The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is away. On the NewsHour tonight an update of the week's Microsoft trial; impeachment in the campaign ad war; a report from Chicago on a new beetle invasion; and what's behind the civil war in the Congo. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: President Clinton rejoined the Middle East peace negotiations today. He held three-way talks with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Leader Arafat for the third time in eight days. After an hour, the meeting broke up and Mr. Clinton began shuttling between the two sides. Jordan's King Hussein also made a second trip to the Maryland Conference Center, where the peace talks are being held. State Department Spokesman James Rubin said advances were made on some issues but key decisions remain. He described how the talks were proceeding.

JAMES RUBIN, State Department Spokesman: There will be three tracks running almost simultaneously, and sometimes brought together, and those three tracks, obviously the most important track being the President's activities and meetings either with the two leaders, or with leaders separately, the secretary meeting with the other leader, while the President is meeting with the one, and the third track being the legal and technical experts working on the text that both sides were provided late last night.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Later in the day Rubin said negotiating teams were focused and working hard but added whether there will be a deal today is the $64,000 question. The death toll in the Texas floods rose to 27 today. In San Antonio, the bodies of three adults and a baby were retrieved from a submerged automobile that had been swept into a flooded creek Saturday night. In Wharton, 55 miles Southwest of Houston, the Colorado River is expected to crest at a record 50 feet. Floodwaters have overrun neighborhoods and forced residents to flee to shelters. Authorities expect damages in 60 affected counties to total more than $400 million. Diesel engine manufacturers have agreed to pay a $1 billion civil penalty for violating pollution laws. The Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency announced the settlement today. It includes firms like Caterpillar and Mack Trucks, among others. The federal government said the companies equipped heavy duty diesel engines with defeat devices that overcame the effect of pollution control equipment required by law. In the Microsoft antitrust trial today questioning again centered on accusations the software maker tried to coerce a rival, Netscape, into illegally sharing a monopoly on the market for Internet browsers. Microsoft has said it was only pursuing an earlier Netscape request. Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray attacked the Justice Department's case and the testimony of Netscape's CEO James Barksdale. Murray spoke at the US District courthouse in Washington.

MARK MURRAY, Microsoft Spokesman: We feel that the government case is evaporating. The government started this case with a whole lot of allegations, but the government's allegations just aren't standing up to the facts. The government said that Microsoft has cut off Netscape's distribution channels, but the facts show and Mr. Barksdale has testified in court that Netscape is distributing over 150 million copies of its browser this year and Netscape has over 13,000 companies that are distributing its browser.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Lawyers for the Justice Department did not publicly discuss today's proceedings. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Overseas, in Africa today, Zimbabwe sent troops and armaments into the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help put down a rebellion in the eastern part of that country. Zimbabwe had already lent air support to soldiers fighting for Congolese President Laurent Kabila. Yesterday, Namibia, Angola, and Zimbabwe announced they would join forces to aid Kabila in quashing the mutiny. The United States called for restraint on all sides. We'll have more on the Congo, formerly Zaire, later in the program. A United Nations report today said innocent children are increasingly the victims and targets of war. The report said 2 million children have been killed and 6 million injured or disabled since 1987. An estimated 300,000 are now fighting in government or rebel armies, many forced into service. This was the first report of a special U.N. envoy appointed to investigate children and armed conflict. Medical examiners in California today announced the cause of death of Olympic Gold Medal sprinter Florence Griffith Joyner. They said she suffocated during an epileptic seizure while she was sleeping. An autopsy taken showed that she had taken normal amounts of Tylenol and Benadryl before she went to bed. Joyner was 38 years old. She died September 21st. And just in case you haven't heard by now, the New York Yankees are the World Series champions. The American League team defeated the San Diego Padres of the National League in four straight games. It was the Yankees' 24th World Series title, the second in the last three years. New York City Mayor Guiliani announced the team will be honored tomorrow in a ticker tape parade. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Microsoft antitrust trial, campaign ad wars, the beetle invasion, and civil war in the Congo.% ? UPDATE - TRACKING THE TRIAL

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Phil Ponce has the Microsoft trial update.

PHIL PONCE: Week one of the Government Versus Microsoft ended today. It's widely seen as the most important antitrust case of the era, testing the limits of power in the information age. John McChesney is covering the trial for NPR, National Public Radio.Welcome, John.

JOHN McCHESNEY, National Public Radio: Phil.

PHIL PONCE: John, the government is alleging that Microsoft is a monopoly and it's using its monopoly status to illegally compete in the marketplace. What were the main points that the government made this week?

JOHN McCHESNEY: Well, the government is trying to show that Microsoft has foreclosed - that's the legal term - foreclosed Netscape's ability to distribute its product by striking deals with computer makers, with Internet service providers. It's trying to show that Netscape - that Microsoft tied its browser software into its operating system.

PHIL PONCE: The software that let's you surf the web -

JOHN McCHESNEY: Right.

PHIL PONCE: The operating system being the nuts and bolts of the central nervous system.

JOHN McCHESNEY: Your web browser that you see when you're surfing the net. And they say that Microsoft tied that browser into the operating system, into Windows 98, integrated it tightly in there, for the sole purpose of wiping out Netscape, of wiping out the competition. That is illegal.

PHIL PONCE: Netscape being the main browser company that had the lion's share of the market -

JOHN McCHESNEY: Microsoft had 85 percent back in 1996, nearly a monopoly, as Microsoft is fond of pointing out, and they tweaked Jim Barksdale, the CEO, by saying - by reminding Barksdale that he said he had a God given right to 95 percent of the market, and Barksdale points out he's made that joke since he was with Federal Express. But it's a good joke.

PHIL PONCE: Barksdale is the government's star witness, so to speak. What came out of Barksdale this week?

JOHN McCHESNEY: Well, he's been on the stand for two full days. You know, we started with the government's opening statement and then Microsoft's opening statement, and then we've had Jim Barksdale on the stand for two full days being grilled by Microsoft lawyer John Warden. And Warden has been after him in minute detail. There are 127 pages of direct testimony that Barksdale presented to the court. They do this in written form so that this shortens the trial. And Warden has gone through this testimony line by line by line and grilled Barksdale on it. What he's trying to show is a number - he's trying to show a number of things. He's trying to show that Netscape has thrived, in spite of this competitive threat, to - that's mounted by Microsoft.

PHIL PONCE: In other words, it's been - even though Microsoft may have close to what most people think of as a monopoly that Netscape hasn't been harmed by it, is that -

JOHN McCHESNEY: Well, maybe harmed, maybe successful competition has taken place, but that theyhaven't been irreparably harmed; they haven't been put out of business by a long shot. You heard Mark Murray in the opening statement there say that Netscape is distributing 150 million copies of its browser this year. That's their plan, mind you. But they have pointed out that Netscape - that people downloaded 26 million copies of Netscape's browser over the last six or seven months in 1998. That doesn't sound like a company -- Microsoft says -- that's paralyzed by this competition. What the government did in its opening statement was home in on a meeting that happened in June of 1995. And the government alleges and Netscape alleges that in that meeting Microsoft came to Netscape and made an illegal offer to divide the browser market with Netscape. Netscape would take all of the browser market that was previous to Windows 95 and Unix and the operating systems, the Mac operating system. Microsoft would take the market for Windows 95.

PHIL PONCE: And the government says that's illegal collusion, violates antitrust, you can't do that?

JOHN McCHESNEY: Well, it was coupled, according to the government and Netscape, with a threat, you do this, you go along with this deal, or we'll take care of you. It was also accompanied by a pot sweetener, an offer to invest in Netscape. Now, what Jack Warden, John Warden has been trying to do during the week is to show that nothing leading up to that June 25th meeting and nothing following it would indicate that that's what happened in that meeting. They say that that meeting, the rendition or the version of that meeting that you hear about is largely the product of notes taken by a young developer of Netscape and Mosaic, Mark Andreason, who took notes on his laptop during it.

PHIL PONCE: Warden is the attorney for Microsoft. And he came up with a bit of a surprise this week, yes? What was that?

JOHN McCHESNEY: Well, it was a surprise to some of the reporters reporting the case. I'm sure it wasn't a surprise to the government prosecutors who looked at all this evidence. But what he brought in was a memo - an E-mail message from Jim Clark, written in December of 1994.

PHIL PONCE: Jim Clark being one of the co-founders of Netscape?

JOHN McCHESNEY: Right. He was the first chairman. And he wrote an E-mail in December, late at night, 3 o'clock in the morning, to an official up at Microsoft, and in that memo he said perhaps Microsoft would like to make an investment in Netscape. He was inviting an investment. So Microsoft was saying this was on the table a long time before June 25th. In his deposition also Jim Clark said that in October of 1994 that Bill Gates had told him at a meeting here in Washington that he intended to put the browser in Windows 95 and offer it for free.

PHIL PONCE: And so - what's the significance of those two points?

JOHN McCHESNEY: Well, the first point is that the offer to invest in Netscape was not made in coupling with a threat; it was simply on the table and been solicited by Netscape a long time before this June 21st meeting happened.

PHIL PONCE: So it wasn't Microsoft's idea to go in there and talk turkey about splitting the market and that sort of thing?

JOHN McCHESNEY: And there was no surprise on June 21st that Microsoft intended to include browsing technology in Windows 95. That wasn't a threat. It wasn't a surprise. It was something that Jim Clark knew about now, but at the bottom of Jim Clark's memo it says, no one else in the company knows that I've written this, and of course, Netscape is saying, look, Jim Barksdale didn't know about this; nobody else in Netscape knew about this; and it has no connection whatsoever to the June 21st meeting, what we're saying about the June 21st meeting stands.

PHIL PONCE: Moving on to Microsoft's points, what points was Microsoft able to make this with?

JOHN McCHESNEY: Well, they're really trying to make the case for the success of Netscape in the face of all of this. They're also trying to make a case that you cannot disentangle this browser technology from Windows 98, that somehow it's not a separate product, that it is an integrated function, a truly integrated function. They depend here, by the way, on an appeals court decision that happened last summer, saying that it was a true product integration and it wasn't a bolting together of two separate products in order to defeat Netscape. So they're trying to make the case that it's a successful company, that the integration is total and is a benefit to consumers, is an efficiency, it was not something they did to defeat Netscape, and they're trying to make the case that they have never in any way done anything illegal, particularly in this June 25th meeting.

PHIL PONCE: Microsoft is also - Microsoft's lawyer also made - made quite a to do about the government allegedly demonizing Bill Gates. What was that all about?

JOHN McCHESNEY: Well in the opening day we had the government showing video clips of Bill Gates' deposition and juxtaposing that, what he said in the deposition, with E-mail messages and memoranda that he had written during the heat of the battle with Netscape. And what the government was trying to show is that first of all that Gates, himself, was very much in charge of arranging and preparing for this June 21st meeting, and the whole - arranging all the tactics for the struggle with Netscape - and that what he said in his deposition was, in fact, in contradiction to what he had said - to what he had said in his E-mail messages and memoranda. It was a fairly effective opening day, I must say. Mr. Gates doesn't like to be questioned that way, so he doesn't come off the way President Clinton did in his videotaped deposition.

PHIL PONCE: And by that you mean that he's maybe not quite as, what, smooth in front of a camera?

JOHN McCHESNEY: He's not as smooth in front of the camera, is somewhat uncomfortable. It's natural enough. He's the CEO of a very successful software company. He's not a politician.

PHIL PONCE: What is Microsoft saying about - when one looks at all this, one sees - don't you - that competition in this deal is just intense and Microsoft's argument is what, that the competition may have been ferocious but, what, it wasn't illegal?

JOHN McCHESNEY: No. It wasn't illegal. Not only that, they saw that the browser was a key to Internet, access to the Internet, and that they needed to get that built quickly into their operating system in order to compete. The government contends that Microsoft saw Netscape and Java, this new Internet software language, the combination of those two things as a threat to Windows, itself, and Gates in some memos has said that. In other words, if you see nothing but your browser when you're watching your computer all the time, that becomes the primary metaphor for computing, and people begin to write applications to the browser, rather than to Windows; Windows disappears. It becomes, as Gates said, a commodity product that really isn't that important. So they saw that they might be robbed of their franchise.

PHIL PONCE: John, last question. Does it feel - being in the courtroom - does it feel like a landmark case?

JOHN McCHESNEY: It does. It particularly does to me since I cover technology for National Public Radio, and this is the first antitrust case that deals with the digital technologies of software, and no one really knows how to do it. No one really knows how to deal with these new industries. They're not like steel and oil or the things we had in great antitrust cases about in the past.

PHIL PONCE: John McChesney, thank you very much.

JOHN McCHESNEY: Thank you.% ? FOCUS - AIRING THE ISSUE

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The Lewinsky affair as campaign fodder. Media Correspondent Terence Smith has that story.

TERENCE SMITH: It's been a weapon in the South Dakota Senate race.

AD: Tom and Bill: Bosom Buddies..

CLINTON PUPPETEER: Hey, Tom, do you think me and Monica have hurt the image of this office?

DASCHLE PUPPET: I don't think believe so at all.

AD SPOKESMAN: Tom Daschle: Is he working for us, or for him?

TERENCE SMITH: And ammunition in the Senate campaign in Florida.

AD SPOKESMAN: He looked us in the eyes and lied. His political ally, Bob Graham, calls his behavior disappointing. Charlie Crist calls it inexcusable.

GIRL IN AD: Are all politicians like Bill Clinton?

MAN IN AD: No, they're not.

TERENCE SMITH: In selected races across the country, Republicans have been using the White House sex scandal in campaign ads against incumbent Democrats.

AD SPOKESMAN: What Bill Clinton did was wrong.

TERENCE SMITH: And in some races, Democrats are fighting fire with fire.

AD SPOKESMAN: A simple blue dress -- a silver hatpin from you know who. Some politicians want to spend the next two years fighting over these matters.

TERENCE SMITH: So says an ad for Wendell Young, a Democrat running for the Pennsylvania state legislature.

AD SPOKESMAN: They wouldn't be Wendell Young.

TERENCE SMITH: And in the New York gubernatorial race, the Democrat feels he has a friend in the White House.

AD SPOKESMAN: I'm Peter Vallone. I think it's time someone stood up for President Clinton and stood up to all the Republicans who are trying to tear him down. I don't understand why they want to destroy a man who's done so much for New York.

TERENCE SMITH: One way or the other, Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and the White House sex scandal loom over congressional and state races this fall. But all but about a score of candidates have shied away from explicit mention of the Lewinsky affair in their campaign ads. Republican consultant Don Walter says the scandal, embarrassing as it may be for the White House, is the political equivalent of the third rail -- touch it, and you're dead.

AD SPOKESMAN: The use of the image of Clinton, the use of anything related to the scandal is too toxic to imagine right now.

TERENCE SMITH: That did not seem to be the Republican view more than a month ago, when Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth played the scandal card in her re-election drive in Idaho.

HELEN CHENOWETH: Bill Clinton's behavior has severely rocked this nation, and damaged the office of the President. I believe that personal conduct and integrity does matter. Where do you stand, Dan?

TERENCE SMITH: The spot was pulled abruptly on Sept. 10th after Chenoweth, a Christian conservative, was forced to admit that she had had a six-year relationship with a married man in the 1980's. Her more recent ads stress motherhood and the great outdoors, with no mention of the president.

AD SPOKESMAN: Who cares if the President lied? It's just about sex.

TERENCE SMITH: In September, as the Starr Report was coming out, Gary Bauers' conservative organization, American Renewal, took the President to task with an ad that showed children watching television.

MAN IN AD: Mr. President, it's time for you to put our country and our children first.

TERENCE SMITH: But that ad, too, has disappeared and now the Democrats, sensing a rebound, believe they have found an issue: the prospect of prolonged impeachment hearings. It's being mentioned in Maryland.

AD SPOKESMAN: I'm Ralph Neas, a Democrat running for Congress. My opponent Rep. Morella, voted for an open-ended impeachment inquiry. I favor censuring the President, but then getting on with the business of government.

TERENCE SMITH: Across the country, Washington Democrat Jay Inslee sounded a similar note...

SPOKESMAN: Rick White's vote on impeachment will drag us through months and months of more mud and politics.

JAY INSLEE: I'm Jay Inslee. What the President did was wrong. He should be censured, but not

TERENCE SMITH: The Inslee approach seems to be working. He has gained ground on White in the latest Democratic polls. Media Consultant Don Walter thinks the impeachment debate is a loser for Republicans.

DON WALTER: I think Republicans would be just dumb as a rock to push that issue anymore now.

TERENCE SMITH: The impeachment issue.

DON WALTER: The pendulum is swinging, and you just got to duck at the right time.

TERENCE SMITH: For one of his clients, Virginia Republican congressional candidate Demaris Miller, Walter just grazed the scandal issue.

DON WALTER: Everyday we hear about scandal -- not enough about solving problems.

TERENCE SMITH: Like most candidates across the country, Demaris Miller is accenting the positive.

TERENCE SMITH: Now for more on the impact of the Lewinsky affair on the campaign we are joined by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. She analyzes campaign advertising across the country; David Axelrod, a Democratic media consultant based in Chicago; and Greg Stevens, a Republican media consultant here in Washington.

TERENCE SMITH: Greg Stevens, let me ask you to explain to us, if you can, why Republicans are not making more of what would seem like such a natural issue, President Clinton's embarrassment.

GREG STEVENS, Republican Media Consultant: Well, I think the short answer is because it doesn't work. First of all, most of the candidates are involved in the Senate races and Clinton congressional races and trying to convince the voters that they are linked directly to President Clinton's behavior doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I do think, however, that the scandal has had a dramatic effect on the environment out in the world in which we operate and that that has helped Republicans significantly. We enjoy right now, it appears, 5, 6, 7 percent advantage in terms of what we call the generic ballot, meaning more people are leaning towards the Republicans than Democrats, and that's fairly uniform across the country. And that is, obviously, very good. I'll take that. That'll give us a very, very good Republican year, if that maintains, but the fact is that Don Walter in that case was right, that it's not something you want to inject in your campaign. I would advise and have advised candidates to talk more about ethics, talk more about values, talk more about morals. I mean, those are qualities that you should bring to the floor in this environment.

TERENCE SMITH: And some of those sound a bit like buzzwords.

GREG STEVENS: Oh, sure, they sound like buzzwords, but they fit quite well in a 30-second ad.

TERENCE SMITH: Right. David Axelrod, I'm curious why you think the Democrats are not pushing the impeachment issue since the polls showed the public is the enlarged measure against them?

DAVID AXELROD, Democratic Media Consultant: I think, first of all, if you look back at all the - at how this whole scandal has unfolded and the way that Washington has reacted to it, there's been a tremendous disconnect between what the people there thought would happen and what - how America reacted, and the polls have been very consistent. People don't want to talk about this. They think it's a waste of time. And I'm not sure they want to hear either side talk about it. One thing that struck me about your setup piece is that most of the people who are talking about it in commercials are people who are well behind - Peter Vallone and others - who really are sort of out of it. And it's kind of a fourth and long Hail Mary pass to bring this up. Most candidates, it's not a very good idea, because this is not what people want to hear about, and that has been a consistent message, and Washington was late to get it, but I think it's being made very clear today in these campaigns.

TERENCE SMITH: Kathleen Hall Jamieson, nationwide, what is the impact of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, as you can measure it?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON, Annenberg School for Communication: Well, your opening piece focuses on the direct discussion, but I think the more interesting impact is indirect. First, the Republican National Congressional Committee is on the air with an ad that stresses the accomplishment of the Republican Congress. That is in part an attempt to deflect criticism that Congress has been so preoccupied with this impeachment inquiry that it hasn't gotten the nation's business done. At the same time, as you look across the country, you see a surprising increase in the number of wives who are appearing in campaign ads testifying about what a good person their husband is and also how important his agenda is and what he's going to accomplish in Washington, or have accomplished. I suspect the presence of those wives is one of the indirect results of the Clinton-Lewinsky controversy.

TERENCE SMITH: And really not all that subtle.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And not all that subtle. It is a subtle reminder only if you don't recognize that it's highly unusual to have this number of wives testifying about husbands in a congressional or a senatorial election.

TERENCE SMITH: Greg Stevens, what effect has this scandal and the attention paid to it had on fund-raising, and particularly on the Republican side?

GREG STEVENS: Well, there's no question that for a period of six, seven weeks after the revelations and after the President's testimony, the tape was - was played in public. I think it depressed Democrat fund-raising, and I think it helped Republican fund-raising. I think it helped position our candidates and put our candidates in a better position going into the final four weeks, which we're in right now. There's no question there's been a closing. I think I agree with some of the other comments that people are tired of it. They don't want to hear too much about it, but at the same time our voters are energized, the Democratic voters are becoming more energized, but I don't think they're going to catch us, frankly. I think we're still going to have quite a few pick-ups in the Senate, meaning three or four, which would be significant, on top of 55. I still think we're going to see ten or fifteen - at least ten or fifteen seats in the House, and Republican governors are going to win virtually everywhere, so my point is that it's going to be a good Republican year, and I think that is one of the impacts. Democrats can say whatever they want, but that is going to be a good year for us.

TERENCE SMITH: David Axelrod, I wonder, (a) if you agree with that, and (b) whether all of this has thrown some of your candidates, your Democratic candidates on the defensive.

DAVID AXELROD: No. I don't think my candidates have been on the defensive. I do think there was a period after August 17th when for the first few weeks after this story broke, where there was a pall hanging over Democratic campaigns. I think that's over now. I think the Democratic electorate is somewhat more energized. I think the Republican Congress did a lot to help in that regard, and as for fund-raising, I mean, Republicans, it's not news to say Republicans are going to have more money than Democrats. I mean, that's almost axiomatic, and in terms of a ten to fifteen seat gain in the House, I don't know if we'll achieve that or a three-seat gain in the Senate. This is a mid-term election with a Democratic president. That would be a rather modest result for a mid-term election. So all the gaudy predictions from August that we were headed for a Democratic catastrophe are now being skimmed back, and you hear Greg Stevens and others making much more modest predictions.

TERENCE SMITH: Kathleen Hall Jamieson, when you look at this, and broaden it out to the country at large and all the campaigns, is this a particularly negative year in terms of campaign advertising?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, first I don't like to use the word "negative" because it conflates legitimate and illegitimate attack and confuses people by assuming that ads that advocate a candidate are somehow more honest when, in fact, they are more likely to be misleading than are attack ads. Is the level of attack up this year, no, the level of attack is down this year, and I think that is a byproduct of the attention in Washington to the Lewinsky-Clinton scandal. Early in the campaign year, that is, September and the beginning of October, many people in the state races held back on attack, indeed, held back to some extent on advertising, and as a result, the level of advocacy was higher than one would expect. At this point, advocacy is still the dominant form - an ad that's making a case for a candidate, not against the other candidate. And the contrast ad, which makes the case both against the opponent but also gives reasons to vote for the candidate is now averaging in states one ad out of three, which means that this is not in the standard definition a more negative year, that is more attack, but more importantly, it is a year in which there has been a higher level of advocacy and contrast, and I think that increased use of contrast is very healthy. Giving people a reason to vote for a candidate is a good thing to do with advertising, and it's also important to hold that candidate accountable by having enough about the candidate in the ads so that if you don't like the attack, you know who to blame.

TERENCE SMITH: Greg Stevens, do you think this is going to change in these last 12 days as we get very close to election day? Should we expect more attack ads, or more advocacy ads?

GREG STEVENS: Well, first of all, I think we'll see an end to negative attack ads about the same time we see an end to the Lewinsky-Clinton jokes. I mean, the odds of that happening are about the same.

TERENCE SMITH: Maybe not in our lifetime.

GREG STEVENS: I think Kathleen is right about something. The campaigns have been more compressed in their timeframe,and that's because the same amount of dollars that paid for a campaign four years ago or six years ago can only be spread over - can be spread over a fewer number of weeks, so they have been compressed, and that has had the effect of causing campaigns to start later and to begin with talking about themselves. We almost always advise a campaign to start talking about yourself first, tell the voters, particularly if you're unknown, about yourself before you can draw the contrast. But I don't really sense a - a diminishment of so-called attack or negative ads. I think they are being presented in a better way, and I think that's important. The tone of a spot - whether it contains some humor which is always very helpful in presenting an ad - oftentimes a candidate can deliver a negative message against his or her opponent, and it isn't perceived as a negative ad. So I think that how you define negative, and I agree with Kathleen, I think it's an honest ad versus a dishonest ad.

TERENCE SMITH: Right. David Axelrod, what other issues are out there, in your view, that voters do want to hear about?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, let me first say that I think there's another reason why you're seeing fewer so-called negative ads, and I agree with Professor Jamieson that I'm not sure that's the appropriate way to refer to them, and I think it has to do with the nature of people's mood about the country. Almost everywhere you look these days, there's more optimism than there was say in 1994, which was a particularly brutal election season, and I think that the mood of the public is such that there is less receptivity to the negative argument, and that's another reason why there are few of them. What are people interested in? I think they are very much interested in issues that affect their lives. I think things like HMO's - and, you know, Social Security and Medicare issues are still very important - education - a very big issue. I mean, I'm sitting here in Illinois. Greg Stevens is doing a magnificent job for his candidate, Peter Fitzgerald, who's a way right of center Republican and if you look at his ads, and they're about education, the environment, they're about quality of life issues, Social Security, and you'd think that he was a moderate Democrat, so if flattery is the sincerest - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then we Democrats should feel good about that.

TERENCE SMITH: Then it's going out there. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, in the few seconds we have left, your organization is running an ad of its own now showing a couple of old boxers slugging away and fighting dirty, and suggesting that's not the sort of campaign that we should be seeing. What are you trying to accomplish there? Who's your audience?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Our audience is the campaign consulting community and the candidates, as well as reporters, and we're trying to remind everyone that we ought to expect accuracy and fair play in campaigns, including campaign advertising. But we're also trying to make a point to reporters, and that is what we disapprove of is mudslinging. It's dirty campaigning. There's nothing wrong with the tack as long as it's fair and accurate, as long as it's informative, as long as it's not inappropriately personal, and we have a survey of the electorate that says the electorate knows that, it makes that distinction.

TERENCE SMITH: Thank you all very much.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Longhorn Beetle invasion and civil war in the Congo.% ? FOCUS - BEETLE MENACE

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, the invasion of the beetles, but not the musical kind. Elizabeth Brackett reports from Chicago.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The two men scan the trees intensely in this quiet Chicago neighborhood.

MAN: And there are dead branching in this one too, so it's more than likely is infested with the beetles also.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: What Illinois Department of Agriculture inspector and the city forester found was not good news for this tree-lined street, a devastating, tree-killing pest. The Asian Longhorn beetle had made its way to Chicago from native China, probably traveling in, in wooden packing crates. Reports from the field in Chicago caused great concern at the United States Department of Agriculture in Washington. USDA Assistant Secretary Michael Dunn:

MICHAEL DUNN, Assistant Secretary, USDA: We see this as a tremendous problem. What we look at, what's at risk here, and we look at $138 billion worth of forestry products, fruits, maple syrup, that may be at risk. The fact of the matter is some of the aphids scientists tell me that this is probably a greater threat, if it goes unchecked, if you can't stop it, than Dutch Elm disease and Chestnut Blight combined.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The two and a half to three inch long black beetle, with distinctive white spots, was first found in the New York area three years ago. In Chicago, the beetle was first spotted in July, when a homeowner cut off tree limbs that were hanging over his neighbor's new backyard pool. He chopped the limbs up and offered some to suburban park district worker Barry Albach.

BARRY ALBACH, Resident: Well, he asked me if I wanted some firewood. I said, yes, sure, I'll take some firewood, stuck it in the back of my pickup truck, which it sat there for about three or four days, maybe a week, and a day later, this bug appeared on my rear view mirror on the outside of the truck. It was a weird-looking bug, so I decided just out of curiosity, went to the Internet, punched it up, punched up beetles, and the first thing came up on the site was Asian Longhorn beetle, and it had a pest alert on there. I thought, oh, we have something kind of big here. So that's basically how it started.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: You traced the firewood back to this tree.

STAN SMITH: Back to this tree, yes.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Illinois Department of Agriculture Stan Smith says once you know what to look for, it's easy to identify infested trees.

STAN SMITH: As you look up the sides of it, you can see all the spots where the females have been laying eggs. This tree probably wouldn't last another year or so.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Because the Asian Longhorn burrows so deeply inside the heartwood of a tree, there is only one way to eliminate the pest - destroy the tree. Entomologist Frederic Miller.

FREDERIC MILLER, Entomologist: Once you get a wood-boring insect inside of a tree, it's very difficult to know exactly what part of the tree that insect is in until it comes out. And then not knowing how many insects are in there, so the only realistic or practical way is to destroy the whole tree and get rid of that host.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: That was devastating news to neighborhood residents.

ADAM ROBERTS, Resident: It's going to be disastrous, I think. It's a beautiful, shaded street neighborhood, and losing the shade, I think, will be horrible.

JIM CRENZ, Resident: It's terrible. It's devastating. We're just, you know, really upset. I just hope that they've looked into everything and figured out every possibility so they don't have to just cut 'em all down.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The area's alderman says residentsare worried about their property values and the emotional impact of losing a tree.

EUGENE SCHULTER, Chicago Alderman: In many instances people - grandparents or great grandparents have planted these very trees. So when they - you know - they talk about the memories of seeing the tree growing up with the kids growing up, it brings back not only memories of the tree but memories of the growth of one's family as well.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The news that trees will have to be chopped down, chipped up, then burned to keep the beetle from spreading was also a blow to Chicago's mayor. Richard M. Daley admits to a love of - some say an obsession with - trees.

MAYOR RICHARD M. DALEY, Chicago: You can talk about a tree person. Right here, I'm a tree hugger. I mean, I - I mean, I see 'em cutting down a tree, you know, I'm a - you know, I'm a little upset, but like anything else, you have to - if you don't do things like this, then you're going to basically destroy more of nature, not just - you know - an eight or twelve-block area. You'll destroy not just the city, this state and this nation.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: They won't begin cutting the trees down until December, when the beetles die. Only the larvae will remain. But when they do begin cutting, all these maples behind me on this block will be gone. The city projects that more than 800 trees will have to be destroyed in a 12-square mile area. City forester Joe McCarthy says the one bit of good news for residents is that the city will pay for the removal and replanting of new trees on both public and private property.

JOE McCARTHY, City Forester: We're taking a position that this is a natural disaster. You know, it's not something that these individuals have caused upon themselves or anything. It's done by a natural predator that's been brought from a foreign country.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: One eradication step has been taken. Wooden pallets containing goods shipped from China to this hardware supply house in the middle of the infested area in Chicago were burned. Joe Schafer is with the USDA in Illinois.

JOE SCHAFER, USDA, Illinois Representative: It's called a precautionary burn. We're doing the house cleaning of the business. We're removing all possible wood that came from China. We'll start over, and we'll monitor the material coming into the building from henceforth.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: At Chicago's beetle command center, the USDA's state director says it's easy to see the signs of beetle infestation in the palleting they have collected in the area.

KEN KRUSE, USDA, Illinois Director: You can look at these here. Some of the holes you can see - these holes through here are all caused by the larvae tunneling through this wood, and it shows also on the other side.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: It's a pretty big hole. You mean, worm holes?

KEN KRUSE: Yes.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The expanding beetle problem brought the secretary of agriculture, Dan Glickman, to Chicago. The secretary, along with Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, and the mayor got a firsthand look at the damage caused by the beetle.

SPOKESMAN: And you see where one has broken off because of the damage. And that wasn't - six weeks ago that wasn't true.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Convinced that the beetles are coming into the country in wooden packing crates from China, the secretary announced emergency regulations due to go into effect in December.

DAN GLICKMAN, Secretary of Agriculture: This administration is taking emergency action to ban entry into the United States of all untreated, solid wood packing material from China. What we are doing,in effect, is shutting down these beetles' mode of transportation into this country.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: But there is concern that the new regulations will impact the Clinton administration's vigorous effort to promote trade with China. USDA officials estimate that 30 to 50 billion dollars of trade could be at risk, though the assistant secretary says there are also strong financial reasons for the Chinese to comply with the new regulations.

MICHAEL DUNN: Goods that are shipped over here that have not been treated are subject to a fine of three times the value of that good that comes over here. So there is a very, very strong financial incentive to do the right thing, both by our importers and by Chinese exporters.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: As Chicagoans battle to contain the beetle, the USDA asks that citizens across the country check their trees for the beetle that has the potential to change the landscape from one end of the country to the other.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Chinese scientists visiting Chicago this weekend said there was no proof the beetles had come from China and asked the US to put restrictions on lumber from other Asian countries as well. But the Department of Agriculture disagreed and said it would proceed as planned.% ? FOCUS - VIEWS ON THE CONGO

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, an update on the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the former Zaire. Charles Krause has the story.

CHARLES KRAUSE: It was just 18 months ago that Laurent Kabila and his rebel army swept to victory, defeating the forces of the Congo's corrupt and brutal dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko. In Kinshasa, Congo's capital, the rebel soldiers were greeted with jubilation. After 32 years in power, Mobutu was finally forced into exile, and for the first time in memory, there was real hope for a new beginning. But today, Africa's third largest country is once again torn by political violence. And this time, what was essentially a civil war threatens to become a far-more-dangerous regional conflict -- drawing in countries on all sides. Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia have formally announced their support for Kabila, and are believed to have sent troops and arms to support his beleaguered government. On the other side, Rwanda -- and reportedly Uganda and Burundi -- are backing a new rebel army, which calls itself the Congolese Movement for Democracy. In August, the rebels -- many of them once loyal to Kabila -- seized control of several Congolese towns near the Rwandan border, and their leaders vowed that Kabila would soon be gone.

SPOKESMAN: We are determined to fight, we are determined to win, and control the city of Kinshasa.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Within just a few weeks, by the end of August, the rebels had reached their goal. Kinshasa, a city of more than 5 million people, became a virtual ghost town when it appeared that the capital and the government were about to fall. But then on August 25th, Kabila made a dramatic re-entry. And once in Kinshasa, he rallied his troops, many of them reportedly sent by his allies in neighboring countries. Kabila's troops took no prisoners. The fighting was brutal, and eventually the rebels were forced to withdraw from Kinshasa, at least temporarily. In July, he accused the Tutsis and the Rwandans of interfering in the Congo and ordered them out of the country. For their part, the Rwandans accused Kabila of forming an alliance with the Hutus, their hated rivals who've been accused of slaughtering 800,000 Tutsis in 1994. The Hutus were eventually defeated, and many of them still live in U.N. refugee camps inside the Congo near the Rwandan border. Earlier this year, President Clinton was in Africa -- where during a brief stop to Rwanda, he apologized for not doing more to stop the slaughter four years ago.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe havens for the killers. (applause) We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name - genocide.

CHARLES KRAUSE: During the trip, the President also met with Kabila and a number of other African leaders, expressing his conviction that Africa is finally on the road to peace and democracy. But despite mediation efforts by South African President Nelson Mandela and others, the situation in the Congo has continued to deteriorate. And now, fearing a power vacuum, its neighbors have been drawn into a conflict that appears increasingly dangerous.

CHARLES KRAUSE: For more, we're now joined by Philip Gourevitch, a staff writer for the "New Yorker," who's written frequently about the situation in the Congo. He's also the author of a new book titled "We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families, Stories From Rwanda." Also joining us is Eyamba Bokamba, a Professor of Linguistics at the University of Illinois. He's Congolese by birth and is close to the Kabila government. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Professor Bokamba, from your perspective, what is the root cause of this rebellion that began last August?

EYAMBA BOKAMBA, University of Illinois: The root cause is the disgruntlement of the generals who were lent to President Kabila by Rwanda and Uganda. Their dismissal in July and in August led to the mutiny, which involved eventually other Congolese.

CHARLES KRAUSE: And why did President Kabila feel that he had to dismiss them? What was the problem?

EYAMBA BOKAMBA: The problem basically was that these generals were seen along with the military officers and others that Kabila brought with them in May of '97 as an occupational army which replaced, as it were, the Congolese Army that worked under Mobutu, and he felt the pressure from the masses, particularly from politicians in Kinshasa, that they did not want to have small Rwanda, as well as Uganda compared to Giant Congo being governed by - you know - dictates or directives from Rwanda through the officers in his government.

CHARLES KRAUSE: So then what you're saying is that President Kabila decided because there was pressure from his own people he dismissed these foreigners, these foreign generals who then went off and organized a rebellion, is that - is that essentially it?

EYAMBA BOKAMBA: That's right.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Philip Gourevitch, from what your understanding of the situation is, is that it? Is it a question of Rwandan generals from outside, starting a rebellion against the president of Congo?

PHILIP GOUREVITCH, The New Yorker: Well, there's certainly no question that Kabila, who was not really so much brought the Rwandans with him when he came to power but was brought to power by Rwanda and a Pan-African alliance of nearly 10 countries -- he really had no army of his own, except as he was going, he was recruiting Congolese. He came to power backed by all of these foreign African governments. And he was installed in power by their grace. He then was under tremendous political pressure internally. There's a long tradition. Throughout the time, he was seen as a foreign invader, and anti-Rwandan rhetoric was used against him. He realized that in a country that's been weakened, that had no national army, and he himself a weak leader, anti-Rwandan sentiment was a way of creating nationalist Congolese sentiment. It's more than the Rwandans who were lent to him who led this rebellion. He has a mutiny on his hands of three quarters of his army or more throughout the Eastern reaches of his country. And he's now twisted the issue so that he has turned it into a question of yes, he's allied himself with the former Rwandan Hutu genocideres, the army and militias of the Rwandan genocide, and has embraced the rhetoric of that genocide and has also now stripped of his won army brought in other foreign armies, Namibia, Anglo, in particular Zimbabwe, Chad, as well as Sudanese and various guerrilla movements from around the country to try and shore him up since he himself is quite defenseless.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Well - and what has been the -- you wrote a piece in the New Yorker recently talking about the anti-Tutsi campaign -- many of these people apparently born in the Congo, itself. Tell us about that.

PHILIP GOUREVITCH: Well, I think, as the professor said, the reason that Kabila turned against his Rwandan sponsors and his Rwandan allies, former Rwandan allies, was simply because he's a man who has been tremendously unpopular and was seen as a pawn of these people. Now to prove his Congolese credentials, as it were, and to drum up a kind of Congolese national sentiment, he has employed the rhetoric of anti-Tutsi and anti-Rwandans. And when a Congolese says Rwandan, they almost invariably in political rhetoric mean Tutsis, even though half a million or more Tutsis are Congolese citizens. He's stripping them of their citizenship; he's dismissed them from office. He's expelled them. And he's essentially trying to use the rhetoric of a popular war, calling on people to - the state radio is calling on people to arm themselves with the same sorts of crude implements we saw in Rwanda, sticks and machetes and clubs, and to eliminate the enemy, to give the enemy no quarter, and to massacre the enemy without mercy, and whatever the causes of this war may be, whatever the claims may be, the merits on either side, I think that the most alarming factor that we've seen is that Kabila weakened resorts to the rhetoric of genocide, which would seem to be no child's play in that region.

CHARLES KRAUSE: And is it just rhetoric, or, in fact, is this happening?

PHILIP GOUREVITCH: Well we saw - in your lead-in footage we saw a man being thrown off a bridge in that famous clip, which was from a period when there were round-ups of Tutsis in the streets of Kinshasa, people who were either Tutsi or believed to be Tutsi simply on the basis of their physical appearances. There has been mass street violence against people. There are people detained illegally. Zimbabwean troops brought in to defend Kabila, fighting on Kabila's behalf, recently reported that they had to stop his own Congolese recruits, these kids he's been recruiting, from massacring Tutsi prisoners. So even his allies at times have been forced, although shockingly there's been very little outcry from Africans either, including Mandela and others, who are regionally allied with him, against the fact that there's an element of genocide very much front and center in this war.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Prof. Bokamba, is it true that he has got Hutus and others out there trying to kill Tutsis?

EYAMBA BOKAMBA: I do not have any independent confirmation of that. It is entirely possible that under the circumstances where he found himself beleaguered, as Mr. Gourevitch has stated, that he's drawing on whatever help he can get to be able to fight back this rebellion, which is directed from Kigali.

CHARLES KRAUSE: So, in a sense, you are saying that the ends justify the means and that Mr. Kabila - whatever his methods -- is trying to remain in power?

EYAMBA BOKAMBA: In part, but I don't agree with the statement the end justifies the means. This is someone who's in a foxhole, has been dumped into a hole and someone is throwing him some ropes, or he finds help and he is not going to ask, are you a Hutu, or are you whoever? And I think this is part of his problem and they can be rectified in a different way. I don't believe that the Congolese people, especially the intellectuals, accept the idea of pushing Congolese to kill other Congolese. What is clear is that we have never had an ethnic, you know, strife in the Congo of the sort that is emerging now.

CHARLES KRAUSE: All right. Philip Gourevitch, do you think that a kind of regional war that you have written about and others, can that be avoided?

PHILIP GOUREVITCH: Well, it's very hard to avoid it. If the regional powers are not interested in making peace but are interested in fighting. And you will find them. I mean, I saw a collection of U.N. ambassadors going at each other quite publicly the other day at a speech given by an American diplomat. They took the occasion immediately to pounce on one another. There's a lot of tension right now. And the alliance - the terrifying thing is the alliance that unified in the struggle to push the genocideres away from the Rwandan border and remove Mobutu from power, who is despised on the continent, has now splintered and has turned against itself. So that what looked like a period of Africa attempting to bring peaceful resolution to its most terrifying conflict actually seems to be a moment when it's really taking all kinds of new shapes, and it's changing very fast. And it's very dangerous.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Professor, I wonder if you would respond. Do you agree that this is a very dangerous situation? Is there any way to avert it?

EYAMBA BOKAMBA: Absolutely. This is very dangerous, because what is being injected into this conflict is an ethnic rivalry that has characterized much of the history of Rwanda and Burundi that is coming into the Congo, where such conflict has never existed, and because of the economic interests that surrounding countries, as well as countries outside of Africa have, they are going to be supporting one side or the other. And this must be avoided, and the only way it can be avoided is to have countries like the United States, with all the power that it has both at the U.N. and around the world, to get the combatants to sit down and find a political solution.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Thank you. Thank you both very much.

EYAMBA BOKAMBA: Thank you.

PHILIP GOUREVITCH: Thank you.% ? RECAP

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, President Clinton rejoined the Middle East peace talks. A State Department spokesman said progress was made on some issues but key decisions remained. The death toll in the Texas floods rose to 27, and 7 diesel engine makers agreed to pay a $1 billion civil penalty for violating federal anti-pollution laws. We'll be with you online and again here tomorrow evening with Shields & Gigot, among others. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.