The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight an update from London on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales; plus reaction from our regional commentators; Tom Bearden reports on the day's Senate campaign finance hearings; Mark Shields & Paul Gigot analyze the hearings and related matters; and we have some words of appreciation for Mother Teresa, who died today. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Mother Teresa died today at her convent in Calcutta, India. The Roman Catholic nun won the Nobel Prize for her work with lepers, AIDS victims, castaway children, and others in need. She did so through the Sisters of Charity, the order of nuns she founded in 1950. Mother Teresa was born in Macedonia, became a nun in 1937. She died of a heart attack. She was 87 years old. She will be buried next Wednesday in Calcutta. We'll have more on the life of Mother Teresa at the end of the program tonight. The Queen of England paid tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales, today. She said in a three-minute televised address that Diana was an exceptional and gifted human being, who inspired others with her warmth and kindness. Diana was divorced from the Queen's son and heir apparent, Prince Charles, one year ago. The Queen said the royal family had been comforted by the public's outpouring of support.

QUEEN OF ENGLAND: No one who knew Diana will ever forget her. Millions of others, who never met her but felt they knew her, will remember her. I, for one, believe there are lessons to be drawn from her life and from the extraordinary and moving reaction to her death. I share in your determination to cherish her memory.

JIM LEHRER: Earlier in the day, Prince Charles and his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, shook hands and greeted crowds in front of Diana's residence at Kensington Palace. The boys accepted flowers in tribute to their mother and placed them on the already-huge carpet of bouquets. The Queen and Prince--and Prince Philip did the same at Buckingham Palace. Late today, Diana's coffin was transported from a chapel at St. James Palace to Kensington Palace. There it will rest until the start of tomorrow's funeral process to Westminster Abbey. Diana will be buried privately after the services on an island on the grounds of her family's home. We'll have more on this story after the News Summary. In Washington today Vice President Gore's former deputy chief of staff testified today before the Senate campaign finance hearing. David Strauss insisted the 1996 Democratic luncheon held at a Buddhist temple was not a fund-raiser. He said it was a community outreach event, and that's how he described it to Gore. Yesterday, three Buddhist nuns who attended the lunch said they made donations to the Democratic Party and were then reimbursed by their temple the next day. Federal law prohibits making such contributions in someone else's name. Gore said today in New Hampshire he was confident the committee would find what he did as legal and appropriate. We'll have more on the story later in the program. Also in Washington today the Labor Department reported the unemployment rate went up .1 percent in August to 4.9 percent. The increase was attributed in part to the two-week Teamsters strike against the United Parcel Service. Overseas today Israeli troops raided Muslim guerrilla camps in South Lebanon. It was a reprisal for yesterday's triple suicide bombing in West Jerusalem that killed four Israelis and injured nearly 200. Kent Barker of Independent Television News has more.

KENT BARKER: Even the Israeli prime minister conceded that this was the worst military tragedy he's experienced. Lebanese and Hezbollah forces intercepted an Israeli commando raid North of the city of Tyre. The ensuing battle left eleven Marines dead and killed at least two Lebanese civilians, including a 35-year-old woman and a young girl. Israeli forces mounted a sustained search and rescue mission. Helicopters brought up four wounded soldiers, but one remains missing, presumed dead. Such raids into Southern Lebanon beyond the so- called security zone are common; meeting this type of sustained resistance is not. In the aftermath of the Jerusalem bombing Israeli forces sealed off the West Bank and Gaza Strip and arrested nearly 70 alleged militants. The government declared it was freezing the further handover of West Bank land scheduled in the Hebron peace agreement.

JIM LEHRER: Secretary of State Albright will visit the Middle East next week and meet with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The 2004 summer Olympics will be in Athens, Greece. That selection was announced in Switzerland today by the International Olympic Committee. The games originated in ancient Greece and were last held in Athens 101 years ago, when the modern Olympics began. Four other cities were also under consideration: Rome, Stockholm, Buenos Aires, and Cape Town, South Africa. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to reflections on Diana's reactions, the Senate's campaign money hearings, Shields & Gigot, and the death of Mother Teresa. FOCUS - THE PEOPLE'S PRINCESS

JIM LEHRER: Diana, the Princess of Wales, will be eulogized and buried tomorrow in Britain. The reaction to her death in the United States, as well as Britain and elsewhere, continues to grow and astound. We will explore that with our regional commentators right after this update report from London. The reporter is Lindsay Taylor of Independent Television News.

LINDSAY TAYLOR, ITN: The tone for the Queen's address was set this morning as the royal family left Balmoral, Prince Charles at the wheel, Prince William and Harry sitting with their cousin, Peter Phillips, in the rear. Later, the Queen, accompanied by Princess Margaret, left the castle with Prince Philip at the wheel for the drive to Aberdeen Airport. At the airport the Prince of Wales and his two sons boarded their flight. The Queen gave special permission for them to travel together. Normally, they would be required to fly separately. After arriving at RAF Northolt, Prince Charles took Princes William and Harry straight to Kensington Palace, their mother's home. They saw for themselves the ocean of flowers in her memory. Spontaneous applause helped remove any sense of awkwardness. And there was a warm response to the people's desire to share in the grief and mourning.

WOMAN IN CROWD: Charles!

PRINCE CHARLES: Thank you so much.

WOMAN IN CROWD: William.

PRINCE WILLIAM: Thank you so much.

WOMAN SHOUTING: We love you!

LINDSAY TAYLOR: There was a hug for one well-wisher. Otherwise, it was hard to believe Princes Harry and William are just 12 and 15. By this time the Queen's convoy had arrived in London. As it swept up to Buckingham Palace, the limousine halted at the gates, and the Queen and Prince Philip got out to take in the mass of floral tributes. The crowd reacted warmly, applause where yesterday there had been criticism. The Queen and Prince Philip accepted bouquets and chatted to people in the crowd. They were said to be visibly moved by the tributes to Diana that engulfed them. Above the palace the royal standard was raised. Tomorrow, the union flag will fly at half mast for the funeral. Afterwards, the Queen went to St. James's Palace, where Diana's body has lain before the altar. Inside, she toured the areas where the books of condolence have been signed by so many people who've queued for so long. Then, another walk about into the crowd. Again, the tone was informal, despite the solemnity of the occasion.

MAN: She's our mother, if you like, and we were mourning without her. And now she's mourning with us.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: Outside Buckingham Palace crowds gathered as the Queen made her historic broadcast.

QUEEN OF ENGLAND: Since last Sunday's dreadful news, we have seen throughout Britain and around the world an overwhelming expression of sadness at Diana's death. We have all been trying in our different ways to cope. It is not easy to express a sense of loss since the initial shock is often succeeded by a mixture of other feelings--disbelief, incomprehension, anger, and concern for those who remain. We have all felt those emotions in these last few days. So what I say to you now, as your Queen and as a grandmother, I say from my heart. First, I want to pay tribute to Diana, myself. She was an exceptional and gifted human being. In good times and bad, she never lost her capacity to smile and laugh, nor to inspire others with her warmth and kindness. I admired and respected her for her energy and commitment to others, and especially for her devotion to her two boys. This week at Balmoral we have all been trying to help William and Harry come to terms with the devastating loss that they and the rest of us have suffered. No one who knew Diana will ever forget her. Millions of others, who never met her but felt they knew her, will remember her. I, for one, believe there are lessons to be drawn from her life and from the extraordinary and moving reaction to her death. I share in your determination to cherish her memory. This is also an opportunity for me on behalf of my family and especially Prince Charles and William and Harry to thank all of you who have brought flowers, sent messages, and paid your respects in so many ways to a remarkable person. These acts of kindness have been a huge source of help and comfort. Our thoughts are also with Diana's family and the families of those who died with her. I know that they too have drawn strength from what has happened since last weekend as they seek to heal their sorrow and then to face the future without a loved one. I hope that tomorrow we can all, wherever we are, join in expressing our grief at Diana's loss and gratitude for her all too short life. It is a chance to show to the whole world the British nation united in grief and respect. May those who died rest in peace, and may we, each and every one of us, thank God for someone who made many, many people happy.

JIM LEHRER: Now, our regional commentators and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: And with me are our NewsHour regulars: Mike Barnicle of the "Boston Globe," Lee Cullum of the "Dallas Morning News," Robert Kittle of the "San Diego Union Tribune," Patrick McGuigan of the "Daily Oklahoman," and Cynthia Tucker of the "Atlanta Constitution." Cynthia, what do make of this outpouring of reaction not only in Britain but in this country, can you identify with that at all? CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: No. I can identify with the level the reaction has taken on. It strikes me at this point as a frenzy, a kind of hysteria. And I'm not sure how closely that is related to Diana's death. I think this has become a huge international event that people want to be a part of, no matter how they felt about Diana. I think there's another level, however, with which many women perhaps identify. I think many women, despite the fact that Princess Diana lived a life that we could only imagine, identified with her trials and tribulations. And so I think in a quieter way many women were more deeply affected by her death, myself included, than we would have expected to be.

MARGARET WARNER: And what do you mean, yourself included?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, you know, I'm not a stargazer. I'm not a particular follower of royalty. I don't care about the monarchy. And while I certainly read People Magazine every now and then, I wasn't particularly interested in Princess Diana. But when I heard the news of her tragic and sudden death, I found myself lying awake, thinking about her, thinking about a woman who seemed to have come to a point in her life where she was finally coming into her own, perhaps going to achieve some personal happiness at long last, coming to a sudden end, and it did strike me as very sad.

MARGARET WARNER: Lee Cullum, do you--do you share that? Do you think that her life said something special to women?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: Oh, absolutely, Margaret. I certainly do. It said something to all of us who are women. You know, in her life we found our own lives and in her failures our own failures. And in her survival we found our own hope for survival. So, suddenly, when she didn't survive in this life, I think it was deeply disquieting. And people are trying to regain their emotional footing now. And that's why they're so obsessed with this loss and with this drama. And remember what Aristotle said about drama. Its purpose is the purging of pity and fear. And that's what's going on now.

MARGARET WARNER: Mike Barnicle, what was your reaction and what's your reaction to the reaction?

MIKE BARNICLE, Boston Globe: Well, my reaction, I think, was, you know, quite similar to Cynthia's. I found myself struck by how long I dwelled upon the passing of a woman who I certainly didn't know. But I think there are some interesting aspects to her death and this entire past week is sort of a cultural phenomenon. I absolutely agree that women are more touched by this than men, and I think maybe because she became in part of her life one of the world's most prominent and public victims of spousal abuse. She was married to a terribly inward human being, who was cheating on her. She had obviously made a bad choice in an arranged marriage. She was living in the same house with a quite cold, austere mother-in-law, who certainly gave her no comfort. She was trying to raise two children under difficult circumstances, although many of us can't relate to the wealth involved. But I think a lot of women related to her position in this marriage. And I think that many of us became hooked into this past week's events because in this transient society of ours Princess Diana arrived via the mailman or the television or People Magazine or the daily newspapers. And we felt--many of us--I think that we probably knew her in some ways better than we know our next-door neighbors, who we never see, never speak to, but we felt that we knew a piece of Princess Diana.

MARGARET WARNER: Bob Kittle--

MIKE BARNICLE: It's bizarre, but I think that's maybe part of what's going on.

MARGARET WARNER: Bob Kittle, do you share that--did you see a similar difference between the men you know and the women you know?

ROBERT KITTLE, San Diego Union Tribune: Well, I think it's probably true that women identify more with the travails of Diana's life perhaps than men did. But I think the key is that whether you're a man or a woman we have experienced the ups and downs of Diana's life for the last 16 years. She was, after all, a captive in a cage created by the news media. And in this era of very intrusive mass communications we all experienced the intimate details of her life. So it was hard not to feel that we knew her in some way, even though, of course, we had never met her and even though her life was very different on a sort of global scale than the lives that most of us lead. We could identify with the human side of Diana. And that's why she stood out, I think, among the members of the Royal Family. She showed her feelings. She showed her human side in a family that even today I think we've seen the rest of the Royal Family, the rest of the Windsors have a great deal of difficulty articulating their feelings in public.

MARGARET WARNER: Pat McGuigan, your reaction and your reaction to the reaction.

PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: Well, I think there's a lot of obsession in the media, in particular. People out here--the reactions I've heard have been very interesting, and one of the harshest reactions about Diana's life that I've heard actually came from a woman, and in the same conversation her husband was sticking up for Diana and defending her behavior in difficult circumstances. I think that Americans have always been-- because of our historic special relationship with Great Britain--have always been fascinated by the Royal Family. But times have changed and I don't mean in the institutional or constitutional sense. I mean times have changed in that the media and the television medium requires warm personalities. Otherwise, you come across as cold. And the stiffer upper lip sort of approach of the traditional approach of the British royalty is not as functional in this day and age, maybe as it was in another. And Diana went against that personality type. She was warm and loving and engaging and was easier for people in the television age to relate to. I think that's part of it.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think, though, staying with you for a minute, Pat, as Cynthia said, that there's something a little untoward about this reaction, or that it's somehow undeserved?

PATRICK McGUIGAN: I don't know about--I don't know about that. I wouldn't be too critical of Diana Spencer.

MARGARET WARNER: I didn't mean her. Excuse me. I didn't mean--

PATRICK McGUIGAN: I think it's important to consider her--to consider her in her cultural context, not only her background but then the one she had to live in, and don't be too critical of us because, you know, at a time that only 20/25 percent of the American people are even reading newspapers it's quite understandable that the television medium will tend to drive what people care about. And that's the case here. Television is obsessed with this, and, therefore, to some extent Americans are.

MARGARET WARNER: Bob Kittle, do you agree that a lot of this is media-driven and that it's a sort of celebrity--sort of attraction to celebrity?

ROBERT KITTLE: There's no doubt about that. A lot of it is media-driven. But, yet, let's also realize that this is a very compelling story--the life of Lady Diana. You know, it was a situation that was filled with pathos, with stardom, with conflict, all of the elements that intrigue us. So her life was a very interesting life. I think it's natural that the news media gave it saturated coverage. And I, in fact, find it hard to think of another person in public life, whether a starlet or a head of state, who for the last 16 years has been the subject of such intensive scrutiny by the news media. So, of course, it's a creation of the media to some extent, but, yet, her life itself was also a fascinating story.

MARGARET WARNER: Cynthia Tucker, let's go back to a comment Mike Barnicle made, where he said he thought that in a way she became a symbol of--the term he used was--spousal abuse. Do you think that's true?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Certainly spousal emotional abuse, and, yes, I think it is true that many women could identify with Diana's trials and tribulations in her love life, even the mistakes she made. When she found herself trapped in a loveless marriage, with a man who was carrying on a long-term affair, she apparently committed adultery herself. But she had the misfortune of turning to a man who was such a cad that he later wrote a tell-all book about it. So the poor woman did have her share of tribulations. And these are the kinds of tribulations--the cold, uncaring mother-in-law, the struggle to make life very pleasant, as pleasant as possible for her children, and to shield them from her misfortunes--all those things are things that women especially can relate to, I think, which is not to say that men cannot. But certainly around my office there was a marked gender distinction. Some of my male colleagues, in fact, made fun of the women's interest and fascination with the Diana story.

MARGARET WARNER: Lee Cullum, did you find that?

LEE CULLUM: Oh, yes, of course. And, you know, I want to say this about the media and about this--this whole phenomenon. You know, it's not anything new. It's been going on for centuries. People have always projected themselves onto figures larger than they are. In the middle ages it was the saints and people from religion, and then kings and queens, and then heads of government. In our own day it's generally movie and sports stars. And now, with Diana, it seems that we're back to the royals. But in a way she was beyond being a princess. I think that she for women embodied the aspirations of an age when the old discipline had given way to agonizing opportunity. So her struggles were the struggles of women. And it's quite natural that this projection would take place. And it's not anything new. It's just been magnified by the media.

MARGARET WARNER: Mike Barnicle, do you agree with that, that this has been going on for a long time, or do you think this is something larger now in terms of this media-driven nature of it and attraction to celebrity?

MIKE BARNICLE: Well, I think the past week has been, you know, nearly totally media-driven. I think it's-- we're crazed by celebrity in this culture, not just here in this country. And much of the coverage of the funeral is certainly media-driven, and much of the attraction to the coverage is because it's so media-driven. And an odd thing happened today. If you believe in God, or a higher being, it's almost as if God tapped the news media around the world on the shoulder at about 1 o'clock this afternoon and said, "It's time to straighten your priorities out. Mother Teresa is dead." For five straight days we have been making Princess Diana larger than life. She seems like a very wonderful woman, a nice woman. She was 36 years of age. A woman died in Calcutta today who spent all of her life touching the poor and helping the poor. And I'm going to be interested, and I think many Americans would be interested to see if Peter Jennings and Dan Rather and CNN and Tom Brokaw go to Calcutta.

MARGARET WARNER: Cynthia, would you like to comment on that briefly?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, yes. I had a very similar reaction. I thought when I heard of Mother Teresa's death, it's as if God has a sense of humor. What are you going to do with this on the very same weekend as Di's funeral?

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you all very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Senate's campaign finance investigation, Shields & Gigot, and the death of Mother Teresa. SERIES - THE MONEY CHASE

JIM LEHRER: Tom Bearden has our report on the money hearings in the Senate.

TOM BEARDEN: Republicans on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee spent much of their day sparring with David Strauss - Vice President Gore's former deputy chief of staff. At issue was the Vice President's visit to a Buddhist Temple near Los Angeles on April 29th 1996.

SEN. DON NICKLES, (R) Oklahoma: To act like this wasn't a fund-raising event just really defies credibility. And keep in mind, you're under oath.

DAVID STRAUSS, Former VP Deputy Chief of Staff: I'm very well aware that I'm under oath. I was the person who was solely responsible for telling the Vice President what this event was. He relied on my judgment about this event. I explained to him what the event was all about, suggested to him what sort of remarks to make that would be appropriate for this event. I take full responsibility for the Vice President's knowledge about this event.

TOM BEARDEN: The Buddhist Temple event brought in $100,000 for the Democratic National Committee, even though it's against the law for tax-exempt religious organizations to engage in such political activity. And according to three Buddhist nuns who testified yesterday--many of those who contributed as much as $5,000 apiece--later were reimbursed, also a violation of the law. The event was organized by John Huang, the former Democratic National Committee fund-raiser who is at the center of the investigation into campaign fund-raising abuses. It was Huang who coordinated the event with the Vice President's office and, in particular, with David Strauss.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, (R) Pennsylvania: On the face of this document it is conclusive that Mr. Huang made a call to you, was talking about a fund-raiser in Los Angeles, correct?

DAVID STRAUSS: No, Senator. I believe that this call relates to the Vice President's courtesy meeting with the venerable master, which occurred on the 15th of March. And this is John Huang calling me to, you know, put in a good word for that meeting and indicating to me that this would be a politically smart thing for the Vice President todo, to meet with the venerable master.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Well, it's a meeting with the individual from the Buddhist temple, which results in the fund-raiser on April 29th, correct?

DAVID STRAUSS: It's a meeting with the religious leader that results in the Vice President visiting his temple in Los Angeles on April 29th.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: And it says, "lead to a lot of dollars," correct?

DAVID STRAUSS: Yes, Senator, it says that.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Now, is there any other possible explanation beyond that being a fund-raiser with the reference to dollars?

DAVID STRAUSS: We--you know, we were involved in many sorts of fund-raising activities to lay the groundwork for fund-raising events that were not fund-raisers per se.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Involved in many events leading to fund-raising which were not fund-raisers per se?

DAVID STRAUSS: Yes, Senator

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Could you tell me what that meant?

DAVID STRAUSS: What that meant is--

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: What your statement means--

DAVID STRAUSS: What my statement means is that as part of the fund-raising process, there are always events and meetings with potential supporters as a way of laying the groundwork to, you know, make it possible to go back to them and get contributions.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: So the March 15th meeting was not a fund-raiser, but it laid the groundwork for the April 29th fund-raiser?

DAVID STRAUSS: Well, at the March 15th meeting with the Venerable Master, the Venerable Master invited the Vice President to visit his temple in Los Angeles. The Venerable Master was a religious leader with whom the Vice President had a relationship. He had visited his temple in Koashung in 1989.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Let me point the question. Do you dispute that on the face of this writing by you that Mr. Huang was setting the stage to raise money for the Vice President at a fund-raiser?

DAVID STRAUSS: No, I don't have any problem with that inference.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: And that, in fact, it was setting the stage for an event at the Buddhist temple on April 29th, 1996.

DAVID STRAUSS: It was setting the stage for an event at the Buddhist temple on April 29th, but there is nothing that one can infer from this that that would necessarily be a fund-raising event.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Do you dispute that the event on April 29th at the Buddhist temple was a fund- raiser?

DAVID STRAUSS: I do

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Fine, we'll let others draw the inference as to whether all those $5,000 checks made it a fund-raiser or not.

TOM BEARDEN: Democratic Counsel Alan Baron came to Strauss' defense by trying to draw a distinction between the Buddhist temple event and another event the Vice President attended that same evening.

ALAN BARON, Democratic Counsel: What information did the Vice President rely on to understand what an event was and the role he was expected to play at the event? What would he look to for guidance on that?

DAVID STRAUSS: On an event on a trip he would rely on what was in his briefing book, and he would rely on me.

ALAN BARON: Could we have 776, please. That says--this is the first San Jose-based event during the Clinton-Gore administration, so most of the guests are new supporters for the DNC. Estimated attendance at the reception is one hundred to one hundred twenty-five guests. This is raising $250,000 for the DNC. Did I read that accurately?

DAVID STRAUSS: That's correct.

ALAN BARON: Am I not correct that if an event is a fund-raiser, typically the amount of money that you intend to raise is part of the Vice President's briefing material?

DAVID STRAUSS: That's correct. The goal would generally be listed.

ALAN BARON: Let's turn to Exhibit 775. Now, am I correct that the description of the Hsi Lai Temple event does indicate that any money is to be raised, distinguished from the description of the San Jose event?

DAVID STRAUSS: That is correct.

ALAN BARON: You were there when the Vice President gave his speech at the Hsi Lai Temple?

DAVID STRAUSS: That is correct.

ALAN BARON: Is it fair to say that if the Vice President is at a fund-raiser that he will--and money is being raised or has been raised--he will thank the people for having contributed?

DAVID STRAUSS: It's usually very good form to do that.

ALAN BARON: I would think so. Can you describe the speech that the Vice President gave at the Hsi Lai Temple? Did it include any request for money or any thank you for people having contributed?

DAVID STRAUSS: It did not.

TOM BEARDEN: But Sen. Specter says the Buddhist Temple event raises enough questions that he hopes Vice President Gore, himself, will consider testifying before the committee, which continues its hearings on Tuesday. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Now, to Shields & Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. Paul, is this--judge the severity of it from your point of view, the Buddhist Temple episode.

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: I think that the Buddhist Temple incident is--it cuts Al Gore a little bit. I think it does real damage when you combine it with what happened this week on the telephone calls. I think this is the week those things together really Al Gore began to bleed politically for the first time.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: I think the Buddhist Temple looks a lot worse than it was. I think it looks like fund-raising event. It was a fund-raising event. And I don't think--I think it's absolutely plausible--as the defense--the majority counsel said yesterday--that the Vice President didn't know about it. The Vice President-- no one's ever accused of being dumb. It would only be dumb to go to an event where you knew 11 people were going to be asked to launder funds the next day to come up with $55,000 and then shred documents. I mean, that-- regardless of any ethical reservations, which I think would be considerable, there would be serious political reservations. I do think Vice President Gore is in trouble. He's in trouble for a couple of reasons. First of all, Al Gore, Jim, has been a figure of some derision, as all Vice Presidents are, but it's always been about his stiffness, his woodenness. His integrity has always been stipulated. Now his integrity is being challenged for the first time. And that is painful. I also think it's fairly conclusively established that the conservative movement in this country that's been out to get Bill Clinton, whether in editorial page columns or anyplace else, has concluded they're not going to get him. And you can see the artillery just switch over and going right at Al Gore.

PAUL GIGOT: All that artillery that didn't touch Bill Clinton.

JIM LEHRER: Is that a valid point here, that--in fact, Sen. Torricelli was on this program last night, said that that's what these hearings are all about, is the year 2000 and trying to get Al Gore and hurt him as a potential presidential candidate.

PAUL GIGOT: That's not what they're only about but that's part of it. I mean, I don't think there's any doubt about that, that what's happened here is that I think the Republicans on the committee have shifted strategy, frankly, and quite apart from Al Gore and Bill Clinton. What they've given up on, I think, is finding the truth from these hearings. I think they've decided that with all the witnesses not cooperating and people in Jakarta and vanishing elsewhere around the globe, they're not going to get anywhere. Their goal now is to get an independent counsel appointed because that's the only way I think they feel they're going to get to the bottom of this, and a byproduct of that is it'll do severe damage to Al Gore. And that's what the Gore people in the White House are really afraid of.

JIM LEHRER: The telephone thing, the other thing you mentioned, which is--has not been a subject of the hearings yet, and that's the decision by Attorney General Reno to start a preliminary inquiry, see if there's an independent counsel, because the fact is not even in dispute, that the Vice President used a telephone in his office to solicit money in the '96 campaign. Is that a more serious matter than the other?

PAUL GIGOT: If you ask me just on the face, I think the Buddhist Temple thing's a lot more serious. In terms of--

JIM LEHRER: If, in fact, he knew about it and did it openly?

PAUL GIGOT: Yes. But what we're talking about here is legal culpability. And I think the calls now that we know that--see, Janet Reno is the person in the administration who gets to the decision to make--name an independent counsel. Her reason--justification for not naming one before was this technical distinction between hard money and soft money, which nobody but lawyers understand.

JIM LEHRER: Quickly. We have to explain this every time. Hard money is money that goes directly to candidates.

PAUL GIGOT: That's right.

MARK SHIELDS: Limited

JIM LEHRER: Limited.

MARK SHIELDS: And regulated and reported.

JIM LEHRER: Absolutely. And soft money goes to causes and to parties--

MARK SHIELDS: And eventually to candidates.

JIM LEHRER: Right. But not regulated--

MARK SHIELDS: That's right.

JIM LEHRER: --or reported.

MARK SHIELDS: Not limited.

JIM LEHRER: Not limited, right.

PAUL GIGOT: She said Al Gore didn't break the law because he was raising soft money. Okay. She painted herself into a legal, analytical corner. Now, it turns out the Democratic National Committee this week said he was raising hard money too. So, her justification is blown right away. So it's going to be very hard for her now not to name an independent counsel.

JIM LEHRER: So you think that's going to happen, do you agree with that, Mark, there's going to be an independent counsel?

MARK SHIELDS: I think probably the chance of an independent counsel increased dramatically this week, Jim. These hearings have been snake-bit right from the beginning if you look at it. I mean, they had their big moment in July. They had Haley Barbour, the former Republican National Chairman out there. They had some real headlines to make. And it was totally eclipsed by the celebration by both the Republican Congress, the Democratic President, of the first balanced budget in 30 years, knocked 'em off the front pages. This week, they've got Al Gore, Buddhist nuns in cinnamon robes, buzz cuts--

PAUL GIGOT: Cinnamon. That's nice.

MARK SHIELDS: You like cinnamon? Cinnamon color. They were a cinnamon color.

JIM LEHRER: Right.

MARK SHIELDS: I liked them. In fact--

JIM LEHRER: All right.

MARK SHIELDS: So, where do they get knocked off? Right here. Every place in the country. It's back on page nine. I think the independent counsel, Jim, is a godsend to the Republicans, not to Fred Thompson, and not to Republicans like John McCain, who really want to change this system, but to Mitch McConnell, to the Republican finance--to the AFL-CIO--to nobody who wants a change, because why--what it means is, hey, we can't do anything, we can't do anything for 1998. We can't have any hearings because they're investigating this. And you know what happened on Ollie North, for goodness sakes, they had the hearings and then left with no convictions. So, rather than have any, you know, jeopardize the ultimate convictions of these evil people, we won't have any hearings; we won't do anything about it; we'll perpetuate the status quo. That's the real political impact of an independent counsel.

PAUL GIGOT: There's some more impact. Al Gore gets somebody aimed right at him for two and a half to three years, running right up probably into the presidential primary in the year 2000.

JIM LEHRER: And that's not good for Al Gore.

PAUL GIGOT: This is why--why else would grown men who are smart use phrases like "no controlling legal authority," or "donor maintenance meeting," which is what they said? It's not a fund-raiser. It's a donor maintenance meeting. What does that mean? Will they be cleaning the floors? What--the reason they do that is because it doesn't--it allows them to say it's not illegal.

MARK SHIELDS: I think the Gore strategy is borrowing heavily from a very established, successful strategy in executive politics in this country, that of Ronald Reagan and George Bush. The statement yesterday was, after the hearings today, he was of the loop. That worked for George Bush in Iran Contra. Ronald Reagan never knew arms for hostages. And people accepted it. Now, the problem with Al Gore is: Are people going to accept it because Al Gore seems very smart? Al Gore seems very interested. Al Gore seems very involved in what's going on around him. If that's the case, then people aren't going to accept that he was of the loop.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think of Sen. Specter's suggestion today that--it's also been made by others--that Vice President Gore should go before that Thompson committee, sit down there, confront the Senators, and answer all of this on national television?

PAUL GIGOT: I would say that that is probably a very bad idea because that will draw--politically for the Gores--if I was thinking about this for Al Gore, it's a very bad idea, because, No. 1, it's going to have every TV camera in America focused on his alleged wrongdoing; two, it is going--who knows what he might say that could create problems for him later if there is an independent counsel named, so I think this idea of just hunkering down and saying nothing and having Bill Clinton, the President, walk out and say, whatever the Vice President did, it was all legal--not that it was right, not that it was honorable, but it was legal, is the right political strategy.

MARK SHIELDS: I would say that one American President saved his public life by doing that. That was Richard Nixon, who was--granted, there was a non-adversarial situation. 1952, he was about to get dumped from the ticket. The drumbeat had started. Dwight Eisenhower was ready to cashier him in a moment. He did the Checker speech. I think Al Gore going down there and showing passion and intensity about it, answering those questions could very well put his critics on the defensive. And I think it would change forever the image of Al Gore to most Americans. Now, Paul's right. There's a big risk involved, but I think that otherwise you face the death of a thousand cuts.

JIM LEHRER: You mean, in other words, you think he ought to do it?

MARK SHIELDS: Oh, I do. I think it would be--you command the attention--you go in there--you go in with a statement and go ahead, fire at me. I'm right here, all by myself, no battery of lawyers; let's hear the questions.

PAUL GIGOT: Well, not if he's gong to use phrases, mealy mouthed phrases like "no controlling legal authority," or "donor maintenance meeting." If he's going to tell all and say, look, let's cut with the legalisms here, let's talk about what this is really--let's talk turkey--we know how the system works. If he can stop evading everything and come clean, that's a little different story, but I assume that they figure he can't because the lawyers are all whispering in his ear.

MARK SHIELDS: Donor maintenance does sound like an escort service. I agree with that. I would hope he wouldn't use that--

JIM LEHRER: Paul said earlier, Mark, that he's bleeding, that Al Gore is bleeding. Do you smell blood on him?

MARK SHIELDS: I don't smell--

JIM LEHRER: Politically--

MARK SHIELDS: No. I think he--obviously, he's feeling the heat right now. I mean--and I really mean that. I mean, they're giving up on Bill Clinton. I mean, the American spectators, for goodness sakes, they've cut down trees across the entire United States--

PAUL GIGOT: To incredible effect.

MARK SHIELDS: --going to get Bill Clinton--only tomorrow he's going to be indicted or impeached or whatever--and they finally said, the guy's going to make it. We've got to do something about 2000. And Al Gore's feeling that heat right now, and I think--do I think he's bruised and black and blue--sure. And it's not going to be easy. I mean, he's the front-runner. He's ahead of anybody in both parties right now. There's going to be-- Democrats are going to be sniping at him, as well as Republicans.

JIM LEHRER: You don't dispute that he remains the front-runner, as we sit here tonight, right? He hasn't been hurt that badly.

PAUL GIGOT: Absolutely. That's right. I would say the danger for him--Mark thinks the danger is he becomes a figure of ridicule, and there's something to that--but I would say the bigger danger is that he becomes Clintonized; that his reputation for being Mr. Clean vanishes and he begins to take on some of the ethics problems that the President has. And the President's great advantage was he's Houdini at getting out of that. What if Al Gore begins to show that he can get into trouble but he lacks the Houdini-like quality to get out of it?

JIM LEHRER: We'll see.

MARK SHIELDS: Gets Clintonized to the point where he's 62 percent approval in the polls.

JIM LEHRER: Take that. Thank you both very much. FOCUS - SISTER OF CHARITY

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, remembering Mother Teresa and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: Born of Albanian parents in 1910, Mother Teresa entered the convent at the age of 18. As a teacher in the mission schools in India's slums, she dedicated her life to helping society's poorest and sickest people. In 1950, she founded the Missionaries of Charity in an abandoned, rundown hostel in Calcutta. There, she was the mother superior, hence her name, Mother Teresa. The order grew to more than 4500 nuns in 111 countries. And Mother Teresa, herself, became a symbol around the world for compassion and comfort.

DEMONSTRATORS: We want Mother! We want Mother!

PHIL PONCE: In South Africa, she visited children in the poverty-stricken schools of Cape Town. She met with Soviet leaders after the devastating earthquake in Armenia in 1988. Three years later, she flew over flood- ravaged Bangladesh, and just last May, she visited a hospice in Baltimore and was greeted by nuns from her order, which also ministers to the needy in this country. She met Princess Diana four times, and they shared an interest in helping the homeless and others in need. Mother Teresa had planned to hold a service for Diana in Calcutta on Saturday. Mother Teresa became a prominent envoy for Pope John Paul II. She was a voice for conservative values, speaking out against abortion, contraception, and divorce. Her fight against poverty and disease earned her numerous awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

MOTHER TERESA: (1979) Let us all together thank God for this beautiful occasion where we can all together proclaim the joy of spreading peace, the joy of loving one another, and the joy acknowledging that the poorest of the poor are our brothers and sisters.

PHIL PONCE: Six years later, Mother Teresa received the highest U.S. civilian award when President Ronald Reagan presented her with the presidential Medal of Freedom.

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: (1985) Some very few people are in the truest sense citizens of the world. Mother Teresa is.

PHIL PONCE: In 1994, she met with President Clinton at a national prayer breakfast. And this year, Congress awarded her the Congressional Medal of Honor.

MOTHER TERESA: (June) The work for the poorest of the poor is so beautiful and attractive because it fills the heart with great joy and with great love. And the more we are in love with the poor, the closer we come to the heart of Jesus.

PHIL PONCE: In recent years, she suffered heart attacks, bouts of malaria, and broken bones from several falls. But her sense of humor endured. She was recently quoted as saying, "The other day I dreamed that I was at the gates of heaven and St. Peter said, 'Go back to Earth. There are no slums up here.'"

PHIL PONCE: Late this afternoon the Vatican announced the Pope will say a Mass for Mother Teresa tomorrow at his private resident in South Side Rome. Joining us now, Eileen Egan, an editor with a religious publication, "The Catholic Worker," who knew Mother Teresa for more than 40 years. Her biography of Mother Teresa is called "Such A Vision: Mother Teresa, the Spirit, and the Work." And Father Leo O'Donovan, president of Georgetown University. Eileen Egan, there are many good people in the world, many people who work with the poor. What made Mother Teresa different?

EILEEN EGAN, Mother Teresa Biographer: I think it was her concern for the person not because the person was a leper or was lying in the gutter or needed food, was famished, but because that person was Christ in a distressing disguise.

PHIL PONCE: And she evidently had the ability to convey that concern to others?

EILEEN EGAN: Yes, she did. I went to Calcutta the first time in '55, and I had come from Europe, pockmarked with DP camps and refugee camps and broken cities, a war that had taken 50 million lives, and maimed countless others, and I saw this unknown, little woman, dressed in a rough sari, going out to this scourged city and picking up people covered with spittle, people famished, people near death, and bringing them to a place where she could give them just a human death. But she was giving it in such a way that made them realize that they were the repository of the divine.

PHIL PONCE: Father Leo O'Donovan, how do you describe what made her a singular person, again, lots of good people in the world, lots of people attempting to do good work.

FATHER LEO O'DONOVAN, President, Georgetown University:Well, Phil, I never had the great honor of spending time with her, as Eileen did. I admire your work very much, Eileen. But I don't think there's anybody in the second half of our century, probably in good measure as far as publicity goes, because of television, who didn't become aware of this small woman who was enormous. I think, to my mind, the most remarkable thing was how profoundly she loved God, but that love was inseparable from her love of all God's children, especially the poor and the suffering. And it radiated from her. And she was never distracted from it. And that, I think, was--became impossible to overlook and impossible not to respond to.

PHIL PONCE: So you're saying that it was her ability to radiate, to somehow convey that essence about her that sort of made her different from many other people who are also attempting to do good work?

FATHER LEO O'DONOVAN: Well, many people are--many people shine with the love of God, but she was unshadable, one just saw it everywhere in her and in the way she turned to people in such desperate need. I had been to Calcutta to visit her foundation there, and as a young priest teaching in New York, I became familiar with her sisters when the first convent opened in Harlem in 1971, the year I happened to start to teach in New York. More recently, I've become aware of the work because Georgetown University Hospital supports the wonderful gift of Peace Home just across town in Northeast, which was opened in 1986 chiefly for AIDS patients but also for people who would otherwise not be cared for, suffering from terrible disease.

PHIL PONCE: Eileen Egan, Mother Teresa was seen by many people as a world figure, as somebody on the world stage. How did she see herself?

EILEEN EGAN: She saw herself as a poor, ungifted person, who just saw God in everyone. People were saying to her, what will happen when you go, what will happen to the work, and she'd say, "Wait till Mother Teresa dies. You'll find someone who'll do the work. I'm not important." But--

PHIL PONCE: You mean she thought of herself as ungifted, even after she won the Nobel Peace Prize?

EILEEN EGAN: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. She was very, very humble. When I first saw her working in the home of the dying back in '55, I could see picking up someone who was dying and caring for that person as an emergency act, then going off to someone--something else. But she was doing it every day. And I said, Mother, how can you come back and do this day after day, every day of the year, and she said, "Each one to me is Jesus in a distressing disguise." She saw each one as the person to get attention at this moment. And she started her work by taking a man caught in the gutter in a wheelbarrow to the nearest hospital. And he was turned away. And then she took him then to this hostel that was dedicated to Kalif, the Goddess of Destruction. But she thought that was ordinary. And her idea that each person was of infinite value was utterly sacred somehow shone from everything she did and said.

PHIL PONCE: Father O'Donovan, what is it about her--looking at her operating in the world arena, on the public stage--that would cause world leaders to open their doors to her?

FATHER LEO O'DONOVAN: I think the humility that Eileen mentions made room for such luminous love. And her sense of what she was about was so clear that, on the one hand, people felt a great presence, and on the other, they knew--she knew what she wanted and so many leaders don't, who are looking for a message, looking for a mission. She had a mission, a message, and she was so single-minded in turning to the poor. That's very compelling.

PHIL PONCE: You talk about her luminous qualities and yet, she had--she must have had some organizational savvy. I mean, her order has 4500 nuns operating in more than 111 countries and so forth. What were the sort of management skills, the real people skills that she must have had?

FATHER LEO O'DONOVAN: I think Eileen has certainly mentioned the first and last of them, which was her trust in providence. I think her sense of priority is as important for any manager as anything there is, and the fact that she treated everybody the same, Phil, nobody was more important to her than anyone else, except that you were most important if you were suffering. That undoes people and unlocks hearts. It also unlocks funds for her work. If everybody matters the same, because everybody's a child of God, then that's a different approach to life, which really levels--levels all sorts of prejudices, disinclinations to help.

PHIL PONCE: Eileen Egan, was she aware of her media status, the fact that she drew attention wherever she went?

EILEEN EGAN: At first, she didn't want any. We invited her early on to come and talk to the National Council of Catholic Women, and she said, "I don't want to talk to people. I don't want to be on a platform." So she went to the archbishop of Calcutta, and he said, yes, you have to talk, you have to go. And she did it as a real sacrifice. Someone said to her, Mother Teresa, what is the greatest sacrifice that you are making and have made for the world, and in front of her were all the cameras and all the photographers and the newsmen, and she said, "This."

PHIL PONCE: Eileen Egan, she was not above--as with many public figures--she was not above criticism. Some people would criticize her for accepting money from controversial figures. How would she respond to any criticism that she might have received?

EILEEN EGAN: She, first of all, didn't answer criticism. You know, if it was there, it was there. She never defended herself. Yes, it's true; she accepted funds from people who later suffered in jail and so on, but she felt that to that extent that they were willing to help her, to help the lepers and the homeless and so on, that that was a good act.

PHIL PONCE: Father O'Donovan, she held very conservative views on issues such as abortion, contraception, divorce, and yet, she seemed to be able to transcend that particular--that particular approach and still have some appeal. Why was that?

FATHER LEO O'DONOVAN: Well, first of all, Phil, I'm not sure I'd call them conservative. I'd say they were--

PHIL PONCE: Some people might call them conservative.

FATHER LEO O'DONOVAN: Of course. I would say they were morally very serious. When you care for the whole of human life and for the least of God's children, you don't focus ever on one single issue, and so she could be passionate about those issues which she was, but she was passionate about peace wherever it could be found. This led her, of course, to oppose the Gulf War, very eloquently, one can well disagree with that. But there was a consistency in her commitment to the love of all human beings and peace among human beings that transcended any particular issue or argument, I would say.

PHIL PONCE: Father O'Donovan, Eileen Egan, thank you both. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this--the other major stories of this Friday, the Queen of England paid tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales, describing her as an exceptional and gifted human being, and the International Olympic Committeepicked Athens, Greece, to host the 2004 summer games. We'll see you on-line and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.