, this is the two or three weeks that John Kerrey was turning his campaign around, coming on strong in New Hampshire. Instead, his numbers are just collapsing?

MARK SHIELDS: I think, Margaret, what we are seeing is, is David's mention of Washington. I recall when Jimmy Carter was wining in 1976, people in Washington started buying Levis and going to bible meeting class. This is the front-runner's town. You have seen that, it's a reflection.

MARGARET WARNER: Winning outside makes you a winner.

MARK SHIELDS: Absolutely. Jacuzzi --I thought he was a congressman from Rhode Island but now I think I'll try that. Here's the key. What the race has boiled down to everybody who is against Howard Dean, not for Howard Dean, has his or her hopes riding on one person. That's Richard Gephardt in Iowa. Iowa is Armageddon, Gettysburg, whatever you want for the democrats not supporting Howard Dean. If Howard Dean wins in Iowa, the managers from the other campaigns and some of the candidates will acknowledge that Howard Dean will be the nominee bar something egregious self inflicted wound like stop lying about my record or something like that on election night. I think that's what they're facing is that Dean to be stopped if Dean does win Iowa, the clear cruising in New Hampshire, it will be reflected in future polls like South Carolina, like it just happens too quickly after that. It is up to Richard Gephardt and John Edwards and John Kerrey, Wes Clark, you better be, you know, wishing and hoping and encouraging Gephardt in Iowa.

MARGARET WARNER: David, the republicans... the RNC Ran an ad - these are small ads but still -- against Howard Dean and this week republican leaning group, Republican Club for Growth said Dean wants to raise your taxes. If the Republicans really want to run against Howard Dean, they wouldn't be doing this, would they?

DAVID BROOKS: They would, because by attacking him, they get Democratic voters seeing those Bush bad guys are attacking this Howard Dean. And this literally what is they're thinking in part. Partly, they want to weaken him but in part they're thinking we're going to make it Dean versus us; we're going to rally Democrats around Dean by attacking him in places like New Hampshire and Iowa.

MARGARET WARNER: You really think they're that good -- that good or....

DAVID BROOKS: I think that's what they're thinking. I don't know if it will work but that's what they're thinking.

MARK SHIELDS: Margaret, I can recall, David is altogether too young and so are you. 1980, the Democrats had one hope to win, Jimmy Carter beleaguered, embattled, and that was that the Republicans nominated Ronald Reagan but they said there was no way Ronald Reagan would be elected president of the United States. They got what they wanted; 44 states later Ronald Reagan was elected president of the United States because he couldn't be elected.

DAVID BROOKS: But they also wanted McGovern to win the nomination. They wanted Dukakis. Sometimes you beat the guy you want.

MARGARET WARNER: We have to leave it there. Thank you both.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: U.S. Unemployment edged down again last month, but there weren't as many new jobs as expected. And a suicide bomber killed at least 42 people on a train in southern Russia. 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.