The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, a woman opened fire in an Illinois school, killing one child and injuring five critically. A deal has reportedly been reached for General Noriega to leave Panama next August. Consumer inflation moderated slightly in April. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, we devote most of tonight's NewsHour to the presidential campaign. Our team of Mark Shields and David Gergen, along with analyst Norman Ornstein join us for a look first at rough sledding for Vice President Bush, who has started to put some space between him and the President. And then, it's some delicate balancing for Dukakis and Jackson. Next, a fund cutoff for artificial heart research. We debate the impact. Finally, some thoughts on master impressionist Paul Gauguin.News Summary WOODRUFF: Tragedy in the Chicago suburb of Winnetka, Illinois, this morning. A woman walked into a second grade classroom in the Hubbard Woods Elementary School and fired a gun at random, killing one child and critically wounding another five. The woman then ran from the school and barricaded herself in a nearby home, where she shot a man who tried to take the gun away from her. She remains barricaded now inside the house, which is surrounded by a police SWAT team. The woman is identified by police as 30 year old Laurie Dann. She is said to have worked as a housekeeper in the neighborhood around the school, a comfortable, upper class suburban community. Winnetka police would only say that the woman was an ''ordinary citizen who was not exactly stable. '' Robin? MacNEIL: The U. S. and Panama are reported to have reached tentative agreement on a deal under which Noriega would leave Panama next August and stay away until May 1989. The Associated Press quotes an administration official as saying the U. S. would agree to drop drug charges against Noriega. The official said the deal has to be approved by both governments. The proposal to drop drug charges has already run into strong opposition in Congress and from some administration officials. WOODRUFF: Harmonic sounds from the Democratic presidential race today. Candidate Jesse Jackson said that he and rival Michael Dukakis are planning to get together soon to talk about strategy and their platform. Jackson wouldn't give details, but said that both must keep in mind their role is to expand and unify the party. Jackson said the meeting would likely take place in California, where both will be campaigning for the upcoming June 7 primary. MacNEIL: There were more anti government protests in South Korea today. In several cities around the country, radical students clashed for the fourth straight day with riot police. Today's most violent confrontation occurred in Seoul, where students hurled homemade firebombs at police and attempted to storm the U. S. Embassy compound. Five policemen were hurt in the clash, but there were no injuries to U. S. Embassy personnel. The students are demanding the overthrow of President Roh Tae Woo, and the withdrawal of U. S. troops. The State Department denounced today's embassy attack and accused the students of failing to recognize that South Korea's political system had become more liberal. WOODRUFF: U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations Vernon Walters arrived in Damascus today for talks with Syrian leaders, but contrary to reports yesterday, asserted that his visit is not primarily to discuss U. S. hostages being held in Lebanon. Walters said he will be talking about a range of Middle East issues, including the hostages. Meanwhile, Syrian backed Amal militiamen and the pro Iranian Hezbollah fought for the 15th day for control of the slums of South Beirut. The Associated Press reported that the Amal is claiming to have foiled an attempt by Iranian backed guerillas to trade a Western hostage for arms from a Christian militia. Both Hezbollah and the Christian Lebanese forces denied the report. MacNEIL: The Senate defeated right wing Republican attempts to attach conditions to the INF Treaty, as pressure mounted to ratify it before the summit. A five part amendment to tie the treaty to ending alleged Soviet cheating on other arms control agreements was defeated by large majorities. Republican leader Robert Dole urged his colleagues to start making real progress so that President Reagan can take the ratified treaty to Moscow. Secretary of State George Shultz said today that Reagan and Gorbachev might sign part of the incomplete Strategic Arms Treaty. Shultz said they had reached agreement on notifying each other of ballistic missile tests, and that agreement could be separated from the larger treaty.

GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: It's something that conceivably could be simply lifted out of that, and signed separately, and it would be not a big deal, but an additional confidence building measure. Each time you put an additional increment of confidence building into the picture, I think you improve matters. MacNEIL: The Secretary said the two leaders are likely to outline what other progress they have made toward the START Treaty. WOODRUFF: The new Coast Guard policy of aggressively searching for and seizing boats with small amounts of drugs onboard is now being reconsidered. The head of the Coast Guard's enforcement division said complaints and threatened lawsuits had caused the Coast Guard to rethink the policy, which had been given the name ''Zero Tolerance. '' He said specific changes would be implemented within a couple of weeks. Highly publicized seizures of private yachts and fishing boats have raised an uproar from boat owners, who fear of losing their licenses because a crewman or a passenger brought drugs aboard. MacNEIL: Inflation for American consumers slowed slightly in April. The government reported a rise of . 4% in the consumer price index after a rise of . 5% in March. Economists said . 4% is about the monthly rate at which prices should rise for the rest of the year. In another report, the Labor Department said the earnings of American workers went up . 9% in April, following two months of declines. WOODRUFF: The head of NASA's shuttle program says he's not sure if the agency can meet its goal of nine shuttle flights next year. Richard Truly says the explosion that destroyed a plant in Nevada earlier this month eliminated half the nation's supply of a chemical that is essential for the shuttle to fly. The chemical is used to make sure that the solid rocket fuel burns evenly. At the same time, Truly says that he still hopes to be able to stick with this year's late August launch date for the first shuttle flight since the Challenger disaster. That wraps up our news summary. Just ahead on the NewsHour, rough sledding for George Bush, and a delicate balancing act for Michael Dukakis. A fund cutoff for heart research, and a genius of impressionism. Trial Separation? MacNEIL: We turn first tonight to Campaign '88 and will look at both the Republican and the Democratic campaigns, beginning with George Bush's. While his nomination seems assured, several polls released this week show him trailing Democrat Michael Dukakis by significant margins. That showing gave impetus to those Republican strategists urging him to put some distance between himself and the White House, and this week he did. Addressing the Los Angeles Police Academy on Wednesday, Bush indicated opposition to the negotiations now underway with Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega.

GEORGE BUSH, Presidential candidate: The war against drugs has got to begin at home. It's got to begin with law enforcement. Drug dealers are domestic terrorists, killing kids and cops, and they should be treated as such. I won't bargain with terrorists, I won't bargain with drug dealers either, whether on U. S. or foreign soil. MacNEIL: Yesterday President Reagan was asked about Bush's comments in a pre summit interview with foreign journalists.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I can see why the Vice President said what he said, because the impression has been given, based not on information from us, but based on rumors and news leaks and so forth, that we are in negotiations, somehow over, with a participant in a drug trade. WOODRUFF: We examine first the bad news for Vice President Bush in this week's polls. Joining us to help sort through the numbers if Norman Ornstein, resident scholar of the American Enterprise Institute, and co director of the Times Mirror study of the American electorate, People, Press and Politics. Norman, what exactly are the polls saying? NFBLAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Institute: There's no good news in the polls for George Bush at this point, Judy. What we find is that almost consistently now polls are showing a sharp change, moving from, as we see, for example, in the CBS/New York Times poll earlier in the week, relatively even posture just a few weeks ago, to a widely, a 10 points lead here for Michael Dukakis over George Bush. WOODRUFF: And there was an even wider gap -- Mr. ORNSTEIN: He loses even worse in the Gallup poll, which shows a 54 to 38 margin for Dukakis over Bush. Frankly, when you look more deeply into the numbers, it isn't just a wide margin here. Bush is not doing well among Republicans, he's only getting about 75% of support among Republicans. Normally a Republican politician running for President will be up in the 90's at this particular point. He's not doing well when you ask how he would rank with Dukakis in dealing with issues like drugs. It's not good across the board. WOODRUFF: Why the change from a couple of months ago, a month ago, to now? Mr. ORNSTEIN: Well, I think clearly there are a couple of things going on here. The first is there's been a string of bad news for Bush, basically surrounding the Administration. We've had the news coming out of the White House, the flaps over the kiss and tell books, the question of astrology, all the news about Ed Meese, some of the gaps that Bush himself has gotten involved in, the news about Noriega, and the difficulty of distancing himself from the President, some of the clumsiness involved there. That's certainly one part of it. The second part, though, is that Mike Dukakis essentially has gotten a pretty good free ride for a while here. While most people still don't know much about him, what they've heard in the last month or so is Dukakis the winner. Those two things combined have created this margin. It's a long way from being over, but obviously it's not good right now. WOODRUFF: Well, that's my question. We're still months away from the election, so how significant is all of this? Mr. ORNSTEIN: This is going to change dramatically. What we've seen is a shift of about 25 points in some of these surveys in a month, month and a half. If they can shift 25 points in March, April, May, obviously they can shift at least that much as we move closer to the election. And there's one very important thing to remember here. At this point, only about 30% of Americans are paying close attention to the Presidential races. More have gotten engaged in this contest in the last month, when bad news has hit George Bush. Even more will get involved as we move along, and the news will change. WOODRUFF: Norman, you know that a lot has been written this year about the inaccuracy of some polls. At least the misinterpretation of some polls. How accurate, I mean, how true, how true a picture are these polls really painting at this point? Mr. ORNSTEIN: These polls, within a relatively small margin of error, are probably very accurate. This is a good picture of where the electorate is now with regard to Bush and Dukakis, but only now. We know it will be a dramatic change, we know that the public is very fluid. They still don't know all that much about either George Bush, despite all of his years in public life -- this is now when we get close scrutiny of what he'd be like as a leader -- and very little about Michael Dukakis. So this can't tell us what things are going to be like in November. The only thing we know is they'll change a lot between now and then. WOODRUFF: Just quickly, how do Bush's numbers compare with the President's? Is there any way to compare those two? Is he doing better than, worse than, the same? Mr. ORNSTEIN: Worse than. And Ronald Reagan is slipping some now with the bad news that's occurred, but not nearly so much as Bush has. This is a time when we focused on Bush as he tries to make that difficult transition from follower to leader, and unfortunately for him, when bad news hits the administration, it sticks to him. When good news occurs, it goes to Ronald Reagan. It's not good right now, but it'll change. WOODRUFF: Norman Ornstein, thank you. Robin? MacNEIL: For more on the Bush campaign, we turn to our regular political analysts, David Gergen, editor of U. S. News & World Report, and Mark Shields, syndicated political columnist for the Washington Post. David, how do you read the polls showing Bush so far behind at present? DAVID GERGEN, U. S. News & World Report: Well, I do think that Bush is caught in more of a down draft than Norm has suggested, and that is in the Gallup polls, Reagan is down some ten points over the last month, and I think that Bush has been hurt by that. I think it's also very true, as Norman suggested, or said, that Governor Dukakis has been on a roll. He's been on a roll since Michigan, the last time Jesse Jackson beat him in the caucuses out there, and he's had someone out there as an opponent every week to beat and to whip in a race, and to get good headlines out of, and it's increased his stature. And I must say that the governor has also run a fairly error free campaign. He's done a very good job. He's impressed a lot of people as being competent. And the contrast between the Administration that seems to be floundering on so many fronts, and a competent candidate on the Democratic side, has widened this lead. MacNEIL: Mark Shields, is this showing Dukakis's strength at the moment, or Bush's weakness? MARK SHIELD, Washington Post: I think it's showing Bush weakness. It's showing more than George Bush's weakness. I don't think it's coming at a terrible time for George Bush. If we're going to get bad news, this is the time to get it. It's a period of very little interest in the campaign itself, the resolution of the candidacy has been determined. Where before the convention there's a lull. There's no Stop Bush movement, there's nobody to organize around to stop Bush if there were. These bad poll numbers, if there were a competitor that would be happening. There's no way to translate it into money at this point, because Dukakis is maxed out, he has gotten all the money he can get. He could raise some for the Democratic Party. So in that sense it's probably fortuitous. But really the weakness underlying the whole thing, Robin, is the weakness of the Republican Party. The Reagan Administration ended sometime in 1987. And that's really -- it ran out of steam, it ran out of initiatives, it ran out of ideas. And George Bush is paying dearly for that. Right now, for the first time since the New York Times/CBS poll has asked this question, Which party's better at dealing with the prime problem in the country? The Democrats have an edge of three to two. People see the Democrats as being more competent than the Republicans. That's a problem that isn't George Bush's, that's a problem that's generic to the Republican Party. MacNEIL: Do you agree with that, David? GERGEN: I agree with that to a degree. It's interesting, in the last -- when you look at the misery index that was invented a few years ago, it's the combination, if you add up the inflation rate and the unemployment rate, the misery index is running about 10 now. That's the lowest rate for any campaign in some 20 years. MacNEIL: And that's supposed to have benefit the party in power -- GERGEN: It's supposed to benefit the party in power. MacNEIL: -- such a healthy seeming economy. GERGEN: But what we see in this economy I think is something quite interesting. And that is, while the surface numbers are good at the public, grassroots level, there's a great deal of apprehension about the future. People think the economy's going reasonably well now, but they fear where it's going in the future. They fear how well George Bush and the Republicans can handle it. There hasn't been a great deal of progress on questions such as the deficits, either the trade -- even though we have a better number this week -- but there hasn't been really that much progress on the trade or budget. And people are saying, Can the Republicans and can George Bush really handle it? And I think that's working against the Bush campaign right now, even though the misery index in fact should work in his favor. MacNEIL: Mark, Bush has been getting a lot of advice and the principal advice he's been getting is separate himself more from Mr. Reagan, establish more of a clear identity. He has tried this to an extent on the Noriega issue this week. How successful has it been? SHIELDS: I think it was a halting first step, Robin, but I think it was an important first step. What a Vice President has to deliver, Vice President who seeks to be President, is a very complicated, internally contradictory message. And it goes something like this: Let me tell you, every step of the way I've been here with this President, he's the best fellow the country's ever had, we double date together, I love him dearly. However, I'm the only guy to get us out of the mess we're in. GERGEN: Who has the front seat or the back? SHIELDS: And that's the problem. In other words, you can't deliver that message of true independence without sounding a little bit like Benedict Arnold. Because the guy who's got the job now from whom you're differing gave you the job. And that's a problem for George Bush, but he has to establish independence. Most of all, there has to be a Bush vision of where he wants the country to go. That's what's been missing. MacNEIL: David, there's a report, we had it on the news summary tonight, that they've reached an agreement with Noriega, and if the U. S. official quoted is right, it does include dropping the drug charges. Bush has apparently indicated he doesn't approve of that and a great deal of the Congress doesn't either. How is that going to affect him? GERGEN: Well, I think if in the short run, if Noriega leaves with the drug charges dropped, I think it's going to hurt Bush and it's going to hurt the Republicans. Because there are a lot of folks in the Republican Party and most of the Democratic Party who oppose this. They think it's in effect, you're trafficking with drug dealers, it's no better than selling arms to the Ayatollah. It may be that by the fall that if Noriega is gone, he'll be out of sight, out of mind in terms of the campaign, and that could benefit Bush in the long run. Just as the question of Haiti, for instance, which was very much in the forefront of our discussions a few months ago, that sort of disappeared now. If Noriega's out of there, maybe Panama will disappear. But I do think in the short term, Bush is going to get hurt if Noriega gets out of there with these drug charges dropped. MacNEIL: Let me ask you each very quickly, can Bush pull this out by November? David? GERGEN: I think he can pull it out. And in some ways these polls that Norman's talked about are good for him. They give a good kick in the pants, seat of the pants, to his campaign, which has been too complacent in many parts. I think also Bush tends to be a better campaigner when he's behind than when he's ahead. But I wanted to come back to what Mark just said, which I think is right on target. And that is the important issue for Bush is not can he separate himself out and show a little distance here and there. He has got to give some sense of what the issues are that face this country in the future. He can do that, because many of those issues are international, they deal with international economic issues, and he can take that away from Dukakis, but he has got to go after it in a way to say the world has changed since Ronald Reagan took office, here's the future, here's how I want to shape the future. And if he can't do that, then he is not going to win this election. MacNEIL: Okay. We're going to move on. Judy? Reconcilable Differences WOODRUFF: Now for the Democrats. With Jesse Jackson's announcement today that he and Michael Dukakis are planning to get together soon to talk about strategy and the party platform, there is heightened curiosity about just how these two survivors in the Democratic contest will work out their differences. We set out a few days ago to try to answer that very question.

MICHAEL DUKAKIS, presidential candidate: I smell victory in the air, no question about it. WOODRUFF: Theremay still be two candidates in the race, and weeks to go before the last primary, but you'd never know he had a Democratic opponent just by listening to Governor Dukakis.

Gov. DUKAKIS: We're not conceding one single state to the Republicans this fall and that includes Nebraska. WOODRUFF: The man who's still in the race trying to beat Dukakis, though, campaigns as if the Democratic contest isn't over yet.

JESSE JACKSON, presidential candidate: Every vote counts. Every person counts. When I win, you win. And together, we, the people, can win. We really can win! WOODRUFF: The Reverend Jesse Jackson sometimes likens Dukakis to Bush, saying both are vague about solving major problems facing the country. Jackson ran TV ads in Ohio, accusing Dukakis of not being critical enough of President Reagan's policies.

VOICE: The establishment says there are two candidates left running for President. George Bush says, ''Stay the course. '' Michael Dukakis says, ''Manage the damage. '' But there's another candidate for President: Jesse Jackson, who says, ''Change the course of the country. '' Gov. DUKAKIS: The White House would be very much surprised if they learned all of a sudden that Mike Dukakis was going to manage Reaganomics. WOODRUFF: Dukakis seldom responds to Jackson's charges, and refuses to criticize him. But Dukakis's campaign manager Susan Estrich, says some of what Jackson says just doesn't wash.

SUSAN ESTRICH, kakis campaign manager:Du I think that the voters of Ohio, as witnessed the results, understood that Mike Dukakis stands for a change. That he's a candidate who's going to invest in the future. I think we got our message across in Ohio. WOODRUFF: Estrich and Dukakis campaign chairman Paul Brountas, have privately bristled at some of Jackson's comments, particularly a recent one accusing Dukakis of lacking vision. But they are careful when they discuss Jackson in public.

PAUL BROUNTAS, Dukakis campaign chairman: If you have an accumulation of criticism that is conveying an incorrect message and is unfair, then I think Gov. Dukakis reserves the right to respond to that. I don't think he wants to. And I just don't believe that Rev. Jackson will continue that. WOODRUFF: Former Carter administration budget director Bert Lance has been privately advising Jackson. He told producer Carol Blakeslee that all Jackson has been doing is drawing distinctions between himself and Dukakis.

BERT LANCE, Jackson advisor: There's nothing wrong with that. Gov. Dukakis, if in fact he is the nominee, is going to face that sort of thing in November. So he might as well get used to it and begin to learn how to react to it, and he's reacted very well in my judgment. WOODRUFF: A few weeks ago, there was talk that Jackson was entitled to ask to be the Vice Presidential nominee. But that was before Dukakis's delegate total had grown as large as it is now. And when Jackson still had an outside chance of capturing the nomination. Jackson's two top campaign officials joined in the speculation, suggesting Jackson might be interested and definitely should be asked.

MODERATOR: Your campaign chairman strongly suggests that if Gov. Dukakis does get the Democratic nomination that he should choose you as his vice presidential running mate. JESSE JACKSON, presidential candidate: It's a bit premature to be giving out coronation roses for the governor and taps for me. We've come into this campaign tonight, we're now moving into the last lap of a significant race, and I'm a longdistance runner. I look forward to it. MODERATOR' Would you like to comment on that rebuttal? Gov. DUKAKIS: Are you interested? WOODRUFF: Jackson's campaign chairman and California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown has since backed off the subject.

WILLIE BROWN, Jackson California Campaign Chairman: I think Mr. Jackson's only interested in being the nominee for the Democratic Party. That's all he's ever expressed to me, and that's all he appears to be pursuing. WOODRUFF: Brown and other presidential advisors say at the very least Jackson has earned the right to be consulted about the Vice Presidential nominee. And some may still be holding out a wish that he would be asked to fill the number two slot. But the conventional political wisdom is that that would be death to Dukakis's chances in November.

TOM MURPHY, Georgia House Speaker: Then he would lose the total South. WOODRUFF: Georgia House Speaker Tom Murphy speaks for many Democrats who find Jackson unacceptable. Murphy spoke with producer Carol Blakeslee.

Rep. MURPHY: Well, Mr. Jackson has never been involved in anything, he's never been in any government position. All he does is use a lot of fancy rhetoric, and that doesn't sell well in the House. And he could very well be President of the United States if he were Vice President, and who knows where he would lead the country under those circumstances. WOODRUFF: Robert Beckel served as Walter Mondale's liaison with Jackson in the 1984 campaign and still stays in touch with Jackson. He says he thinks Jackson would like to be Vice President, but realizes he won't be offered the nomination.

ROBERT BECKEL, mocratic Party Strategist:De I think there's a word that matters a lot to him, and it's called historical. It's important to black Americans, would he like it to happen? Sure. WOODRUFF: Why won't it happen? Mr. BECKEL: I think the simple answer why it's not going to happen is that you're not going to elect a ticket that has a governor from Massachusetts and a black minister from Illinois. I just think it's practical politics. It's just not enough of a balanced ticket to win in November. And I think Jackson understands that. The other thing that's sort of conventional wisdom, but he believes it, and he ought to believe it, and that is if he were on that ticket and it went down, he will take the blame for it. He knows that. WOODRUFF: Many believe that since Jackson cannot expect to be on the ticket his main goal is to influence the thinking of Dukakis and other Democratic leaders on key policy questions.

Rev. JACKSON: What do I want? I want to raise minimum wage so those who work to get paid. What do I want? I want to (unintelligible) our priorities. I want to invest in Head Start, day care and prenatal care on the front side of life, rather than jail care and welfare on the back side of life. EDDIE WILLIAMS, Joint Center for Political Studies: What Jackson is saying, it seems to me, is ''Governor, be more specific about what you will do in response to some of the issues that I am concerned about. '' And that suggests that Jackson is not confident that Dukakis will indeed pursue policies and interests specifically attuned to those of his constituents. WOODRUFF: Eddie Williams runs the Joint Center for Political Studies, a think tank that focuses on the role of blacks in the political process. Williams and others say Jackson has earned the right to have a major say so at the Democratic Convention in July.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think he has earned the right by virtue of the fact that he will enter the convention with more than 1000 delegates. This represents a very wide cross section of the Democratic Party's national electorate. So clearly he speaks for somebody. He is the representative of somebody. This somebody, this group, is very vital to the Democratic Party's plans for victory in the fall. If Jackson can help the nominee get this group's support, he is inevitably a factor to be reckoned with in that convention, and no amount of blinking or wishing is going to change that in the Democratic Party. WOODRUFF: Tom Murphy, however, says victory doesn't hinge on Jackson's willingness to campaign for the Democratic ticket.

Rep. MURPHY: Don't think it'll mean anything one way or the other, because I think 99% of Mr. Jackson's supporters are going to vote Democratic anyhow. WOODRUFF: Campaign Manager Estrich is also confident that her candidate will win the support of blacks and other Jackson voters.

Ms. ESTRICH: I think we're going to have to (unintelligible) because the Democratic Party is going to be the party that is going to be speaking to the concerns of average Americans, of Americans who have paid the price for Reaganomics, black and white. MARK SIEGEL, Democratic Party activist: It means the difference in winning and losing. We need the support of black Americans. They've been the most loyal constituency to the Democratic Party in numbers 80% and up, 92, 94%. They often make the difference in close elections. WOODRUFF: Long time Democratic Party activist Mark Siegel says at the same time, Democrats can't take Jackson support for granted.

Mr. SIEGEL: I think a lot depends on how he is treated as an individual, as a candidate, and how his issues are treated at the National Convention. And by Gov. Dukakis. If he is given a fair hearing, if he has a significant role at the convention, is allowed to speak and present his views, if he's treated fairly, I think he's going to be supportive. WOODRUFF: But Tom Murphy says fairness can go only so far. He says if Dukakis appears to be making concessions to Jackson, Dukakis has problems.

Rep. MURPHY: He has to let the world know, and especially the United States of America know that he is a Democratic nominee, and he's going to be running the Democratic nomination and he's going to be running the campaign, and he's the boss. WOODRUFF: Bob Beckel says satisfying Jackson should not be difficult.

Mr. BECKEL: Well, I think that's a problem a lot of Democrats see, which is we need Jesse Jackson, but don't get too close to him. And I think they're missing the point. What the Democrats and Dukakis particularly have to do is stop thinking, or don't even begin to think, about laundry lists and gifts bearing to Jesse Jackson. But to think about how you make Jesse Jackson's political world as positive as it possibly can be for a future run for the Presidency. WOODRUFF: Besides, Eddie Williams sees a danger in appearing to give Jackson too much.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What emerges is a real problem, it seems to me, for the Party. Is that to the extent that the nominee is specific he may be headed for a political pitfall. And if Jackson is pushing him toward a suicidal leap, then somebody had better start dealing with that issue early on. WOODRUFF: Dukakis's people believe those potential problems have to be ironed out in private shortly after the primaries are over, to prevent a costly public flare up at the convention. They hope that Dukakis and Jackson are developing the sort of personal relationship that will make that possible.

Mr. BROUNTAS: Generally they've talked after every Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, when Jackson has called Dukakis on occasion, when Dukakis has won primaries, to congratulate him, and Gov. Dukakis has congratulated Rev. Jackson. And they chat during those telephone conversations. WOODRUFF: How would you describe their relationship? Mr. BROUNTAS: I think they're very friendly. WOODRUFF: Bert Lance believes Jackson and his supporters will be able to go away happy from the convention. Ready to campaign enthusiastically in the fall, because they've already won in a different way.

Mr. LANCE: I think what the Jackson supporters realize is that they have played a part in history now. That they have changed the political landscape of this country. That is awfully important. It's not going to go away like a platform goes away. A platform is -- very few people read the platform, very few people pay attention to it. WOODRUFF: But Willie Brown says vague talk about a place in history isn't enough.

Speaker BROWN: Mr. Jackson's incredible efforts has energized lots of us, I mean lots of us, to go beyond our own capacity. And as he has done that, he has made believers out of people like the pipefitters that I described, international longshoremen, the people against offshore drilling up in Mendocino County, those kids, that gang meeting in Los Angeles. He's made real believers out of those people. And those people are not going back, period. Those people are going to be part of the effort to keep making public policy. WOODRUFF: For another perspective on the Dukakis/Jackson balancing act, we return to our own tightrope walkers David Gergen and Mark Shields. Mark, can Jackson's followers cause problems for Dukakis, even if there's some sort of accommodation worked out with Jackson himself? MARK SHIELDS, Washington Post: Oh, sure. There's always a capacity for mischief at any convention, Judy, but I think there's a couple of very encouraging signs that there's going to be a harmonious convention and really a convivial and collegial effort made by both Dukakis and Jackson at the convention. In the first place, the appointment of Jesse Jackson's campaign team, it's led by Ron Brown, a Democratic lawyer who was active at Cape Kennedy, he was general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Jimmy Carter, Harold Ickis, a long time Democratic activist from Gene McCarthy to Musky to Mondale. I mean, these are people who are committed to the Democratic Party's winning. And I think that's very important. I think that is the approach. If you compare what Jesse Jackson has said about Michael Dukakis to what Bob Dole said about George Bush earlier this year, it's nothing in the way of -- WOODRUFF: What you just heard, Dave, and I want you to join in on this -- what Willie Brown just said, which is these people have come a long way and they're not going to turn back, and for Jesse Jackson to walk away with nothing in essence, they're not going to settle for it. DAVID GERGEN, U. S. News & World Report: That's true. But to add to what Mark just said, I think the most important thing, in addition to appointing this group, which is more moderate, is the fact that Dukakis has rolled up a series of impressive victories over the last couple of months, and that's taken a lot of the steam out of the Jackson effort, the pressure to put Jesse Jackson on the ticket, the pressure to give Jesse Jackson a voice on all the platform issues, I think has diminished considerably because of the Dukakis victory. If Dukakis can go on and win in California and New Jersey and roll right through, I don't think that the Jackson problem is as formidable as it was two months ago. WOODRUFF: Does that mean they can ignore Jackson? SHIELDS: No, not at all. There's three tests that Michael Dukakis has between now and leaving the Atlanta convention: How firmly and how fairly he treats Jesse Jackson, and both of those elements must be present, is the first test. The choice of a running mate obviously is a terribly important choice, and so is the quality and content of the acceptance speech he gives. But he has to deal with firmness and fairness, and Jesse Jackson must be treated as would any candidate who had galvanized the constituency and energized a constituency as he has, and has finished second. WOODRUFF: How is that? SHIELDS: He gets his shot at the convention floor. He is -- WOODRUFF: A speech -- SHIELDS: He gets a speech, primetime speech, he gets his representation on all the important committees, and his voice is heard. He also gets the other perquisites that matter at conventions to people, like passes to the hall, and invitations to events. And he is included. WOODRUFF: And do you think that that is going to satisfy Jackson's 1100 or so delegates and all the people that voted for Jesse Jackson? GERGEN: As long as Jackson -- if they can in return for firmness and fairness, and both are important, if I think they can get Jesse Jackson to put Michael Dukakis's name in nomination, that would help a heck of a lot in bringing the blacks behind that ticket -- WOODRUFF: You're both talking about symbolism. Are you saying that all it's going to take is a few symbolic acts and everything's going to be -- SHIELDS: It isn't symbolic. I think that Jesse Jackson, I think that Norm said earlier, Jesse Jackson is not a candidate who is going to be comfortable in the second spot. He's not a natural vice presidential candidate. It isn't as though Jesse Jackson wants to be Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Jackson wants to be treated with the kind of respect and attention that is due him as a terribly important political figure in the Democratic Party. I think Michael Dukakis understands that, I think he's sensitive to it. And he's perceptive to it. But I don't know what you do beyond symbols. I mean, there's no cabinet job. There isn't a Jackson platform other than foreign policy, and I'd say that probably in the third world, particularly as far as South Africa, and a stronger plank on South Africa -- GERGEN: Or Middle East could be very explosive -- SHIELDS: I don't think the Middle East -- GERGEN: There's no evidence right now that Jackson wants to push any single one of these issues. Jackson seems to be the one who is turning into questions of symbolism, as long as he's treated right. And I think Bob Beckel made a very good point, and that is, as long as Dukakis can say realistically that I can help you have a bright future, not only for you personally in terms of your presidential hopes, but for the kind of dreams that you have for the country, I think that Jackson is more likely to go along now. I think all the signals point in that direction. WOODRUFF: But we're still talking symbols. I keep coming back to that. I mean, there's nothing specific that Jackson can begin -- there may be some language in the platform -- GERGEN: But there's nothing -- I think he'll want a voice in helping to select a vice presidential candidate. I think he'll want to be consulted on that. And I think that's real. I think he's going to want to have a voice in the appointments. WOODRUFF: Well, the vice -- well, we're running out of time, but on the vice presidential thing, of course, there have been among others, Sam Nunn, the senator from Georgia, a conservative. Do you think that Dukakis might stay away from a choice like Nunn because Jackson might object, because of Jackson and his followers? SHIELDS: Jackson hasn't blackballed anybody. Jackson hasn't said. I mean, if he really wanted to be a problem to Michael Dukakis right now, he'd say Sam Nunn is unacceptable to me. Alright, which would mean that Michael Dukakis would have to pick Sam Nunn and to do so would be to raise Jesse Jackson's hackles to have a confrontation with him, or either that or appear to back down. Jesse Jackson has done, performed an incredible service. David touched on it earlier. Michael Dukakis has moved across the continent, from time zone to time zone, as a winner for two months, into the consciousness and psyche of America as a winner. And what has Jesse Jackson accused him of all the way? He's a moderate. He's a conservative. He's too tough on terrorists. I mean, he's performed an incredible, valuable, incredibly valuable service to Michael Dukakis. GERGEN: Let me add a brief footnote to this, and that is I think that the Democrats do have to be concerned about a sneak attack on the black vote from George Bush. He's making efforts in that direction, he had black leaders in to see him this week. George Bush will run a better race among black voters than Ronald Reagan did. WOODRUFF: That's one we'll come back to. Gentlemen, David Gergen, Mark Shields, thank you both for being with us. Heart Stoppage MacNEIL: Next tonight we focus on the future of the artificial heart. Last Friday, the government announced that it would stop funding the development of a totally artificial human heart, noting that all five recipients of artificial hearts have died. The director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute said, ''The human body just couldn't seem to tolerate it. We were left wondering whether the idea of a permanent replacement will ever work. '' We'll discuss this controversial decision with the surgeon who pioneered the artificial heart implant and a cardiologist who supports the funding cutoff. But first, some background.

MacNEIL: The program began in 1963, the same time as the Apollo Project to land a man on the moon, an era when it was believed that huge sums of money could solve even the greatest puzzles of science. Since then, the government has spent nearly $240 million on developing an artificial heart. In 1982, after 20 years of research, the first artificial heart was implanted in a 61 year old retired dentist, Barney Clark. Clark lived for 112 days before dying from circulatory and renal failure. In all there were five artificial heart implants, four done in this country and one abroad. Like Clark each one was implanted with a plastic and metal Jarvik 7 artificial heart. All suffered complications of bleeding, infection and stroke, and all eventually died. In 1984, William Shraeder received his implant and lived for 620 days, longer than any other recipient. He was also the only one to live outside the hospital. His experience led critics to question the quality of life that an artificial heart recipient would lead. The Jarvik heart is powered by batteries worn on the waist or in a shoulder harness. And therefore patients must be tethered to an external power source. The following year Murray Haydon was implanted. He died of a stroke after 488 days. Jack Burcham, the oldest recipient, received his heart in 1985, but died ten days later of massive bleeding. Artificial hearts have been used more frequently and with more success as temporary bridges in patients who are waiting for heart transplants. Last week's announcement suspends funding to four centers which had been chosen to develop an electric totally implantable heart, one which would free patients from the support equipment of the Jarvik heart. The government will focus its resources instead on the development of devices used to assist a failing heart, rather than to replace it. Privately funded programs like the Jarvik heart will not be affected by the NIH decision. MacNEIL: With us now are Dr. William DeVries, the surgeon who implanted four Americans with the Jarvik 7 artificial heart. He joins us from Louisville. And Dr. Thomas Preston, chief cardiologist at the Pacific Medical Center in Seattle. He joins us from Public Station KCTS, Seattle. Dr. DeVries, as the pioneer of the artificial heart, what do you think of the NIH decision? Dr. WILLIAM DeVRIES, Humana Audubon Hospital: Well, I think it's unfortunate, Robin, that the NIH would first of all say that the artificial heart was a worthwhile thing to do, and then actually fund it. After competitive research work in which they actually gave 11 centers -- each submitted over 500 pages of documents -- finally selecting four. And now as a result of this, end of their first year now, there's probably about 100 scientists out of work, and the project has stopped. On little more than one man's hearsay, uninformed hearsay, the results that were pending. I think it's valuable research, it needs to continue on and there's up to 35,000 Americans who could benefit from the research. And I think it's very unfortunate that this has to be stopped. MacNEIL: You do not believe that the NIH decision was based on a dispassionate, thorough sifting of the scientific evidence? Dr. DeVRIES: No, sir, I don't. I feel that it was basically on funding. I think there's very little evidence that any scientific evidence was used to make that decision. The working council which came out yesterday noted that they supported the further funding and said that they thought that the artificial heart was clinically important and technically feasible, and was timely, and recommended further funding. I agree with them. And that's a scientific body. MacNEIL: Dr. Preston, you support the funding cutoff decision. Would you explain why? Dr. THOMAS PRESTON, Pacific Medical Center: Well, first I have to say that I'm not privy to the actual thinking that came into this policy. But my understanding is that there's a limited amount of money and that in fact scientifically and research wise, the best way to spend this money is to go with the assist devices, to go back to the previous NIH policy, which they had until 1985, when I think they got on the bandwagon, which was understandable, and said, All right we'll support the total. All right, now they're going back and saying the best way in fact to get to the ultimate end, which is a total heart is to do a step wise approach, do the basic research, and we'll get there faster. There simply isn't enough money to do both, so they want to get the most bang for the buck. That's essentially it. MacNEIL: Dr. DeVries, why is that wrong in your view? Why isn't the ventricular assist device, the speedier route to developing the artificial heart? Dr. DeVRIES: Robin, I think both devices need to be used. But I think with the research in the last several years points out that about 50 total artificial hearts have been implanted and a little more than that by ventricular assist devices implanted. Their track record is equal. On the so called bridge transplant, an equal amount of them are alive now in the hospital. The complications have been almost identical to both groups. And I think there's very little scientific information to show that one is better than the other on the bridge to transplant. I think by studying both it's important. And I would agree that the NIH initial fund, which they allowed funding for both groups, should be applicable. I think that it's unfortunate that never before has actual research project like this been advanced and then cut off in the first year. And I think that's the unfortunate aspect. I think it should be done on a scientific information, which the NIH, which is the greatest scientific body in the world should do. And I think this is unfortunate that this body, this prestigious body, should withdraw their support on really poor information. MacNEIL: Dr. Preston, what do you say to Dr. DeVries's point that there isn't evidence that the ventricular assist device in 50 or so implants has worked out any better than the totally artificial heart? Dr. PRESTON: Yes, I think he's referring to using it as a bridge. MacNEIL: As a bridge. Dr. PRESTON: Yes, and he knows a lot more about that than I do, and I believe he's correct. But that's not really the big point here. The point is that to go on with further clinical testing is very, very expensive, and it can be done now on the assist device. It's ready for clinical testing. Clinical testing for the total artificial heart is a long way off, it'd be terribly expensive, and again it's just a matter of doing what's best right now to get the most information because we simply can't do it all. MacNEIL: Dr. DeVries, let's look at one of the arguments the NIH official used when he made the announcement a week ago. We quoted it at the beginning here. That the human body, it seems, can't tolerate the artificial heart, the fully artificial heart. Dr. DeVRIES: No, I would disagree with that. Now, I had a personal experience with over 3. 4 years of patients with artificial hearts. And I saw these people celebrate their birthdays or weddings, I saw them fish, I saw one of them go bowling, I saw them walk up and down stairs. And basically if I were in the same position that Schraeder, Haydon or Clark, or even Burchom were in, and I had a choice of having an artificial heart or die, I would go ahead and do it. That's one aspect. The other aspect is that the only way you're going to be able to solve these problems and have a clinically sufficient device is if you're to go ahead and try it. And that's the only way you can do it. And I support this ground research which will build more effective pumps and allow people to do more things. And I think the only way you're going to do it is if you advance the science by looking. I think that when you say you shouldn't look, you're going into the intellectual dark ages. And these groups really do need funding. And without funding they're going to have to rely more and more on private sources, and they're not going to be able to find the funding that the NIH could have given them. MacNEIL: Dr. Preston, how about that? If you don't look you won't find. If you don't try it you won't advance? Dr. PRESTON: This is an argument that I think is simply not valid. No one is saying don't look. What we're saying is we have limited resources, how do we want to use it? The SST, for instance, was a great research project and society decided -- MacNEIL: That was the supersonic transport plane -- Dr. PRESTON: Supersonic transport -- because it was not in society's best interest. The point is that although Dr. DeVries, who is a fine investigator, and others, one of whom happens to be a personal friend of mine, may have been cut off from funding, we can't do things just because they want to do it and it's their life's work. We have to do what's in the best interest of society. And to get back to the paramount point here, the basic research I think can be done better on the assist devices in a step wise manner, work out these problems, and there are still a lot of problems to be solved for any permanent total implanted heart. I have to disagree with Dr. DeVries. I think the quality of life of those who got it on a permanent basis was terrible, and that's why people aren't coming forth and asking for it now. MacNEIL: Dr. DeVries, on the quality of life point? Dr. DeVRIES: All that I can tell you is that if I didn't believe in it, I would never ask for it on myself. People always say to me, well the quality of life's not what I wanted, I wouldn't be able to play golf and bowl and so forth. And I -- because I'm attached to a machine. And I point out to them that these patients for the most part have to sit up at night to catch their breath in order to breathe, to stay alive. And in that case the artificial heart can give them a renewed quality of life that they would have missed. And so I disagree. I think the quality of life is better than the alternative. And I think that's one good reason. But the advancement of science is an even better reason for doing it. MacNEIL: Is the quality of life you're able to achieve, controversial as it was, is it worth it for those few patients, considering the enormous expense involved for them? Dr. DeVRIES: Well, it might have been controversial to you, but I assure you it wasn't controversial to Bill Schraeder, Murray Haydon and those patients. And they weren't interested in what it cost. They were interested and they couldn't breathe, and they had someone that could help them. And that's what science does. Now if you want to know what the quality of human life is and how much it costs, that's another question. My mother used to say to me all the time, Eat all your food, because people in Africa are starving. And at the time I would have gladly given all my food to the starving people in Africa. But appropriation of funds isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about good science that has been appropriated, the funds have been appropriated, cut off, because of inappropriate funding. And I think that's inappropriate. You make a deal from the government, the government provides you money, and you do the research. And if you're not going to give the money, you shouldn't have asked for the funding to be put out. And that's the problem I think they made. I think they should honor their commitment, because it's a good, worthwhile procedure, and I don't think there's anything in the science that shows it was a bad deal. MacNEIL: Do you have a final brief comment, Dr. Preston? Dr. PRESTON: Well, I respect Dr. DeVries very much as an investigator, but I think what we have to think about is what's best for the country and what's best for other people. There are tremendous tradeoffs here. Should we try to develop an artificial heart that will benefit a very few people and give them a questionable prolonged existence at great expense to the rest of society? And that's what other people, not Dr. DeVries and I, or you, have to alone debate, but the whole country must. MacNEIL: We must leave it there. Gentlemen, thank you, Dr. Preston and Dr. DeVries. Larger Than Life WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, politicians aren't the only thing that draw crowds in Washington. For the past few weeks, thousands of people have been flocking daily to the National Gallery of Art where on display is a blockbuster exhibition of the work of Paul Gauguin. We have some thoughts from the art critic for Newsday, Amei Wallach.

AMEI WALLACH: If this isn't the last word on Paul Gauguin, it's the most dazzling we're likely to be offered in our lifetimes. It's enough to give blockbusters a good name. It's got a reason for being. And the reason is an unprecedented international attempt to separate the facts of Gauguin's art and life from the fictions he so carefully built around them. Except for Hemingway, no one has devoted so many waking hours to creating his own legend as Paul Gauguin. He was the buccaneer, the savage, the renegade from family, home and career. A potbellied seducer of Tahitian 14 year olds. He was the dandy with silver pinky rings, brown velvet cowboy hat, and exotically carved cane. It was a legend of a larger than life variety, and like blockbusters it served a purpose. It propelled him the impossible distance from the 31 year old banker with money worries, who could manage a workaday impressionist to an inspired nomad of 46 who streaked his canvas with moulten colors. Who's to say that without the legend he could have transformed himself from the gentleman collector who painted his four year old daughter asleep in a tumble of pastel shadows, to the gone native creator of a terror struck Lolita, shrouded in nightmare purple. He couldn't paint the way he wanted to and support his growing family. So he left. After a while he went to Brittany, which he found satisfyingly savage and primitive. ''The flat sound of my wooden clog on cobblestones, deep, hollow and powerful,'' he wrote, ''is the note I seek in my paintings. '' Afterwards he made a painting, The Loss of Virginity. The sacrificial girl is crude as a tribal carving, and a fox presides over the ritual. There'd never been a painting like this. It exuded mystery and dread, which was precisely what Gauguin was after. By the 1880s, when Gauguin was painting full time, it wasn't enough, like the impressionists, to paint nature as it seemed to be. It mattered to have theories about painting. Gauguin's theories came from the symbolists. He wanted to dream in front of a canvas, he said. He wanted his paintings to evoke primal emotions. He was more than willing to bludgeon his viewers with outrageous color, or seduce them with sensuous line. What he saw before him was far less important than how it might best be arranged on canvas. Line for the sake of line, and color for the sake of color eventually led to modernism. But when Gauguin said his Tahitian paintings were so abstract they were utterly incomprehensible, he meant his dappled green and spotted red horses never drew breath outside Persian miniatures, and his own imagination. For that matter, almost nothing about his Tahiti was real. He didn't find the primitive sculpture he expected there, so he made some for himself. He didn't find blissful natives at one with nature among the missionary infected Tahitians, so he created them. Bareback on horses, along a pink beach. He invented colors as obsessively as he invented himself. The iridescent yellow of halos, the baleful red of spilled blood, the tang of sun drenched tangerines. He discovered brutality in himself, and it infused the paintings, most obviously his own self portrait. Hostility and belligerence are as much his method as chrome yellow. Towards the end, sick with syphilis, eye infections, eczema that the islanders took for leprosy, unable to walk, let alone paint, he hiked the mask up once again and decorated his house with erotic carvings more menacing than enticing. He called the place ''The House of Pleasure. '' And there he died at 54, of a massive dose of morphine. As with Hemingway, the legend hadn't served the man in the end. But it served the art. Recap MacNEIL: Again the main points in the news. In Winnetka, Illinois, an affluent suburb of Chicago, a woman walked into an elementary school and opened fire, killing one child and critically wounding five others. She later barricaded herself in a home several blocks away and wounded a young man. The Associated Press reported that a tentative deal has been reached for General Noriega to leave Panama in August and stay out of the country until May of next year. In return for Noriega's departure, the U. S. would drop drug smuggling indictments against him. Good night, Judy. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back Monday night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a nice weekend.