The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the ceasefire in Chechnya, Margaret Warner gets the analysis of two Russian experts; the Hillary Clinton factor, Elizabeth Farnsworth talks to five of our regional commentators; the business of AIDS, Fred De Sam Lazaro reports from Minneapolis, and this big day in baseball and basketball, essayist Roger Rosenblatt explores the differences. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Russian troops began a unilateral ceasefire in Chechnya last night at midnight. President Yeltsin said Russia would organize a phased troop withdrawal and new elections and would negotiate Chechnya's status within the Russian Federation. But news reports said the Chechen rebels did not honor the ceasefire, killing 28 Russian soldiers shortly after it began. In Washington, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake said both sides are at fault.

ANTHONY LAKE, National Security Adviser: We oppose terrorism in all its forms. But we also oppose strongly the means the Russians have been using. Widespread and indiscriminate use of force has spilled far too much innocent blood and eroded support for Russia. The cycle of violence must end. We welcome President Yeltsin's decision announced yesterday to begin withdrawing army units and to intensify the search for a settlement there. We call on the Chechens to respond in a similar spirit.

MR. LEHRER: More than 30,000 people have died since Chechen rebels launched their independence fight 15 months ago. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. In Okinawa, Japan today, a man who attempted to reclaim his land from the United States Navy was turned away by riot police. Leases for land occupied by American military bases expired yesterday, and some 28,000 people demonstrated in Tokyo against their renewal. The Japanese prime minister signed documents last week renewing those leases. In Washington, a State Department spokesman commented on this situation.

GLYN DAVIES, State Department Spokesman: It's the government of Japan, not Okinawa, itself, that provides the United States the use by our armed forces of "facilities" in areas in Japan. Arrangements, therefore, for the leasing of the land in Okinawa is the responsibility of the government of Japan, so we are looking to the government of Japan, and they've said publicly, they've reiterated that they want the leases renewed, and they're taking action and we're, we're going to wait and see what develops.

MR. LEHRER: In Bosnia news today, the government of Bosnia has joined the World Bank. In doing so, it immediately secured $269 million worth of credit to fund emergency reconstruction projects. In the Hague, Netherlands, the first Croatian army officer indicted by the Bosnian War Crimes Tribunal surrendered today. General Tihomir Blaskic is charged with killing or expelling hundreds of Muslims in Central Bosnia in 1992 and '93. His attorney said the attacks were carried out by renegade soldiers without Blaskic's knowledge. On the Mad Cow Disease story today, Britain's agriculture secretary offered to kill 4 1/2 million cattle over the next six years to battle the disease. He made the offer at an emergency meeting of the European Union in Luxembourg. Ministers discussed whether the EU should help pay for that slaughter.

DOUGLAS HOGG, Agriculture Minister, Britain: There's been a great deal of talk about solidarity. And I suggested that the proper approach was 80 percent from European Union for the kind of funding we've been thinking about and 20 percent from nation states. Now, clearly, there's going to be further discussion on that.

MR. LEHRER: British officials want the EU ban on British beed lifted. Beef prices have dropped throughout Europe since it was announced the Mad Cow Disease may be linked to a human equivalent. Back in this country, in Montana, the stand-off with 12 members of the anti-government Freemen group continued. They are wanted on charges of making death threats to a federal judge, as well as bank and mail fraud. This afternoon, one of the leaders was arraigned in Billings, Montana. He was arrested last week. At the Supreme Court today, the Justices made it easier to win age bias suits against employers. They ruled workers can sue if they are fired for being over 40 even if they are replaced by someone who is also 40. Two major business mergers were announced today. The parent company of Southwestern Bell, SBC, and Pacific Telesis Group will unite under the SBC name. The merger is valued at $16.7 billion. This is the first merger of two so-called "Baby Bells" since the new telecommunications law was passed. Before, such combinings were not permitted. The other merger is in the insurance industry. Aetna Life & Casualty Company will acquire U.S. Health Care. The $8.9 billion deal will create the nation's largest medical benefits company. The two companies now provide health care services to 23 million people, one in every twelve Americans. The Major League Baseball season had a tough beginning today. Several teams cancelled their season openers because of bad weather, but in New York and several other cities, they did play ball. The season started early to prevent the play-offs from extending into November because several division play-offs were added last year. And there was a tragedy at the Cincinnati Reds' opening game. Umpire John McSherry collapsed in the first inning of the game against the Montreal Expos. He was taken to a local hospital, where he died a short time later. He was 51 years old. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Chechnya ceasefire, the Hillary Clinton story, the business of AIDS, and Rosenblatt on sports. UPDATE - CEASEFIRE?

MR. LEHRER: Boris Yeltsin's ceasefire declaration in Chechnya is our lead story tonight. Margaret Warner is in charge.

MS. WARNER: Over 15 months of fighting in Chechnya, more than 30,000 people have been killed, Chechen civilians and rebel fighters and 3,000 Russian soldiers. President Yeltsin has tried unsuccessfully in the past to end this conflict with rebels who want an independent Chechnya. Now, facing reelection in June, President Yeltsin has come up with a new plan. We have a report from Ian Glover James of Independent Television News about Yeltsin's latest bid for peace.

IAN GLOVER JAMES, ITN: Under Boris Yeltsin's plan, federal Russian forces in Chechnya are to stop military operations and in peaceful areas withdraw, handing over to the gray-uniformed interior ministry troops who still conduct what the Russians call anti-terrorist operations. As the news broke in the Chechen capital, Grozny, some Russian soldiers seemed openly relieved. Yeltsin's rivals in the election race to be Russian President were scornful of his Chechen speech.

GRIGORY YAVLINKSKY, Democratic Opposition Leader: Certainly he is doing such that only because he must be elected, wants to be elected on the 16th of June elections. From one hand it shows that democracy in Russia a little bit works; from the other hand, it shows that his attitude to the war in Chechnya is very double-faced and cynical.

GENNADY ZUGAYNOV, Communist Party Leader: [speaking through interpreter] Was it necessary to wait a year and bomb half this republic to get this? It was not.

IAN GLOVER JAMES: In the southern villages where they're still holding out against the Russians, Chechen fighters gathered to watch Yeltsin's broadcast. He promised a cessation of military operations and a package of political measures, but troop withdrawal would only affect the 2/3 of Chechnya the Russians believe they control. There were signs Yeltsin is contemplating a greater autonomy for Chechnya after peace has been achieved. But his cautious offer to open talks through intermediaries with the Russian leader Dzhokhar Dudayev was simply laughed at.

DOKA MAKHAYEV, Chechen Commander: [speaking through interpreter] We expect the worst. We are ready for the worst. Yeltsin can say this, but the war will go on.

IAN GLOVER JAMES: Overhead, Russian helicopters patrol an uneasy calm. On the ground, Chechen villages survey the aftermath of Russian shelling, suspicious of anything Moscow tries next.

MS. WARNER: We get two views now. Leon Aron is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and is writing a biography of Boris Yeltsin. Stephen Sestanovich is vice president of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment. He was on the National Security Council staff in the Reagan administration. Welcome, both of you. Leon Aron, are Boris Yeltsin's opponents we've just heard accurate that this is strictly an election year ploy?

LEON ARON, American Enterprise Institute: Well, in democracies, election year ploys sometimes turn into policies, and that's how democracies work. And hopefully, this is how it might work for Russia. Clearly, Yeltsin has always stated that the war in Chechnya is something that is continuously stabbing him in the back. If he has, his chances for reelections, at least at this point, are rather slim, but certainly without ending the war there, they're going to be almost non-existent. So I think on Yeltsin's part, this is a step that we all expected. The question is: [a] How serious he is, and [b] and I think he is serious, because his back is against the wall, but also how much control he actually has over the actual structure in place in Chechnya.

MS. WARNER: What's your answer to those two questions, Steve Sestanovich? In other words, can this really lead to something substantive?

STEPHEN SESTANOVICH, Carnegie Endowment: It can be hard for him. He's got very little time to show real progress. It's very, very hard to extricate yourself from a war of this kind when you don't really know who you're dealing with, you don't know what the degree of control and unity is on the other side. As the Israelis have discovered, you make peace with the moderates or establish negotiations with the moderates, and the next thing you know, terrorism goes up.

MS. WARNER: What do you think the prospects are?

MR. ARON: Well, you know, it's very interesting about the Chechen rebels. I think Steve's parallel could be extended a bit further. Hamas essentially has now in its power more or less to make or break--

MS. WARNER: That's the Palestinian rejectionist group.

MR. ARON: Palestinian rejection group, right--make or break, uh, Shimon Peres and his chances for reelection. I think to a certain extent Dzhokhar Dudayev, the leader of the Chechen secessionists, has almost the same power over Boris Yeltsin. And they are in the predicament that as they--the Chechen fighters--either they, they follow the pretty well justified hatred of Yeltsin and decide to- -not to give him an inch and contribute very significantly to his defeat, if that defeat occurs in the Presidential poll, or they decide to take what they can now because Yeltsin's politically weakened, his back is against the wall and it is probably the best deal they'll get--Communists, if Yeltsin is not, is not reelected, they cannot expect, I don't believe, a better deal than is offered now.

MS. WARNER: And maybe a worse deal.

MR. ARON: Uh, somebody from, umm, the Communist leader's group was at our institute the other day, and he said, sovereignty of Russia over Chechnya is not negotiable, so, you know, they will not get independence either from Yeltsin or the Communists, but I think Yeltsin has more incentive now to be flexible.

MS. WARNER: So Steve Sestanovich, how do you interpret today's attack by the Chechens on this Russian army column? I mean, do you think that was, that was directed by Dudayev, the Chechen leader? Do you think that represents a decision that they made vis-a-vis the choice that Leon Aron just laid out?

MR. SESTANOVICH: Well, this is a war in which such things are happening every day, and we shouldn't over-interpret this. But I think it would be surprising to discover that the--that the Chechens would simply stand down and that the war would end while negotiations began. Incidentally, we don't even know that they're going to begin, or that there's even a mediator who's agreed to do it. If they begin, both sides will wage war at the bargaining table and on the battlefield. They will be constantly trying to emphasize that they're not bargaining from a position of weakness at the table. Leon is absolutely right about Yeltsin's political weakness, but the, the Chechen leadership will have the same problem. They want to show that they are--that they are not giving up. So the hostilities are almost fated to continue here.

MS. WARNER: And what about the prospects, if they actually ever do sit down to talk--I mean, Leon just said Yeltsin cannot grant independence. Can the Chechen leader do anything less than press for independence?

MR. SESTANOVICH: Well, the solution of that problem in negotiations is always pretty simple. You have stages. You, you put off the hard questions until later. Both sides have an incentive to do that. Yeltsin doesn't have to end the war, solve the contract, before June. He has to reassure voters that it's on the way to being solved, that he's making every reasonable effort to meet the Chechens and to pacify the situation. He doesn't have to end it, and they don't have to either.

MS. WARNER: Leon Aron, how did you interpret what the administration--Clinton administration said today, Tony Lake, the national security adviser, about the Russian offer?

MR. ARON: Well, I, I don't have that text. What did he say?

MS. WARNER: What he did saw was that he thought there had been way too much bloodshed, and he applauded what Yeltsin had offered.

MR. ARON: Well, this is a natural response. You know, peace anywhere is better than war anywhere. The administration clearly believes that Yeltsin's chances for reelection will increase if the war is slowed down, as Steve pointed, if not ended. Yeltsin's defeat at the polls I think would be a very serious issue in our campaign. Who lost Russia to the Communists--

MS. WARNER: In our American presidential campaign.

MR. ARON: American presidential campaign--would be very much of a thorn in Clinton's side. So I'm not surprised that, that gesture is welcome. Unfortunately, I don't see what assistance can we lend in practical terms to settle that conflict.

MS. WARNER: Well, Steve Sestanovich, there was a meeting between Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin in Cairo last month, and this memo was leaked about it, and there as a big controversy. What was that all about, this discussion they had about helping one another in their elections?

MR. SESTANOVICH: Well, you'll forgive me a little skepticism about this. The big guys get together and they break the ice by offering to be really helpful to each other in this sort of hard- boiled, "tell all" way, but the truth is they don't have much opportunity to really help each other, neither one of them in the other's campaign. What Bill Clinton has done for Boris Yeltsin, he's already pretty much done. He's gotten him a big IMF loan. He's tried to go a little easy on NATO expansion, and he has not given him too hard a time on Chechnya, and those are serious things. This sort of back room talk isn't terribly important.

MS. WARNER: Well, let's look at Boris Yeltsin's strategy in this election. How do you see that, Leon Aron? The early punditry was he was going to play to the hard-line, but how has it developed?

MR. ARON: Yeltsin's strategy, I think, is rather predictable. He- -it's a two-track policy. On the one hand, he would be trying, I think, almost till the election day to chip away at the left nationalist constituency of the Communists. At the same time, I think as the election approaches, he'll be playing more and more to the center side. See, both center left and center right in Russia are now unoccupied. You have, you have pretty fair division- -about a third locked for Communists. I think when all is said and done, a lock, a third is locked for Yeltsin and for reform. The other--the bet was for that third in the middle--the people who may not show up at the polls, in which case I think Yeltsin will certainly be defeated, because the Communist constituency, old Stalinist horses, are very disciplined, and they will come to vote. So I think Yeltsin would be doing things like peace offering in Chechnya. I think even more important in that regard, his land reform act essentially granting the Russians the ownership of the land they now lease or have. Notice that both of those issues were the key planks in Grigory Yavlinsky's program.

MS. WARNER: One of the reform parties.

MR. ARON: The reform parties in the middle.

MS. WARNER: In the middle.

MR. ARON: And I always believe, and I continue to believe, that there'll be a very serious attempt to make a deal with Yavlinsky, either explicitly or implicitly, so that Yeltsin will get his votes and projections from the second round.

MS. WARNER: And we should explain that the first round is strictly for a place in the run-off probably, is that correct, for two, the top two?

MR. ARON: Nobody will get the majority, that's right.

MS. WARNER: How do you see his strategy developing?

MR. SESTANOVICH: Well, I think Leon's intuition about the thirds of Russian politics is confirmed by a poll that's going to come out tomorrow in Moscow which shows Zugaynov, the Communist leader, leading Yeltsin 36 to 33 in a run-off. That's a big increase for Yeltsin. What both sides have done now is really consolidate their base. They've got their third, and the issue is who can get the extra margin that will mean victory? Umm, some of the ploys and initiatives that Leon has described are going to be important, uh, but they're not really bread and butter issues, uh, in the same way that some others are. Land, land reform is a promise, and, uh, it may materialize, but it hasn't yet. What Yeltsin has to do most concretely now is live up to a promise which he's actually already broken, that is to pay people back wages by the end of March. His effort to do that--many people haven't been paid for months and months--his effort to do that will be a test of his ability to deliver the goods, but unfortunately, Yeltsin has a very weak government, and he's pushing on the levers of power--

MR. ARON: A very corrupt government.

MR. SESTANOVICH: --but there's very--there's very little in the way of a response. A lot of voters who haven't been paid by June are probably going to vote against their interests and their preferences but just because they're mad and vote against Yeltsin.

MS. WARNER: What do you have to add to that?

MR. ARON: Well, I'll say that the prospect of having a Communist as a president is something that concentrates your mind wonderfully, and, uh, I think as we come closer to the elections, Zugaynov's negatives will go up, and Yeltsin--

MS. WARNER: The Communist leader's--

MR. ARON: The Communist leader's--and I think we'll, we'll have a fairly evenly matched finale for this presidential campaign.

MS. WARNER: But do you agree, Steve Sestanovich, that the marginal candidates will sort of fall away, and you will see this coalescing?

MR. SESTANOVICH: I think after the first round, if it really is Zugaynov and Yeltsin in the first two slots, most other Russian politicians will rally behind Yeltsin. They are going to have their minds concentrated in exactly the way that Leon says. The way Yeltsin is going to build that coalition I think is less by making specific concessions and deals with 'em and more by framing the issue in very broad terms, that is, do you want the Communists back?

MS. WARNER: It certainly sounds like our own election, not by Communists. Well, thank you both very much. FOCUS - THE BUSINESS OF AIDS

MR. LEHRER: Now, the business of AIDS. The disease now affects more than 100,000 Americans, a group that is increasingly viewed as a lucrative market for some businesses. Fred De Sam Lazaro of KTCA, Minneapolis-St. Paul reports.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: In the gay community, Bill T. Jones is an icon, an artist who has remained at the peak of his career, even enhanced it, after becoming infected with HIV. The 43-year-old dancer and choreographer routinely plays to sell-out audiences, gay and straight.

BILL T. JONES, Dancer/Choreographer: Being the responsible artist that I am, rather than take my agony and become an alcoholic or have huge ulcers, I began to make work which examining how do I live with this, with this pain, and I call it survival, life hurts.

MR. LAZARO: Jones earns enough money to support himself comfortably, but others have found multimillion dollar opportunities meeting the needs of HIV-affected people. "Poz" Magazine, which recently featured Jones, is targeted precisely at this group. It was founded a year and a half ago by Sean O'Brien Strub, an activist in the gay community, also suffering from AIDS.

SEAN O'BRIEN STRUB, Strubco, Inc. The overarching big picture objective with "Poz" is to change how we view AIDS, that the idea that AIDS is a death sentence, and it's a terminal illness and it's inevitably fatal has been drilled into us again and again and again and again. And I am living proof that that is not true. It certainly is true for many people. But for thousands, and a very significant percentage, they live many, many years.

MR. LAZARO: "Poz" Magazine is just one component of what has grown into a $10 million a year enterprise. The chief source of revenue for the company called Strubco is a mail order pharmacy managed by Stephen Gendin.

STEPHEN GENDIN, Pharmacy Manager: Most of our customers are taking a lot of medication and even managing the process of getting their drugs is very complicated, so we try to make it as easy as possible by keeping track of when people need their prescriptions by filling out their insurance paper work for them so they don't have to do that, by shipping it directly to their house so they don't have to worry about going back and forth between the pharmacy.

SEAN O'BRIEN STRUB: And we become their advocate. And we fight with the insurance company. If the insurance company says they won't cover something, we're the ones that go to them and say, oh, yeah, why not, you know, you covered it for this person, or you covered it for that person. I mean, the companies that are just totally--it's just the bottom line dollar and nothing else matters, I think we're the other end of that spectrum.

MR. LAZARO: For the most part, businesses like Strubco, run by and for people affected by HIV, have not drawn criticism. However, controversial enterprises have also sprung up, run by people with no emotional ties to the AIDS market. One of the most lucrative is so-called viatical settlements, the purchase of life insurance policies from AIDS patients. Meir Eliav heads Legacy Benefits, one of the largest viatical companies.

MEIR ELIAV, Legacy Benefits Corporation: There is very little public information, and we can only rely on informal data that being circulated according to different sources we are talking about $500 annual market right now, and it's expected to grow substantially over the next few years.

MR. LAZARO: Businesses like Eliav's, some financed by banks, others representing wealthy individuals, pay AIDS patients a percentage of the face value of their life insurance policies, usually 60 to 80 percent, depending on their life expectancy. In exchange, the buyer becomes the policy's beneficiary. For many AIDS patients like Jim Fielding, facing unemployment and large medical bills, life insurance policies are often the only major financial asset.

JIM FIELDING: What I wasn't counting on was losing my job, umm, and at that point I was in a state where I had, I had no money. I was recovering from the financial difficulties of the loss of my lover. Umm, I had medical bills to pay from a hospitalization, and, umm, I needed to, umm, to take on some responsibilities to get my life back in order. Umm, it was at that point that I decided to, umm, contact these places that buy your life insurance.

MR. LAZARO: Fielding sold his $74,000 policy for $52,000 after weeks of negotiating and shopping several companies to bid up the price. He and other critics say many AIDS patients lack this savvy for what is an emotionally difficult business.

JIM FIELDING: And that's a lot for a lot of people to psychologically swallow because they're going to see paper work that has their life expectancy on it that they have to sign; they're going to see their medical records that they have to sign and turn over. If you're not really emotionally--handle--have a handle on it, it can be devastating, especially if you're in a situation where you're in a crisis.

MR. LAZARO: The viatical industry has been plagued by complaints of unscrupulous sales tactics and low settlements. Few critics want to see the trade outlawed, but many are repelled by what they call death futures. John Arras is a medical ethicist.

JOHN ARRAS, Ethicist, University of Virginia: I, I think that, you know, some people might be tempted to say that this is an incredibly exploitative operation, you know, that these companies are like buzzards, you know, circling, waiting for people, you know, to die and recoup the money from their insurance policies, and that they're dealing with people by and large who are poor, sick, desperate, you know, people who are not in a very strong bargaining position.

MR. LAZARO: Eliav says regulations passed in many states requiring background checks of investors and better disclosure to clients have ended abuses. He insists viatical companies rescue many desperate people, rather than exploit them.

MEIR ELIAV: You have to understand that in many, many cases people did not have the money to pay the premiums, so what is happening, there was a life insurance policy for $100,000, the insured did not have the funds to pay the premiums. The policy would expire. Nobody would have gotten the money. In this case, we come into the picture, we have advance 70, 75 percent of, of the policy funds to an individual, 70 on the $100,000 policy has $75,000. That's a lot of money that changes the quality of life for many, many people.

MR. LAZARO: Including investors like Eliav. With returns of 20 to 25 percent, many larger companies have entered the viatical business and begun to target terminal cancer patients who far outnumber those with AIDS. Handsome as those returns seem, they are dwarfed by another AIDS-driven market, home infusion. Like many AIDS patients, Kent Dillon takes his medications through a catheter attached directly into a vein. Although occasionally monitored by a nurse like Lanny Ballard, Dillon is able to administer the medicines, himself.

LANNY BALLARD, Nurse: [talking to Dillon] Draw a little bit of blood back.

MR. LAZARO: Home infusion, perhaps more than any single service in health care, has seen meteoric growth. It accounts for about 2/3 of all medical expenses incurred by AIDS patients. Kent Dillon says it is money well spent in his case.

KENT DILLON: I told the woman at the place where I work, I said, you know, I'm just freaked, like $10,000 a month for the rest of my life, that's so much money. And she said, well, now wait a minute, you know, like you're still able to be productive and move and, and walk.

LANNY BALLARD: Not only has these different technologies extended the--extended or improved the quantity of life, we've also improved the quality of life as well, so, you know, patients are able to live a normal life, and live with the AIDS virus.

KENT DILLON: I don't know if it's normal, but it's--no, it's a life.

LANNY BALLARD: It's better than if you were in the hospital.

KENT DILLION: I'll tell you--yeah.

MR. LAZARO: Although well worth it to Dillon--and most of his costs are borne by a private insurer, ethicist Arras says home infusion prices are grossly inflated.

JOHN ARRAS: When Mark Green was the commissioner of consumer affairs for New York, uh, he published a very revealing document that, that, you know, demonstrated mark-ups of a pretty amazing magnitude. Green figured that this is costing the companies maybe something like $2,000 a month. The charges to customers and insurance companies comes to something like $16,000.

MR. LAZARO: The home therapy industry is tight-lipped about profit margins, but Anthony Esposito, vice president of New York- based The Care Group, says insurers have historically not quibbled over price since they viewed home infusion as a saving.

ANTHONY ESPOSITO, The Care Group: Beginning in the 80's, we saw actual profit margins that extended to 2,000 percent. At that point, it was mainly non-regulated. The insurance companies, the payer sources, were not as familiar with the home care entity of infusion. They saw it as a saving from a hospital environment, and in many cases, it was, because in the hospital environment, you're paying for the hospital day, the bed, the full service of the hospital staff, the nurses, the physicians. In the home, it was cheaper because you're not paying for all the service provision and the actual hospital costs.

MR. LAZARO: Health economist and author Peter Arno worries not just about prices but also fraud in the home infusion business, especially when it comes to debatable practices like nutrition therapy that's supposed to be for terminal patients unable to swallow and digest.

PETER ARNO, Health Economist: The relationship between cost and, and price is very, very distorted because people are desperate and they're, they're victim to, uh, to, uh, fraudulent activities not only of their home care companies but home care companies in collusion with physicians, where kickbacks have been made between the doctors and the companies to get more and more patients hooked on some of these therapies. And the signs show that they have very limited efficacy at all.

MR. LAZARO: Arno says patient advocates have managed to get new laws passed in many states to curb fraud in the AIDS market, but to their discouragement, that market promises to continue growing. That's because the rate of new HIV infections among gay males, after flattening out, even declining in the late 80's, has begun once again to rise.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Hillary Clinton issue and a big day in sports. FOCUS - IMAGE PROBLEMS

MR. LEHRER: Now, the First Lady story. Elizabeth Farnsworth has it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton got a break last week from the slings and arrows of Whitewater and other misfortunes. She took a nine-day trip to Germany, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Italy, Turkey, and Greece with her 16-year-old daughter, Chelsea. After touring remote outposts in Bosnia, the First Lady thanked cheering U.S. soldiers in Tuzla for providing a good example to the Bosnians.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: There is no better example in the world of what a multiethnic, multiracial, multicultural team means in the United States military. You look around at the men and women in this room, you're letting people who have hated each other, who have killed each other know there is another way. Look to America. And that's what I thank you for. [cheers and applause]

MS. FARNSWORTH: The White House pointed out that no First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has made such a trip into a potentially hostile military environment. After Bosnia-Herzegovina, the First Lady pushed on, fulfilling more traditional duties and, whenever possible, addressing issues important to her like women's rights and families. In Turkey, she placed a wreath at the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish Republic. In Greece, at the head of a throng of reporters, she toured the Acropolis and nearby ruins. Throughout the nine-day trip, Mrs. Clinton made herself unusually available to reporters. Bill Nichols of "U.S.A. Today" wrote, "Far away from the White House and stories that portray her as the scheming shadow President, a very different Hillary Clinton emerges. She is relaxed and funny, a prankster who can turn the tables on reporters. She is an engaging dinner companion." The trip produced a far different image than Mrs. Clinton's last appearance before a large group of reporters after her four-hour testimony before a Washington grand jury investigating obstruction of justice in the Whitewater affair. Central to the investigation were questions about the disappearance and recovery of law firm billing records that had recently turned up at the White House.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: [January 26] I, like everyone else, would like to know the answer about how those documents showed up after all these years. It would have been certainly to my advantage in trying to bring this matter to a conclusion if they had been found several years ago, so I tried to be as helpful as I could in their investigation efforts.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Since Hillary Clinton's appearance before the grand jury, many more Americans have come to believe there was wrongdoing on her part. In a March "Washington Post"/ABC News poll, half of the respondents said they thought Mrs. Clinton had broken the law. Two years ago, a "Post" poll showed that one in three thought so, and a February University of Iowa poll found that the number of Midwesterners with negative feelings towards the First Lady jumped from 30 percent in 1992 to almost 50 percent this year, all this in spite of her book, It Take A Village, published in January and now a nationwide bestseller. Though the work reaffirms the First Lady's long involvement in issues concerning children, difficult questions plagued Mrs. Clinton throughout her book tour. Now a new book on Whitewater has hit the bestseller lists. In Blood Sport, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist James Stewart explores the Clintons' financial dealings in Arkansas, pushing Whitewater to the fore once again.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, for more on the First Lady, we turn to our regional commentators. They are: Lee Cullum of the "Dallas Morning News," Patrick McGuigan of the "Daily Oklahoman," William Wong, formerly with the "Oakland Tribune," now with "Pacific News Service," Cynthia Tucker of the "Atlanta Constitution," who's not with us but should be in just a few minutes, and Mike Barnicle of the "Boston Globe." Welcome to you all. Lee Cullum, is something unfair happening to Hillary Clinton? The people who respond to the polls saying that their feelings about her are more negative than they were before, are they responding to an unfair level of criticism and scrutiny or not?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: [Dallas] It's possible that they are, Elizabeth. It seems to me she's taking enormous punishment just for being herself thus far, existing in her own way in the White House. Uh, you know, she started out as an unorthodox First Lady. This, of course, raised suspicion among many. Many women were exhilarated by it, but, but there were many people in the country who were very suspicious, deeply suspicious. Then came the health care effort that she made in '93, came to a head in '94, and I think that turned out to be practically fatal for her. I didn't foresee it as such, but it was enormously controversial and I think it did the major damage. The interesting thing is that the negative figures have continued to rise since then, have risen over the last two years, when actually she has been far less prominent in a policy way and in a public policy way, so I was noticing Anthony Lewis's column in the "New York Times" this morning about the Resolution Trust Corporation study of Whitewater that indicated that no illegality had taken place on the part of the Clintons. So, yes, it's perfectly possible if there's a certain hysteria about this issue that has been unfair to her.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Pat McGuigan, what do you think? Is there a certain hysteria? Is the criticism, is the level of scrutiny and criticism unfair or not?

PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: [Oklahoma City] Oh, I don't know if it's unfair. I mean, to some extent, the Clintons brought this on themselves. I mean, the President spoke quite a bit in 1992 about this being a two for one package, that if you voted for him, he would also get her. And so people have paid attention. She is following a little different course than some previous First Ladies, so people are paying attention. I don't know if it's unfair. I do think that all of us in the press tend to kind of go in waves and in packs, if you will, and right now, she is in the midst of another wave, but the flip side of the negative coverage is that once again the White House, itself, is helping to feed the attention paid to Mrs. Clinton, particularly on this recent trip. I mean, the White House was putting out packages to those of us in the media, trying to frame the issue, trying to frame the coverage. It's been a very interesting nine, ten days while she's taken this trip.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Bill Wong, what do you think? Is the White House handling this wrong, and is it--is this scrutiny and the attention unfair?

WILLIAM WONG, Pacific News Service: [San Francisco] I don't necessarily think it's unfair because I think that for a long time Hillary Clinton has been a lightning rod. She and Bill Clinton have been lightning rods for criticism because of both their personalities and their strength of character or lack of character, their intelligence and, and the idea that both are very sharp and, and good politicians. After all, when Hillary was, umm, the, the governor's wife while they were--while Bill was running for President, uh, there were a lot of stories about Hillary out- earning Bill and being a very strong, independent woman. I think that the dilemma, if you will, is really the dilemma of Americans about the role of strong career women like Hillary Clinton, and we're still not used to the idea of a First Lady, even though Eleanor Roosevelt was very strong in her era, uh, modern day Americans are--are really faced with a dilemma on the very strong women--on a strong woman in the White House, as the First Lady. And, and I think that's really part of it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mike Barnicle, do you agree with what Bill says? Is the problem an ambivalence about the role of a strong woman in the White House?

MIKE BARNICLE, Boston Globe: [Boston] It seems to me that the more you talk to people, you find out that it's more an aspect of her personality that drives the negatives than it is anything having to do with politics, that a lot of people know that she has access to tremendous power as the wife of the President of the United States, and that she both wields and exerts this power and has in the past. And yet, it's almost as if she walks away from any accountability when she's called on. It's like, you know, she wants to drive the car but if she backs up in the supermarket lot and bumps into another car, she says, hey, it wasn't me behind the wheel; it must be him, or must be someone else. And it's, and it's this unnerving aspect of her personality, probably not her full personality, but the one that is portrayed I think most prominently in the papers that sort of drives these negatives up, I think.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you think that it would have been different if, umm, the President had not said, you get two for the price of one, if they hadn't been presented so much as a duo? Would that have made a difference?

MR. BARNICLE: I, I don't think so. I think because people are smart enough to realize that they are a duo. They both appeared on "60 Minutes" together to explain, you know, their marriage, and what had happened during the course of the marriage, to an enormous public audience. There was the two of them. I think the public has always viewed the two of them as a team.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Lee, what do you think about that? Is it a personality problem? How do you view it? We're waiting for Cynthia, by the way. She's on her way but she's not here yet.

MS. CULLUM: Well, then I'll carry the burden of the feminine response here. Yes, I think it is to some extent a personality problem. She does seem to be abrasive and in certain ways. I have no doubt that she's charming in others. I was just hearing the "USA Today" report that in your story. You know, I, I think that the situation is one of unorthodoxy. I think it is a situation that Bob Dole is going to be able to exploit very successfully. Elizabeth Dole, for example, I think has been very wise, in fact, clever in saying that she would continue her work with the Red Cross. That's a very subtle way of saying that she will continue to be a turn- of-the-century, turn-of-a-new-century woman. She won't retreat. She'll be active in the world, but not in a way that interferes at all with the work of the White House. Uh, this will be a very subtle matter, but, but it will work to Hillary Clinton's disadvantage. I, I think the way it was structured I disagree a little bit. I think that the two for one, uh, advertisement on the part of the Clintons, on the part of the President was not wise. I think it raised hackles, and those hackles are continuing, and getting worse.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Lee, do you think that in the campaign there will actually be a lot of comparing of Mrs. Dole and Mrs. Clinton? Is this going to be important?

MS. CULLUM: Yes, I think it's going to be important. I'm not saying that it will be, uh, blatant or open. Uh, it may be tactic, it may be subtle, but it will be very present in the campaign, I believe.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Pat, do you agree with that?

MR. McGUIGAN: I think it's possible that it becomes an issue. You know, I don't think this is a guy problem or a problem of men being concerned about, you know, strong, aggressive women like some others seem to imply, because, you know, like here in Oklahoma, we have at least three statewide elected officials. Two of them are strong conservative Republican women. The other is kind of a moderate Democrat. And those people are respected by people all over the state. They get a lot of votes every time they run for office. That's not the problem. I think Mrs. Clinton's problem is a policy problem. She is to her husband's left, so there's stronger disagreement with some of her views, and it's also the personality thing that Mike talked about a little bit earlier.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Is this something, Pat, that is partly dependent on regions? Do you think that different regions have very strong- -different feelings, very strongly, depending on where you are?

MR. McGUIGAN: I don't think there's any doubt about that. I mean, when Mrs. Thatcher, for example, came here a couple of years ago and gave a speech for Oklahoma State University, the place was packed. The crowd was probably 50/50 men and women, and I'd say that about 95 percent of the people in the room were ardent admirers of her. You wouldn't necessarily get that on, on the East Coast, perhaps not on the West Coast. I think that it's a function of policy views, and Mrs. Thatcher, Lady Thatcher, being closer to the conservative views that people hold out here, that's--that would account for a higher degree of popularity. So I think that's part of Mrs. Clinton's problems. I do want to say one other quick thing. The election is going to be, as it always is, a function of increments, and I don't think we ought to obsess on this too much because I think this will only be one factor among many and traditional political factors will probably be more significant than Hillary Clinton by the time of the election.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Bill Wong, how important do you think it will be, and especially how important will it be in California, the Hillary Clinton factor in the election?

MR. WONG: Uh, I would--in one of my rare agreements with my colleague from Oklahoma, I think there are regional differences. Uh, in Northern California, I think there is still a, a reservoir of, of support for Hillary Clinton, not no matter what, because I think that she still has some answers--some questions to answer with regards, uh, to Whitewater, as well as Travelgate, but I think that there, there--we would be much more sympathetic in general, although there's deep division and disagreement in California about the Clintons, as well as the Doles. I'd like to add one comment about Elizabeth Dole. I think that while we don't know really all that much about Elizabeth Dole, or certainly not as much about her as we do about Hillary, I think that as the campaign goes along, we'll find out that Elizabeth Dole is also a very strong, independent, umm, independently-minded woman who, who could be portrayed in very much the same way that, that Hillary Clinton is.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Bill, this is a new thing, isn't it, to have the First Lady such an important factor in a campaign?

MR. WONG: Well, I mean--

MS. FARNSWORTH: A sign of the changing times, right?

MR. WONG: It is. I mean, I mean, Eleanor was a very prominent figure in, in the Roosevelt administration, or the New Deal, but I do think that--I hate to go back to my large picture--but the role of women in our society and whether they're equal and whether they have equal opportunities is the big backdrop to both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole's scrutiny as the campaign goes along.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mike Barnicle, what about the comparison between Mrs. Dole and Mrs. Clinton, do you think this is going to be important and, and how do you see the comparison?

MR. BARNICLE: I don't think the comparison is going to be that important. I think the Clintons' futures, both of them, depend on what--to a large extent--what the Whitewater special prosecutor does. If Hillary Clinton is indicted for obstruction of justice prior to July 1st, I think you know they're in trouble, both of them. Uh, if anything goes beyond July 1st, I think people are going to say no matter what happens, it's politics as usual. Around here, it's, it's sort of an unusual region, as most viewers would probably guess. Both Clintons could be in jail, and they would win in Massachusetts. But they have a case to prove, I think, before the public at large in the rest of the country and, and some questions to answer, as was just brought out.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And they could still win in Massachusetts because--

MR. BARNICLE: People, people like her here. People like the President here. Uh, people are more liberal, I think, in this area of the country than they are in Oklahoma City or, or other areas of the country and they're inclined to give Mrs. Clinton much more of the benefit of the doubt than I think she'd get in, you know, Chicago, Detroit, or Philadelphia.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Lee Cullum, from the point of view of a Texan, what needs to happen? What does Mrs. Clinton need to do between now and November to, umm, improve her image?

MS. CULLUM: Elizabeth, I think she needs to say and do as little as possible. I really think this is a season when less is more. I think restraint would, would be the very best possible course. Certainly her trip has been a great success, but I, I would counsel restraint above all things.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I'm having trouble hearing you. Well, let's go on--let's go on to Pat.

MS. CULLUM: Oh, I'm sorry.

MS. FARNSWORTH: That's okay. I heard the very last part of it. Pat McGuigan, what do you think?

MR. McGUIGAN: I--

MS. FARNSWORTH: What does she need to do?

MR. McGUIGAN: I think she's got problems in this part of the country. The key thing, like Mike pointed out, is going to be on the legal front. And I agree with him, that after a certain point any action against the Clintons, as we get very close to the election, will appear political. The--there's a possibility that her problems and her husband's problems become part of a larger picture of a character problem or a character issue, I should say, in terms of the entire Clinton administration, with, you know, actions right now involving Ron Brown. There's a big Oklahoma connection on that, and it's getting quite a bit of attention in the press. So all of these issues will play together as we go on. If they can dodge the legal problems between now and November, or if they simply fix them and they go away, the things get corrected, or these various investigations don't pan out, I think she will not be that negative a factor. Otherwise, she's going to be.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Thank you all very much. I'm sorry. Cynthia must have been caught in a terrible traffic jam. She never arrived, but thank you all. FINALLY - BALL GAMES

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, this big day in sports, the opening of the Major League Baseball season and the NCAA college basketball championship game tonight. Here to discuss them and their differences, essayist Roger Rosenblatt. Roger, baseball, basketball, their differences are enormous, are they not?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: They are. It's, it's almost two different temperaments that command each game. Baseball's a very orderly game. The rules are almost perfect. Very little's been changed in baseball since it started. Basketball changes according to the abilities of the players, the size of the players, the tempo of the game. So you have one set of rather fast emotions in basketball and very stately, orderly emotions in baseball.

MR. LEHRER: In baseball, you know, the people don't understand baseball. They say, oh, it's so boring compared to basketball. But it's only boring to those who don't understand, isn't it?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: I think so. I think it really just requires two different sets of interests. In baseball, one individual commands your attention at a time. A pitcher, you keep your eyes on the pitcher; batter, you keep your eyes on the batter; a fielder on a great fielding play and so forth. Basketball is like jazz, or like the blues. You have a team effort. There has to be a team effort to win. Even Michael Jordan couldn't win on his own. And then every once in a while like a riff, an individual will erupt with something you've never seen before. Larry Bird will do that. Michael Jordan, of course, will do that. Scotty Pippen will do that. And it's like a solo play, and then you come back to the team play. But in basketball, you have to have a team to win.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. When I was a kid, Roger, they used to say there were two things that little boys could, could dream--American kids could dream of being. One was President of the United States and the other one was to be a professional baseball player. But you could never say that about basketball, I think, or could you not? I mean, that--you have to be born huge this day of the game, do you not?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Well, you've got, umm, Mugsie Bogues at five foot three and you have players around, hovering around six feet. In a way, the, the bigger the players, the more valuable the smaller players in getting the ball to them, because passing is a big part of the game. It is true that it is unlikely for a small player--anybody under six feet--anybody under six two--to make it. But when they make it, you can really see what extraordinary athletes they are.

MR. LEHRER: Roger, is there any way to, umm, to, to say whether or not the baseball--just the quality of the baseball that is being played now, how it compares with say in years of my generation when we were growing up?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: No. I really have no idea. They always do that, and they work out some computer schemes where the team of 19--say the Yankees of 1955 play the Braves of 1995, umm, but it's not really believable. You suspect that baseball has remained roughly the same in terms of the quality of the individual players. Basketball you know is different. The passing may roughly be the same, but the leapers now--there was nothing like them in the 50's and the 60's, guys who can ordinarily just sail above the hoop.

MR. LEHRER: The leapers, the people who slam dunk and all of that. That was unheard of back in the 40's and the 50's and even the 60's.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: To give you an idea of how the game has changed, there was a period, in the 60's, I believe, where dunking was outlawed, at least in college ball. And then, of course, it didn't make any sense. Now, it's celebrated, and there are contests about it.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Roger, there's one thing that these sports have in common, and that's money. The players are paid tremendous amounts of money, professional players, baseball, and professional players of basketball. Of course, tonight, it's a--it's college ball, but is--the fact that these players make so much money doesn't turn the fans off, does it? I, I--some people it's thought it might.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: No, it's true. What's interesting, particularly in basketball, and I started to go to professional games when I was a kid, it was really a poor man's sport, and the idea that--and poor men--you were--poor men played it, poor men watched it. Now, not only are there millionaires on the court playing, there are millionaires at the side of the court. It's, it's a part of the culture of basketball to see a Spike Lee or Jack Nicholson at court side cheering a game, and the seats are very expensive. So the whole idea of it being a blue collar activity has changed. But the heart of basketball is still an inner-city game.

MR. LEHRER: Hmm-mmm. Roger, personally, finally, if you had your choice between some good seats at a baseball game and good seats at an NCAA championship basketball game, which one would you--which ones would you take?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: I'd take the NCAA basketball game. There's nothing really as exciting as terrific college basketball.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Roger, thank you very much.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Thank you, Jim. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, Russian troops began a unilateral ceasefire in Chechnya. U.S. National Security Adviser Anthony Lake said there were reports the Chechens had continued fighting. The government of Bosnia joined the World Bank and immediately secured $269 million worth of credit to fund emergency reconstruction projects. And in Montana, the standoff with 12 members of the anti-government Freemen group continued. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.