The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in Washington. After the News Summary, we look at today's verdict in the World Trade Center bombing trial, then our Friday political analysis with Mark Shields, joined tonight by Paul Gigot, a report on Congressman Rostenkowski's primary battle, and essayist Amei Wallach looks at Audubon's natural art. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WARNER: Four Muslim fundamentalists were convicted today in the bombing of the World Trade Center. The blast last February in New York killed six people and injured more than a thousand. The "guilty" verdicts came after a five-month trial and six days of deliberations by the jury. The four men could get life in prison without parol when they're sentenced on May 4th. Their lawyer said they will appeal the verdicts. We'll have more on the story right after the News Summary. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: President Clinton said today he had created a clear and appropriate fire wall to prevent even the appearance of improper contacts between his staff and Whitewater investigators. His comments came a day after he confirmed that two meetings had taken place last fall between Treasury Department and White House officials. The President said he wanted the investigation to be done fully, clearly, and to be done, over with. At a news conference, Mr. Clinton was asked about a Republican call for congressional hearings into the propriety of the meetings.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think that it is clear that the Republicans have behaved in a fairly blatant and a totally political way in this regard, and since there is yet -- there is no evidence of abuse of authority in my part as President or any of the kinds of things of which the parties of the administrations were accused, I think that -- and since they often have complained in the past of political motivation, I think that they would show a little more restraint in judgment in this case.

MR. MacNeil: The President refused to comment on reports that White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum may resign because of his handling of the Whitewater matter. We'll have more on the story later in the program. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell today announced he will not seek reelection when his term expires at the end of this year. Mitchell has served in the Senate since 1980. He's been Majority Leader for the past five years. As he left the capital to head home to Main this afternoon, he issued a statement saying he had made no decisions about the future, but it was time to consider other challenges.

MS. WARNER: There's good economic news today on two fronts. Unemployment dropped .2 percent in February to 6.5 percent. The Labor Department report said 217,000 non-farm jobs were created last month. Separately, the Commerce Department said the Index of Leading Indicators rose a moderate .3 percent in January. The Index, which is the government's main predictor of future economic activity, has now risen for six consecutive months. The head of a trade association representing video game makers told Congress today the industry will begin a voluntary rating system for sex and violence before the end of this year. Lawmakers have threatened to impose a rating system if manufacturers didn't create their own. Ratings will apply to new games, not those already in the market.

MR. MacNeil: There were clear skies this morning at Cape Canaveral, Florida, as the space shuttle Columbia was launched on a scheduled 13-day, 23-hour science mission. The launch was delayed yesterday by strong winds. The shuttle carries 11 major physics experiments. Most of it will be operated from the ground. Activities for the five astronauts include medical tests on themselves and an experiment with the new magnetic grappling system for the shuttle's robot arm.

MS. WARNER: President Clinton has promised to double U.S. aid to Ukraine. In a White House meeting today with Ukrainian President Kravchuk, Mr. Clinton offered to provide $700 million to the former Soviet republic over the next two years. The administration is trying to encourage Ukraine's shift with a free market economy and help it fulfill its recent promise to eliminate 1600 nuclear warheads on its territory.

MR. MacNeil: China's best known dissident was detained today in a sweep of prominent activists. Wei Jingsheng had been free less than six months. He was released from prison in September after serving 14 years for pro-democracy activities. His arrest came just before a week to Beijing by Sec. of State Christopher to warn China on its human rights record. President Clinton criticized the Chinese action at his news conference.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I wouldn't presume to know what motivated the Chinese government. All I can tell you is that we have sent a very stern statement. We strongly disapprove of what was done, and it obviously is not helpful to our relations. I have done what I could to make it clear that the United States does not seek to isolate China economically or politically, and it will want a constructive and strong relationship with them, but that the observance of basic human rights is an important thing to us, along with nonproliferation, along with fair trade rules. And that was certainly not a helpful action.

MR. MacNeil: State Department officials refuse to rule out the possibility that Christopher would cancel his trip to protest the arrests.

MS. WARNER: There was more unrest in the Middle East today. At least three Palestinians were killed in clashes, and Jerusalem was placed under heavy security. The violence began with the massacre at a West Bank mosque exactly one week ago. We have a report narrated by David Symonds of Worldwide Television News.

DAVID SYMONDS, WTN: After a week of bloodshed, Israeli police took an unprecedented step to try to stem the violence. Jews were briefly banned from their holiest site. The wailing wall in East Jerusalem was cordoned off. And while Temple Mount was quite on the first holy day since the Hebron massacre, clashes continued across the occupied territories. In the streets of Hebron, police responded with tear gas. Jewish settlers shot a Palestinian after a gain stabbed two Israelis on the Gaza Strip. Two Palestinians were also reportedly shot dead by police. One had apparently stabbed a soldier, and the other was killed after clashes in a West Bank refugee camp. The trouble also spilled over into Egypt. Friday prayers in Cairo were a prelude to an anti-Israel demonstration. Protesters took to the street to demonstrate their outrage over last week's bloodshed in Hebron and the continuing violence, ignoring pleas by a preacher. But police who'd been standing by opened up with tear gas and truncheons.

MS. WARNER: Sec. of State Christopher met in Washington with PLO envoyNabil Shaath today trying to persuade the Palestinians to resume the suspended peace talks. Shaath told reporters Israel had to ensure better security for Palestinians first. The PLO wants international troops in the occupied territories but Israel is opposed. Shaath said the UN was close to approving some kind of international presence with U.S. backing. Later, President Clinton said there was no such agreement yet but the process was continuing to inch ahead.

MR. MacNeil: Comic actor John Candy died of a heart attack today in Mexico, where he was filming a move. He was 43. The Canadian- born actor starred in many popular movies, including, "Uncle Buck," "Splash," and last year's "Cool Runnings." Candy also won two Emmy Awards for his work in the 1980's television series "SCTV." That's our News Summary. Now it's on to the World Trade Center bomb verdict, the Whitewater scandal, and political analysis, Congressman Rostenkowski's primary battle, and an Amei Wallach essay. FOCUS - GUILTY! - WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBERS

MR. MacNeil: We focus first tonight on the World Trade Center bombing trial and the "guilty" verdicts against four men in the worst terrorist act ever committed on U.S. soil. From the start of the five-month trial, the government admitted that it had no witnesses who actually saw the defendants do anything illegal. The result: Months of tediously technical testimony as the government tried to build up its circumstantial case bit by bit. There were charts, maps, forensic photos of bloody victims. There was a veritable auto junkyard of blast-damaged vehicle parts. Lead prosecutor J. Gilmore Childers said it was all part of a chain that would link the defendants to the explosion that killed six people in the Trade Center's garage and injured more than a thousand others. The government said defendant Ahmed Ajaj had brought bomb-making materials and videotapes into the country. It said defendant Mahmoud Abouhalima mixed and provided the chemicals. Defendant Nidal Ayyad was accused of providing the chemical engineering expertise to make the bomb. And defendant Mohammed Salameh was charged with being involved in several phases, including renting the warehouse where the chemicals were stored and renting a van to carry the bomb. The defense case was a brief one, with only four witnesses taking the stand. When jurors began their six days of deliberation, they had never heard from anyone who could point to the defendants and swear that they planted the bomb. What they did have was the testimony of more than 200 government witnesses and more than a thousand exhibits. The prosecution's clear intent from the start had been to make sure that the circumstantial evidence was so massive and so tightly drawn that the defendants couldn't escape it. In the end, the jury, never named in open court, chose to convict all four defendants on all charges. Some defendants smiled as the verdicts were announced, but they erupted in angry outbursts when the reading of verdicts was finished. Salameh pounded the table, shouting, "Injustice!" The other defendants shouted at the jury in Arabic. All four could get life in prison without parole when they're sentenced in May. Lawyers for all four defendants plan appeals. After the court session, both sides offered views on the verdict.

WILLIAM GAVIN, Deputy Assistant Director, FBI: There are two conclusions that we can reach. No. 1, international terrorism has, in fact, reached the shores of the United States. And No. 2, the justice system of the United States is up to combatting that threat.

ROBERT PRECHT, Defense Lawyer: I don't think anyone in the U.S. government today should be patting themselves on the back, because I think the process had been preordained in many ways by the unprecedented leaking by the government. And I think it's a shameful day, actually.

MR. MacNeil: Joining us now is Peg Tyre, a reporter for New York Newsday who's followed the trial for five months. Thanks for coming in.

MS. TYRE: Thanks for having me.

MR. MacNeil: The -- this is a pretty stunning result. All four defendants on every single count. Did even the prosecution expect such a clean result, do you think?

MS. TYRE: I think that they were surprised. I think that their summation was so powerful that by the time they made their closing statements they were fairly confident they would get at least two convictions, three possibly, and four was -- I'm sure they were very pleased -- they said they were very pleased to get four.

MR. MacNeil: Because there had been some speculation that two might get off, or be --

MS. TYRE: One was in prison at the time of the bombing, which would seem to be an almost air tight alibi. Another had very little evidence against him.

MR. MacNeil: The one in prison was the one who was charged with supplying the knowledge that --

MS. TYRE: Attempting to bring the manuals into the country.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. Right. You were there today. What was it like when -- we described it briefly -- but what was it like?

MS. TYRE: It was extraordinary. The jury came back. It was a very somber occasion. The judge had warned everyone that this was going to be a somber occasion, there would be no outbursts. The jurors came back and without looking at the defendants, the jury foreman began her recitation of 38 counts of "guilty." At the end of that, with every count of "guilty," you could see the defendant or the defendants or their lawyers reacting as if they had been hit. After about fifteen or twenty, they started smiling and sort of reacting in sort of a nervous way. And then at the end of the 38 counts, when the recitation was finished, they began a kind of a chanting back and forth, saying, "Allah Akbar," and -- which is "Allah is great," and victory to Islam, and cursing, Mohammed Salameh rose out of his chair with his face contorted in rage, and cursing the jurors saying, "You're cheap and unjust," and I think it was a startling moment. One is spectators, Nidal Ayyad's brother, stood up and also began saying, "God is with you," and hurling profanities at the jurors. They were quickly whisked away by the marshals and handcuffed and taken away.

MR. MacNeil: The brother was detained too.

MS. TYRE: Held in contempt and could be sentenced up to six months.

MR. MacNeil: Just for that outburst.

MS. TYRE: It wasn't just for the outburst. It was the idea that they were trying to influence the jury which the judge took such exception to. And certainly they were. We were all stunned. I think the jurors were shocked. I think two of them -- at least one of them began to cry. Another sort of closed his eyes and looked very upset.

MR. MacNeil: This trial has been very heavily guarded. The jurors have been kept anonymous. The courtroom has been very heavily guarded. Describe that. I mean, I keep reading "very heavily guarded." What does that mean?

MS. TYRE: Well, the first few weeks, it was unlike anything like I've ever seen before. There were maybe 20 uniformed police officers standing in front of the riot barricades. There were police officers on horseback. There were uniformed and plain- clothed federal agents standing about within the courthouse, not the courtroom, the courthouse, about three feet apart. There were sharp shooters on the roofs. There were two metal detectors you had to go through. You had to show a picture ID, in some cases two picture ID's, a passport, to get into the courtroom. People were frisked. It was very, very heavy security. And that also continued inside the courtroom where there was a row of marshals between the spectators and the defendants as if to prevent any kind of communication or outburst.

MR. MacNeil: If they had -- the prosecution had no witnesses to link these four defendants specifically or explicitly to these acts, how did the prosecution prove it, in your view?

MS. TYRE: I think there was --

MR. MacNeil: Or how did they convince the jury?

MS. TYRE: I think it was a very difficult case to, to argue. We've listened to many, many years of Perry Mason saying it's just a circumstantial case, but a circumstantial case can, as we saw in this instance, be very strong. They had evidence that mounted up into an avalanche against these, at least two of the defendants. Bit by bit they established that there were too many so-called "coincidences." It was too coincidental that they would be amassing chemicals. Even if they didn't have them going into the World Trade Center, they had been amassing chemicals. They had been calling chemical companies. They had been in almost constant contact with a fugitive defendant named Ramsey Youssef. They had --

MR. MacNeil: That's one of two defendants who has gone and some speculate are in Iraq, two defendants.

MS. TYRE: I think, yeah.

MR. MacNeil: There was speculation about that.

MS. TYRE: I believe that's the case, yeah. They had telephone calls. They had one of the defendants' voices on a tape that he called a news organization. Another one, the same defendant had a letter written to the New York Times claiming credit. These things were very incriminating. They had fingerprints in the bomb factory, which was in Jersey City. Anybody who was seen in that apartment was probably the most damning -- where the most damning evidence came from, because it was a bomb factory. There was no other use for it. There was nitroglycerin stains all over the walls. Their clothing that they found there was soaked in nitroglycerin. It was -- the rug was soaked; the walls were soaked. It was in actually the ceiling where it had splattered onto the ceiling. So anyone who was there I think began to be so tainted.

MR. MacNeil: When did you -- do you have any way of explaining to yourself as a reporter after all this very tedious presentation of tiny fragments of circumstantial evidence what sort of pushed it over the edge for the jury? What do you think?

MS. TYRE: Tedious is a word that does come to mind in thinking of the first weeks of a trial when they kept introducing one scrap of metal after another. And I think that the way they presented the evidence was extremely boring. But what they did do is they left it all for the summations, so you had disparate pieces of evidence. You couldn't see how they were linked, and even some instances, I who have been working on the case since the explosion couldn't see how some of the things were linked. And what they did is they waited until summations, and they told the story like an international thriller. They told it like a John LaCare novel. They made it so dramatic and so -- and it was a brilliant summation. And I think --

MR. MacNeil: And that woke the jury up again.

MS. TYRE: I think the verse of the narrative and the way they had -- and they had built their case very carefully, although it was tedious, they had done a very good job, and I will say that I think part of the reason it was so tedious is because the investigation was ongoing, and they introduced a lot of evidence that they thought might become important, because had they not introduced it, and it had become important as their forensic --

MR. MacNeil: The trial started before they had their case complete, in other words?

MS. TYRE: Which was really a fascinating aspect to me of how you give an opening statement and say what you're going to convict certain defendants of and not know what you have to convict them with. And that's what they did. They were, in fact, playing without a net, and they -- in some instances they had -- they introduced a lot of metal, because little did we know that down in Quantico, they were scraping that metal, looking for little bits of the bomb, so they introduced a tremendous amount of metal, because they didn't know which piece they would get the bomb residue from. They --

MR. MacNeil: But eventually did.

MS. TYRE: Actually, they never did.

MR. MacNeil: They never did?

MS. TYRE: They never did. There was never any evidence that linked the chemicals that they had amassed in the storage shed to the bomb. As a matter of fact, when actually the FBI -- a chemical expert came --

MR. MacNeil: So they found no residue of a bomb?

MS. TYRE: Well, they found a tremendous amount of residue. They found urea nitrate. But that could have come from the sewage system. They found ammonium nitrate, but that could have come from the fire extinguishers. Everything had an environmental component. It was such a tremendous explosion, it was a very cold day. Everything in the building blew up on those levels. Everything was contaminated.

MR. MacNeil: Let me just ask you finally, the -- Precht, Salameh's -- Henry Precht, Salameh's defense lawyer, we saw a clip of him a moment ago -- said this was a shameful day, a basis of unprecedented pretrial leaks by the government. Has he got a strong grounds for an appeal, do you think?

MS. TYRE: I, I don't -- I'm not a lawyer.

MR. MacNeil: There were people saying, or do people think that - - do the lawyers think that there are strong grounds for an appeal here?

MS. TYRE: I think -- I know that they're all going to file an appeal. It's not for me really to say, evaluate whether there are strong grounds for an appeal. I think the prosecutors had a strong case against his client, Salameh, and I think the defense team was particularly divided in how to present their closing arguments. And they made some very grave missteps, which I think were devastating.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Peg Tyre, thank you for joining us.

MS. TYRE: Thanks for having me.

MR. MacNeil: Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Ahead on the NewsHour, political analysis, Congressman Rostenkowski's primary challenge, and the art of Audubon. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MS. WARNER: Next tonight, the political storm raging in Washington over White House involvement in a supposedly independent investigation into the Whitewater Affair. The White House thought it had put the controversy to rest last January. That's when the attorney general appointed a special counsel to look into the Clintons' real estate dealings with an Arkansas developer, who also owned a failed savings & loan. Today at a press conference with Ukrainian President Kravchuk, Mr. Clinton talked about how the White House is handling the issue now.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Most of the newspapers in the country asked me to have a special counsel appointed. That's what I have done. I did it so I could go on with my work. It's been an interesting thing, since no one has still accused me or any -- as far as I know of doing anything wrong in this whole encounter. I think we have constructed a clear and appropriate fire wall between the White House and any federal regulatory agency that might have anything to do with this as I think it is absolutely imperative to do.

MS. WARNER: The testimony in the Senate Banking Committee hearing last week suggested that fire wall had been breached. Texas Republican Phil Gramm questioned Deputy Treasury Sec. Robert Altman, the acting director of the Resolution Trust Corporation which is probing the failed Arkansas Savings & Loan tied to Whitewater.

SEN. PHIL GRAMM, [R] Texas: [February 24] Have you or any member of your staff had any communication with the President, the First Lady, or any of their representatives, including their legal counsel, or any member of their White House staff concerning Whitewater or the Madison Savings & Loan?

ROBERT ALTMAN, Deputy Treasury Secretary: I've had one substantive contact with White House staff, and I want to tell you about it. First of all, I initiated it. About three weeks ago, Gene Hanson, who is Treasury's general counsel, and I requested a meeting with Mr. Nussbaum. He's the White House counsel. The purpose of that meeting was to describe the procedural reasons for the -- the procedural reasons for the then impending, then impending February 28th deadline as far as the then statute of limitations was concerned.

MS. WARNER: Yesterday, the Washington Post reported other meetings between White House officials and government investigators. White House Counsel Nussbaum had met twice before with Treasury officials. President Clinton was asked about those meetings at the photo session yesterday.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: As nearly I can determine, no one has actually done anything wrong or attempted to improperly influence any government action. But I think it would be better if the meetings and conversations hadn't occurred. I think now that there is an actual formal process underway, everyone will be much more sensitive. But I have directed Mack McLarty to prepare a memorandum about how we should handle and respond to any such contacts coming our way in this office, so that we will bend over backwards to avoid not only the fact but any appearance of impropriety.

MS. WARNER: Late yesterday, White House Chief of Staff McLarty issued the memorandum banning such meetings. And Treasury Sec. Lloyd Bentsen asked the independent office of Government Ethics, to investigate the three meetings that have occurred. All week long, Congressional Republicans attacked the White House's handling of the affair.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: If the White House has nothing to hide about Whitewater -- and that's what they've been saying for months -- it's what they said in the campaign, nothing to it, just a little transaction, then why all the meetings? Why all the planing and why put yourself in the dangerous position of being charged with compromising when there's supposed to be independent, civil, and criminal investigations? Cover up is a tough word, but the consequences of a cover up can be even tougher.

MS. WARNER: We look further at the White House handling of the Whitewater investigation and other political news with our regular syndicated columnist Mark Shields. He's joined tonight by Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Welcome, gentlemen. Mark, of course, it isn't Bob Dole and the Republicans who are attacking the White House for this. The New York Times today said that no administration since Richard Nixon had so -- I think they said recklessly tampered with the integrity of federal investigations. Do you think that's a fair assessment?

MR. SHIELDS: I think that may be a little overstatement, but I think it's -- it's symptomatic and representative of the criticism the administration is getting. I think there are serious questions that immediately arise, Margaret. First of all, what have they learned since last November when these meetings were held? I mean, have they learned anything? Has there been a growth in understanding of what you can do and what you can't do? What is appropriate and what is inappropriate? The most signal development was not the New York Times or any press criticism. The most telling development in this whole saga this week as far as the White House was concerned was the Secretary of the Treasury, Lloyd Bentsen, Democratic candidate for vice president in 1988, former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who was elected to the Senate in 1970, was here in '74, was here in '86 during Iran-Contra, saying he wanted an independent investigation by the government's Office of Ethics, that is telling.

MS. WARNER: What does it tell you?

MR. GIGOT: Well, the first thing I thought of was, haven't we seen this movie before? This reminds me an awful lot of last year during Travelgate when White House -- members of the White House Counsel's Office, were dealing with the FBI, when we know they shouldn't have, and later the White House admitted they shouldn't have. This time they're dealing with regulators who were supposed to be supervising investigations of members of the White House. Remember, there's a criminal referral here from the Resolution Trust Corp. to the Justice Department mentioning that the Clintons were part of this Whitewater business. And this is an ethical blind spot. It raises doubts about favoritism, and it's going to hurt the White House.

MS. WARNER: Mark raised an interesting question, which is: you know, in November and December when they made all of these mistakes, they said, well, we've really learned a lesson here. I mean, how can this be continuing like this? It's just not politically smart, is it, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: It's not politically smart. I mean, it looks like the White House is going to put the blame on perhaps the White House counsel, Bernie Nussbuam, for not having a very good ethical ear, if you will, a political sense. But it seems to be a little broader than that. He isn't the only one in the meeting. You had Herald Dickeys, who's the deputy chief of staff. You had the First Lady's chief of staff.

MS. WARNER: Brought in for his political savvy, supposedly.

MR. GIGOT: And the First Lady's chief of staff was there. It's almost as if they weren't here during the '80s. I mean, somebody should have, you know, listened to Ed Meese, all the battering he took on ethics. I mean, where were they?

MS. WARNER: What do you think the reason is?

MR. SHIELDS: I'm not sure what the reason is. I think every White House has to learn it for the first time. They learn their own fallibility, their own limitations. I think it's very heady stuff to work in the White House, whatever the White House is, and there's an old rule of thumb that was once given to me by Brice Harlow, who worked at four White Houses brilliantly for any number of Presidents, Dwight Eisenhower all the way through to Gerald Ford. He said, don't ever do anything in the White Houseyou don't want to see on the front page of the Washington Post the next morning. And they did things that were on the front page of the Washington Post a couple of mornings later, and they were frankly embarrassing. So I think according to Bernie Nussbaum, the White House counsel, who apparently is very torn over it, Paul's right, we have seen this movie before. And it isn't a question right now who you throw overboard. It's whom you bring on board. And you really need people, I think, who are going to speak truth to power and who are capable of telling the President and putting it in perspective of just what can and can't be done. Those meetings that were taking place -- I'm not saying the President directed them or he knew about them -- but the people who were in them, Margaret, were doing it because they thought it was in the best interest of the President and he would be pleased to know the information that was gleaned from those meetings. So they weren't -- those weren't rogue meetings. They weren't independent operators. So I -- I really think that's the question, rather than who goes, is who comes.

MR. GIGOT: Yeah. There is a question about who can deliver bad news to this President. Following the campaign, it was the First Lady, herself, who did that often and said you've got to shake things up. Now she is involved as having been the lawyer for the Rose Law Firm in this.

MS. WARNER: In Arkansas.

MR. GIGOT: Right. Exactly. Is she going to deliver that kind of bad news? Is she going to be receptive, herself, to honest information about what's going on? And they need to bring somebody in who can talk turkey.

MS. WARNER: Now, the Republicans, of course, are calling for hearings on the Hill, at least into the White House handling of all of this. Do you think the -- and the Democrats are resisting -- do you think that can continue, or do you think they're going to have to have hearings?

MR. GIGOT: I think at this stage they're going to have to have hearings. I mean, they've done a couple of amazing things. And they've made it easy for Republicans. All they have to do is walk out on the Senate floor and shoot the moon that they don't have to really do much at all, except, you know, quote from the Washington Post. And the other thing they've done is they've made Al D'Amato, the Senator from New York, really, you know, into an ethics arbiter here. He's a spokesman. He's a Republican. He's really hitting hard. You know --

MR. SHIELDS: Paul's right. I mean, Al D'Amato's been elevated to the high moral ground where probably he'll get a nosebleed. I mean, he's so unaccustomed to such a lofty post, but I mean, he is being vindicated. And what it does give them the opportunity to do, the Republicans and the critics of the administration, is that these are questions now not about what went on in Madison Guaranty. Okay, so we're not trading on Mr. Fiske's investigation. These are questions about what went on within the administration in the last three or four months. I mean, was the independence on the Resolution Trust Corporation compromise, was the FDIC. And the Treasury Department, anyway, compromised, and so that gives them the opening that it makes anything tough to oppose.

MS. WARNER: Because it all goes to Clinton as President.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MS. WARNER: It's not --

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. Ten years ago there was a contribution made in the '84 Gubernatorial race.

MR. GIGOT: Yeah. There was an attempt to say by the White House, so this is just arcane stuff that happened long ago. Now the question is:Have some of those Arkansas mores and Arkansas rules and the favoritism and the close-knit political culture that existed in Arkansas, has that been transferred to Washington? And that's going to be explored. I think --

MR. SHIELDS: As opposed to the high ethos of California, and George Bush's sensibilities with Neil. That's another story.

MS. WARNER: Do you guys think this has any resonance yet though out in the country? Is it -- do you think it can undercut, because Clinton's popularity ratings have stayed high, despite all the flap in January? I mean, they went through a rough Whitewater time.

MR. SHIELDS: I think, I think that irony of this week was this was the best political news the Democratic Party has had almost in a generation. The Washington Post/ABC Poll confirmed the New York Times/CBS Poll. And next week will be the Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll. And on every question of which party is better, whether it's dealing with medical care, even the deficit, the economy, crime, the Democrats have an edge over the Republicans, something they haven't had for a generation. Bill Clinton is at 58 percent approval. The Democrats are chosen in the Congressional races of 1994, just exactly to me like 1974 must have been for the Republicans, when they felt the sea change in politics coming their way and the conservative movement in the country, and the Democrats saw their way back with scandal. The Republicans are bereft of ideas right now. They're bereft of leadership. All they've got is Whitewater, and they're pulling that card. I really, I really -- the Democrats did the same thing under Reagan. They had lost their debate over issues, and they tried, well, it was Jim Watt one week, it was Ann Gorsich the next, or Rita Labell, or then Iran-Contra, and I -- the irony is that the messages were from the Democrats the people have confidence that this is crowding all that good news right off, so it is effective.

MS. WARNER: The big giant in the current Democratic establishment announced that he's not going to run again, George Mitchell. Why do you think he did that? I know it only happened three hours ago, so none of us really knows. But do you have any theories?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I don't, I don't credit the report that he wants to be baseball commissioner. I think I'd rather work for the people of Maine than I would for Marge Schott.

MR. SHIELDS: Pat Buchanan, Ann's running mate in 1996.

MR. GIGOT: I think, I think he didn't want to run for six more years. He's 60 years old. I think the place can burn you out. I think that perhaps -- and this is some speculation on my part -- but by talking to some people, he may want to think some day about being on the Supreme Court, and this would create an opening for him if Justice Blackmun steps down or William Rehnquist. And he - - the filing deadline for Maine was April 1st, and he had to give - - he had to give a warning to people who want to run.

MR. SHIELDS: I've known George Mitchell for 25 years. I don't know why he's doing this. I will say this about him. Unlike other retirements, encouraged, forced retirements, whether it's David Durenberger in Minnesota, the Republican Senator who's had clouds over his career here, or Dennis DeConcini in Arizona. George Mitchell in the state of Maine, a state that voted for Ross Perot ahead of George Bush, I mean, a state where alienation and political animosity is as high, has the highest support of any Senator in the country. This is a Republican state, a Republican governor. His colleague, Bill Cohen, is a Republican. And George Bush -- George Mitchell is held in greater affection, greater respect probably than any colleague. He was -- he had a second term, a third term waiting for him. I don't know. I think he is - - he is committed to, to Bill Clinton's program. He is committed to health care. He spent nine years in the Senate trying to get the Clean Air Act reinstated, which he did do. And then he directed all his energies to health care. I think it's going to be a very, very major loss not only for the, for the Clinton administration. He told the President last night after a private dinner at the White House. He was the first person in public life he told. But on the question of baseball commissioner, just one thing, he was approached on this. And one of the owners approached George Mitchell and said, you know, you're dealing with 28 baseball team owners who are notorious for their egos, and the owner said, I don't know if you are used to dealing with people like that. George Mitchell said -- according to the person who told me -- he said, "That would be a 71 percent reduction in the percentage of egos I deal with every day."

MR. GIGOT: George Mitchell was I think a very effective leader for the Democrats, probably the most powerful and most effective Senate Majority Leader since Johnson in the '50s. But he was also a relentless partisan. And he, I think, he set out to and succeeded in defeating George Bush. He's one of the reasons that Bill Clinton is President today, partly by blocking anything George Bush wanted to do on the domestic agenda. The Democrats are going to miss him enormously, but I think particularly this year, because once you become a lame duck, your leverage is not the same.

MR. SHIELDS: Power is the perception of power here in Washington, and once you announce you're not going to run for reelection, it starts to slip away.

MS. WARNER: So who should -- who are your candidates to succeed him? And who, if you were Bill Clinton, who would you want in that job?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I guess if I were Bill Clinton I'd want David Pryor of Arkansas, who's a good friend and a member of the leadership. But that may be a disabling qualification or coincidence that he is. And if Bill Clinton is smart -- and I know he is -- he won't meddle in that fight, because there's no quicker way to sink anybody's chances and alienate a lot of people. I honestly -- I honestly don't know, but I agree with Paul's assessment that it's going to be a major, major defeat. Campaign financing, where George Mitchell almost single-handedly to a large degree removed soft money, i.e., that thousands and hundreds and thousands of dollars of contributions from wealthy individuals, business, and labor, and took on organized labor to do it. In the bill that passed the Senate, I mean, there's a whole host of issues where is absence is going to be felt.

MS. WARNER: Before we go, do you have a candidate?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think it depends on whether they're going to make a generational shift. If they do make a generational shift, I think you'll see Tom Daschle of South Dakota emerge or maybe John Breaux of Louisiana in a kind of classic, moderate, liberal face- off.

MS. WARNER: Well, thanks, gentlemen. See you next Friday. FOCUS - CHICAGO RULES

MR. MacNeil: Next, the political problems of the man some call the second most powerful Democrat in Washington. Right now, his problems are in Chicago. Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett of public station WTTW reports.

MS. BRACKETT: The President of the United States and the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, two powerful politicians who need each other.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: [February 28 - Chicago] Remember this. Welfare reform and health care have to come through the Ways & Means Committee. And if you want me to get things done, you have to say to the members of Congress act. The one person you don't have to say it to is Dan Rostenkowski, and he will do it too. Thank you.

MS. BRACKETT: But before he can act, Dan Rostenkowski must win the upcoming March 15th primary. After 36 years in Congress, he's facing the toughest election of his career. The President may need him, but the voters of the Fifth Congressional District in Illinois aren't so sure they do.

PAT NIGRO: I would expect the President to support the chairman of the Ways & Means Committee, but the President doesn't live in Chicago. The President doesn't react the way the people in Chicago do. They go out, and people feel betrayed by Dan Rostenkowski. Granted, he controls a lot of money that comes into the city. But I think a lot of people are withholding judgment.

MS. BRACKETT: Withholding judgment in part because of the federal probe into the reported misuse of campaign and congressional funds by Rostenkowski. Heeding his lawyer's advice, Rostenkowski says little about the investigation.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, [D] Illinois: I think the voting constituency that I represent will recognize that it's been a long, long two years, and nothing has come of it yet. I'm just hoping that it will be concluded in a very short while.

MS. BRACKETT: During his recent visit to Chicago, President Clinton did not formally endorse Rostenkowski, but voters who heard the President's speech got the message.

JOE McGING: I hope that if he is indicted, it doesn't come right away, at least until the health -- the health care issue is very important to us and to our entire family. And of course the crime bill and the welfare bill as well, and we think these are important things and it's not new for the judicial system to think it's time in coming to a decision, so in this case, I think it's important.

MS. BRACKETT: So you want him there to help get those bills passed?

JOE McGING: I sure do. That's why he's getting my vote.

MS. BRACKETT: Since health care reform is at the top of the Clinton agenda, it's also at the top of Rostenkowski's. He has already spent hours determining which part of the President's plan will stay and which will go, hours that include visits from important constituents like the head of primary care for one of the largest hospitals in Chicago.

DR. WHITNEY ADDINGTON: We have whooping cough this year; we have an increase in tuberculosis. And even without the AIDS epidemic, we have an increase in tuberculosis, so that those 37 million individuals desperately need comprehensive coverage.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI: I think if we can keep the minority, meaning the Republicans, on board, I think, you know, we'll see some light at the end of the tunnel. Now, I don't know that we're going to accomplish as much in the timeframe that this administration wants us to. I'm not saying that we won't. I'd say that maybe we're going to use the yellow light of caution in everything we do. If we do it right, then it's not a problem.

DR. WHITNEY ADDINGTON: I applaud that, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BRACKETT: Back in Chicago, Dr. Whitney Addington says the visit helped convince him to support Rostenkowski.

DR. WHITNEY ADDINGTON: I would think that at the moment Mr. Rostenkowski is our best shot at getting the systemic reform that we desperately need.

MS. BRACKETT: How do you balance that with all the investigations into Rostenkowski's finances, the grand jury investigation? Does that bother you?

DR. WHITNEY ADDINGTON: It bothers me. It does bother me. And I hope that some day we get a full reading of the facts, but I as a medical professional involved in public health am so overwhelmed about the inadequacies that the less fortunate have in health care, and I think the proposal as begun by the Clinton administration is our best shot at getting it done. And I think Mr. Rostenkowski has found that he's going to help get it done.

MS. BRACKETT: While Rostenkowski spends most of his time getting it done in Washington, the campaign back in wintry Chicago goes on without him.

DICK SIMPSON, Congressional Candidate: [greeting people on street] Hello, I'm Dick Simpson, running for Congress. I am Dick Simpson running for Congress against Dan Rostenkowski. Good morning.

MS. BRACKETT: Political science professor and former Chicago alderman Dick Simpson pulled in 43 percent of the vote when he ran against Rostenkowski two years ago. And he's not about to let a blizzard stop him this time.

MS. BRACKETT: Has Dan Rostenkowski done anything like this?

DICK SIMPSON: Probably not in his life. He certainly hasn't in the last two campaigns.

MS. BRACKETT: Do you think you'll see him out here at all?

DICK SIMPSON: Never. No, that's not his style. He's, he's become ensconced with big money and precinct patronage workers who do the work for him. He no longer campaigns himself.

MS. BRACKETT: Another Rostenkowski opponent, State Senator John Cullerton, isn't quite as tough on the Congressman.

STATE SEN. JOHN CULLERTON, Congressional Candidate: He can be bashed again by people for not being around, not campaigning, but, you know, I don't know what he's basically going to say. When he gets here, he's just going to say the same thing that he's said all along, like, I bring pork back to the district. And that's a message which I feel is not very convincing, so he's not here, and it's not that important.

MS. BRACKETT: Rostenkowski has made campaign stops in the district. But they often seem geared more toward cameras than toward voters, and his failure to show up at debates and candidate forums has led to charges that he's lost touch with his district. Seniors at this event were particularly incensed when the Congressman failed to respond at all to their invitation.

MS. BRACKETT: Were you surprised that Congressman Rostenkowski wasn't here today?

FRAN VIVIAN: No, I don't know. I didn't expect him. He doesn't like to talk to seniors very well I don't think. And he ignores people that come to his office. This is nothing new. This is the same old routine.

MS. BRACKETT: The criticism angers Rostenkowski. He says it is his work in Washington that should count.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI: It all depends on the kind of Congressman you want. Do you want a Congressman that's going to attend a lot of community meetings and talk about problems, or do you want a Congressman that goes to Washington, that solves the problems? I'm the latter. The new person would be the former.

DICK SIMPSON: He is the symbol of corruption in Congress. I am tired of having us represented by the most corrupt Congressman in America.

MS. BRACKETT: Simpson, an avowed reformer, who supports term limits for Congress and nationalized health care, has built his campaign on attacking Rostenkowski's integrity.

DICK SIMPSON: This is a man who has no sense of, of the role he should have with the public trust. He can't tell his own finances from the public's finances, from his campaign's finances.

MS. BRACKETT: And how much are Chicagoans still willing to forgive that?

DICK SIMPSON: Last time they were willing to forgive as long as they thought it was only campaign contributions as a sort of payoff for legislation Rostenkowski put through. What the voters are not willing to forgive are the kinds of scandals that are coming up now, the post office scandal, the ghost payroller scandal, the scandal related to the stationery store. Voters don't see that as a conflict of interest. They see that as stealing. And that's something they're not willing to do.

MS. BRACKETT: But Rostenkowski hasn't been convicted or even indicted, and when the investigation became public last year, Chicago's mayor, Richard Daley, urged Rostenkowski to run again, despite the accusations.

MAYOR RICHARD M. DALEY, Chicago: I asked him to run. I'll be very frank. He's very important for me as mayor. Yes. I asked him. I thought it was very important. I encouraged him. I helped him yes. Very important for Chicago.

MS. BRACKETT: Because he was reluctant to run again?

MAYOR RICHARD M. DALEY: Yes, he was. It was very important for me, as mayor, and very important for the cities of America that we have a strong voice there. He lives in the city. He understands the problem. When it comes for money for the D tunnel, when it comes for money for the CTA, when it comes for money for Chicago housing, when it comes for money for the party, when it comes for money for special programs, he's always in the forefront there.

MS. BRACKETT: So voters in the 5th District face a dilemma. Do they keep Rostenkowski for his power, or do they throw him out because he may have abused it? Longtime Chicago resident John O'Leary has always voted for Rostenkowski in the past, but this time, he says he's had it.

JOHN O'LEARY: I have principles. I just think that if we have government, we should have good government, and if you're going to take money, you know, you're as guilty as the next person. And I don't think he's innocent, and I'm not going to vote for him.

MS. BRACKETT: What do you say to the argument that President Clinton uses and Mayor Daley uses, that the country and the city needs Dan Rostenkowski, because he can get legislation passed?

JOHN O'LEARY: That's probably very true. That's from a political standpoint. He can help Clinton and Daley enormously, because he's a Democrat and so is Clinton and Daley, to get their programs through. I don't think we need the programs that much to vote for him. Maybe we won't get the programs for Illinois and for Chicago, but I'd rather suffer that way.

MS. BRACKETT: White ethnic voters like O'Leary have been the base of Rostenkowski's support in the past. But two years ago, Rostenkowski's district was redrawn, and it's now more diverse. The district stretches from middle class suburbs in the West to the posh Gold Coast along the lake. It is in these wealthier areas where opponent John Cullerton has picked up support.

JOHN CULLERTON: The national media has been covering this race, and they have a perception of Chicago that we like corrupt politicians. You know, we're Al Capone, and we're, we're "vote early and often," and, and you know, I just don't think that that is true, fortunately. And I don't think it's, you know, whimsical. I think that we should hold people to high standards. I certainly feel that I've conducted myself that way.

MS. BRACKETT: The Cullerton family name stretches back even further in Chicago politics than Rostenkowski's or Daley's. A Cullerton was first elected to office in Chicago in 1870. With more money and more moderate views than Dick Simpson, some feel Cullerton has the best shot against Rostenkowski.

MS. BRACKETT: Do you think Rostenkowski can be beaten?

BOB STRIZAK: I don't know if he really can. I think it's a little bit like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, but, but if everyone felt that way, that would mean an incumbent never ever gets voted out of office.

MS. BRACKETT: Polls shows that either Cullerton or Simpson would have a good chance against Rostenkowski in a one-on-one race. But this is a five-man field. A Chicago alderman and a Lyndon LaRouche candidate are also challenging the incumbent. With the anti- Rostenkowski vote divided, his backers say their man should be able to hold on to what they need, a 19th term in Congress for Dan Rostenkowski. ESSAY - BIRDS OF A FEATHER

MS. WARNER: Finally tonight, essayist Amei Wallach, the art critic for New York Newsday, on the art and times of John James Audubon.

AMEI WALLACH: John James Audubon was Haitian-born and French- raised, and he never fit comfortably into polite society on either side of the Atlantic. The only place he could be at home was in nature, observing birds. He was 21 when he first set out into the American wilderness in 1807. Here, birds lived in sky-blackening flocks. They weighted the branches of trees, covered ponds in dense, feathered blankets. Here he found the natural paradise he'd read about in Rousseau and Thoreau, and it was already in its death throes. For 44 years, the rest of his life, Audubon recorded that diminishing paradise in 584 water colors, and then he issued his water colors in England as prints under the title, "The Birds of America." He painted Roseate Spoonbills, Red-bellied Woodpeckers, Carolina Parakeets. For more than a century, the Birds of America has been as central an icon of our national dream as those once- upon-a-time primeval forests. But Audubon, himself, has been more of a brand name than an artist. There's the environmentally correct Audubon, the impulse behind the Audubon Society, the Americana collector's Audubon, the bird watcher's Audubon, and the LL Bean nature lover's Audubon. But what there has not been until now is Audubon, the artist. Audubon never really fit into accepted ideas about what an artist is. In his day, if you were going to be a highly honored artist, you painted battle scenes, or landscapes, or portraits. But Audubon was a self-styled braggart outsider in buckskins, an ornithologist. His battle scenes were populated with a red-shouldered hawk bombarding a covey of Northern Bob Whites. The original watercolors have been in the New York Historical Society ever since his destitute widow, Lucy, sold them for $4,230. That was in the middle of the Civil War. Already, the country was in mourning for the lost America that Audubon had captured. So evocative of our losses are these Audubon birds that it's extremely difficult to see them clearly for our nostalgia, nostalgia for the lost confidence, lost frontiers, lost freedoms, lost hopes, lost wilderness that Audubon glorified. Now we can get a rare glimpse of 90 of those original paintings because the New York Historical Society needs money. It's organized a traveling exhibition, "Birds of America," which is right now at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. Audubon's was a bold, Darwinian vision of nature, as theatrical as a melodrama, as macho as a bar room brawl. Audubon's black vultures wind themselves around their white-tailed Deer Head on which they've been dining. Brown thrashers murder the black snakethat is destroying their eggs. The Golden Eagle sinks her talons into a white rabbit's eye. When he painted two passenger pigeons mating, he didn't care what it took to get it right. He killed the birds, wired, and mounted them, the better to study them. Within nine decades of this painting, the last of the once abundant passenger pigeons died in a Cincinnati Zoo. But it's not Audubon, the nature lover, that we'll remember from this show; it's Audubon, the artists. He was willing to use any technique available to realize his vision. He mixed watercolor, gouache, graphite, pastel, black chalk, even collage, to feather a thistle, to catch a spider climbing a rot-mottled leaf. This ornithologist hasn't been given a lot of credit in the past for how smart he was with aesthetic solutions. But then, to paraphrase the abstract painter, Barnett Newman, esthetics is for artists as ornithology is for the birds. Audubon made the unspoken in nature and in ourselves visible on paper. That sure is one good definition of art. I'm Amei Wallach. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, four Muslim fundamentalists were convicted in the bombing of the World Trade Center. They could face life imprisonment for last February's deadly blast. President Clinton said he has built a fire wall between the White House and federal agencies probing the Whitewater affair. And the nation's unemployment rate dropped to 6.5 percent last month. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Margaret. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll see you again Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.