The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MS. WOODRUFF: And I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington. After the News Summary, the campaign once again takes up the entire program. We'll hear what President Bush and Governor Clinton had to say out on the campaign trail today, and we'll get reaction to last night's debate from a group of voters, and from our team of Gergen & Shields. Then we focus on congressional elections and look at the two U.S. Senate races in California. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WOODRUFF: Attorney General William Barr today named former U.S. District Judge Frederick Lacey as special investigator in the BNL Bank case. The Italian bank's Atlanta branch has been charged with making billions of dollars in illegal loans to Iraq. Democratic members of Congress have charged the FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department obstructed the investigation into the bank's activities. They have demanded an independent counsel be appointed with powers to prosecute government officials. Today's actions stopped short of that. Judge Lacey will conduct a preliminary investigation into the Bush administration's handling of the matter. He will recommend whether a prosecutor should be appointed. Attorney General Barr spoke at a news conference.

WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General: The steps I am announcing today are intended to ensure a full and complete investigation of all aspects of this matter. We are prepared to let the chips fall where they may. A number of allegations have been leveled recently at a number of the prosecutors in this Department. If, as I believe, they have done nothing wrong, they deserve exoneration. In the current political climate I have regrettably concluded that if I determine they have done nothing wrong, they will not receive that exoneration. If Judge Lacey finds evidence of wrongdoing, so be it. Appropriate steps will be taken. If not, I trust that the attacks on the integrity of this Department will end.

MS. WOODRUFF: Judge Lacey will report to the attorney general. That arrangement was criticized by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman David Boren. He said it was not a satisfactory substitute for the appointment of an independent special counsel. He said his committee would continue its own investigation. Fifty United Nations weapons experts arrived in Baghdad today. It is the largest U.N. team sent since the end of the Gulf War. The U.N. experts will be in Iraq for about two weeks. Their main mission is the destruction of Iraqi ballistic missiles. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: On the presidential campaign trail today, all sides claimed victory in last night's debate. And all sides said the race was far from over. President Bush told a post-debate rally in Richmond, Virginia, he felt he would win the election and show the pollsters were wrong. Gov. Clinton was cautious about his lead in the polls, telling his own Richmond rally, "It's not over till it's over." Ross Perot went home to Dallas today. He's bought a half hour of television time tonight to talk about his solutions to the budget deficit. We'll have extended excerpts from today's Bush and Clinton campaign appearances after the News Summary.

MS. WOODRUFF: The U.S. trade deficit grew sharply in August, up 23.8 percent to $9 billion. It was the largest imbalance since November 1990. The Commerce Department report showed a slowdown in all export categories. In another report, the Commerce Department said that industrial production dropped .2 percent in September. It was the third decline in the past four months. The Bush administration today asked the Supreme Court to allow employers to cut health insurance to AIDS patients and other seriously ill workers. The Justice Department's Solicitor General urged the court to reject a Texas case involving a worker with AIDS whose benefits were reduced from one million dollars to five thousand. The worker sued the company but his case was thrown out by lower courts.

MR. MacNeil: European Community leaders today sought to calm the concerns of their people over the proposed Union Treaty. They met in Birmingham, England, and vowed to make the drive for political and economic union more open. A draft statement promised that EC decisions would be made as closely as possible to the citizen. The statement was seen as an attempt to assure ratification of the treaty, which has been nearly derailed by a recent negative vote in Denmark and a close "yes" in France.

MS. WOODRUFF: The 1992 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today to a 33-year-old Guatemalan Indian rights activist. We have a report narrated by Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News.

MR. VAUGHAN: The Nobel Peace Prize has been won by the famous, and like this year, the less well known.

SPOKESMAN: The Norwegian Nobel committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 1992 to Rigoberta Menchu from Guatemala. In recognition of her work for social justice and ethno-culture and reconciliation, based on respect for the rights of indigenous peoples.

MR. VAUGHAN: While others have taken the world stage, Guatemala has also been Menchu's life, although it hasn't always been her home. She returned to the country earlier this month after 11 years in exile. It may be more than just coincidence, but Menchu, a staunch defender of Guatemala's Indians, should be honored in the same year as the anniversary of Columbus's voyage. But her first wish on hearing of her award was that her mother and father were there. They and her brother were all killed by the country's military. Their deaths gave birth to her determination to fight social injustice.

MS. WOODRUFF: Guatemala military officials denounced Menchu at the time of her nomination, saying she supported leftist guerrillas in their 30-year-old insurrection against the government.

MR. MacNeil: A customs official in Germany today said police had seized what they believe was the raw material for an atomic bomb. He said almost five pounds of weapons grade uranium was seized in a raid in Munich on Tuesday. The material had been smuggled from the former Soviet Union via Poland. German government scientists are analyzing it. If confirmed, it would be the first known appearance of smuggled weapons grade uranium in the West.

MS. WOODRUFF: The death toll from Monday's earthquake in Egypt has risen to 519. Early today, in the capital, searchers rescued a man who had spent more than 80 hours buried alive in the rubble of his apartment building. He lived on what had been the building's seventh floor. His wife, his mother, and his four-year-old daughter died just a few feet away.

MR. MacNeil: Soldiers began dismantling the largest of Florida's tent cities today. The facility at Harris Field in Homestead, Florida, provided shelter for people left homeless by Hurricane Andrew. It opened on September 2nd. At one time, the tents housed more than 1200 people. The 653 who remained began removing -- moving today into government-provided mobile homes and smaller tent encampments.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead on the NewsHour, Bush and Clinton on the stump, voters' reaction to last night's debate, Gergen and Shields, and sizing up congressional races in California and elsewhere. FOCUS - MAKING HIS CASE

MR. MacNeil: Up first tonight, the candidates on the stump. Both President Bush and Gov. Clinton were back on the campaign trail today after last night's presidential debate in Richmond, Virginia. Ross Perot did not make any public appearances, although he's bought 30 minutes of prime time television this evening on NBC. This morning at a rally on the state capital grounds in Richmond, Gov. Clinton, still nursing strained vocal cords, shared stump delivery chores with his wife, Hillary. Here are extended excerpts.

HILLARY CLINTON: Let me just say two quick things about this election. It is not by any means over, because what is at stake in this election is whether or not we will have the courage to change our country. And any time, any time people are asked to change, there is always a chance that we will lose our nerve. It is not going to be easy to undo the policies that have led to the worst economic record since the Great Depression. It is not going to be easy to knit our country back together and bring people together in common cause on behalf of themselves and their children. And what -- what Bill and Al offer is hope. And what the other side will try to put up against that hope, you know, it is fear, insecurity, anxiety. That's what this election will be about in the next two and a half weeks. Will we have the courage to change? Will we have hope for the future? Will we let ourselves have a new vision of America? You know, all of the issues are very important. The economy is the No. 1 issue, whether or not people will have jobs and jobs with growing incomes so they can take care of themselves and their families. We have had 12 years of a failed economic policy. What Bill offers is an alternative which will work, investing in our people, putting their interests first, giving us a tax system that does not give more tax breaks to businesses that pick up and move out of Virginia than if they stayed right here and put Virginians to work. So if we want a country again that is coming together, if we want a President who brings out the best in us, if we want a President and Vice President committed to solving the problems of this country, then I think the choice is clear. It's the next President of the United States, Bill Clinton.

GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. The first thing that I would like to say is that I apparently should lose my voice more often. Didn't she do a good job? She was great. I also think since Richmond has the No. 1 team of the Braves I ought to congratulate the Braves for being in the World Series. (applause) I don't know how many of you saw that game the other night. Did you see it? (audience shouting "yes") Just remember what happened. The guy's coming into home, the catcher drops the ball, the last half of the ninth inning. Listen, it is not over till it's over. I need your help for two and a half more weeks. To do what we must by our country, I do not seek a victory of political parties but a victory for all the people of America. I am grateful for the Republicans, the independents, the former Perot supporters who joined my fellow Democrats to help us put together a coalition for change, away from trickle-down economics, not back to tax-and-spend economics, but forward, to a new future, to invest and grow economics, to putting our people first, to a genuine commitment to opportunity, to a challenge to all Americans to assume more responsibility and perhaps, most important of all, as I speak here in the cradle of our democracy, a challenge to become one community again, to reach across the divisions of race and income and region and aid, to put our people together again. I was so moved last night by many of the questions that the real people ask -- and I think Virginia made presidential history last night, because I don't think in any presidential race in the future from now on it will be possible to have debates without at least one involving real people asking real questions about real issues. So I ask you, my fellow Americans, for just the next two and a half weeks to be part of the army who will have none of the pessimism of the "things could be worse" crowd, who will dedicate themselves to elevating hope over fear, change over the status quo, the courage to reach for a new future, to open a bright, new day, to relive the most traditional American idea, the courage to change in the face of changing circumstances, to preserve the American dream for generations to come, that is what this election is about, and I need your help so that together we can win a great victory on November 3rd. Thank you and God bless you all.

MR. MacNeil: Late this afternoon, President Bush spoke at a rally at Middlesex College in Edison, New Jersey.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: You know, this week on your TV screens, you saw a spectacle of intense competition, breath taking battle of wits and courage, a spine tingling fight to the finish. I am talking about the Pirates/Braves game, of course. And you know, I sort of identify with the Atlanta Braves, because politics is like baseball. It ain't over until the last batter swings. And we are going to win this election. (applause) And we're going to surprise the pundits. Just be here. Surprise the pundits, annoy the media, and hit a home run on November 3rd. (applause) And the reason is clear, our ideas our better for America. My opponent's, sorry opponent's pathetic, trying to tell you that America is in decline, and we are not in decline. Not so. Our people are still the best educated, and our economy is still the most dynamic, and our companies and our workers are still more productive than any other in the entire world. For all his rhetoric about change, Bill Clinton offers a very old path, more government, more regulation, and more taxes, more government, more regulation, and more taxes. We must not let Clinton do this to our country. (applause) But the election is a lot more about other things, the best economic plan. It's about another virtue, and it's called trust. It's called trust. Who do you trust to be President of the United States? You know, I got to tell you I enjoyed last night's debate, and I'm grateful for -- have a chance to have Americans compare my view with my opponent's, but it's difficult to debate Clinton, because he comes down on every side of every issue. You can't do that as President of the United States. You got to make a decision. You can't be popular to every group, and yes, he ought to tell the truth.

PEOPLE IN AUDIENCE: We want Bush! We want Bush!

PRESIDENT BUSH: A lot of being President is about respect for that office and about telling the truth and serving your country. And you are all familiar with Gov. Clinton's various stories on what he did to evade the draft. He still has not leveled with American people. He still hasn't told the truth. Now, you might say, howis this important? Because there is a clear pattern to Gov. Clinton's path, a pattern of deception. Character does matter. A pattern of deception is not right for the Oval Office. You cannot be leader of the world. You cannot be leader of this country if you have a pattern of deception. You know, last night, last night, Gov. Clinton said he was not interested in my character. He said, "I want to change the character of the presidency." Well, let me tell you something. You cannot separate the character of the President from the character of the presidency. They go together. Now you know we've had Presidents from the South and from the North, Presidents who were rich, Presidents who were poor, but rich or poor, Southern or Northern, you must have integrity. And that's what it takes to lead this great land. I think the American people are beginning as they focus in on the final part of this election, they're saying, who do you trust, who do you believe, who do you trust to lead in the Oval Office? You know, last night in that debate, I asked the American people to imagine what would happen if a crisis occurred that could affect you and your family. Who would you prefer to lead in a crisis? And so this is the question that I'm going to ask all of you to ask when you go into that voting booth. I hope because of my character, my judgment, my ideas that I have earned your trust to lead America again. Thank you all. And may God bless you.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the NewsHour, swing voters, and Gergen & Shields on last night's debate, and the Senate races in California. FOCUS - '92 - VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

MS. WOODRUFF: Next, we do turn to reaction to last night's presidential debate, the second in a series of three. It was the first official debate which allowed an audience of voters to pose their own questions directly to the candidates. Immediately after the debate, Correspondent Charlayne Hunter-Gault talked with our focus group of voters and asked them about the effectiveness of the new format.

DR. WILLIAM EURE, Retired Physician, Republican, Hattiesburg, MS: This format was designed for Bill Clinton. This is what he's been doing since New Hampshire. This is how he pulled it out of the bog --

ANNE GREER, Real Estate Agent, Republican, Columbus, Ohio: Right.

DR. WILLIAM EURE: -- from New Hampshire on. And let's face it, George Bush finds himself in the position he's in right now because of his going back on his tax pledge. I'm real provoked at him about that. But -- and what Bill Clinton says is good. It's too good. He gave absolutely no definitive plan on how he was going to reduce the deficit. He said he would do it, but gave no plan.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But many of you have been saying up to this point that you didn't have specifics, and at the end of this debate, Bill Clinton said, I have spoken specifically and pointedly about a lot of issues. Did you hear more specifics and more to the point --

JAMBEY CLINKSCALES, Computer Technician, Democrat, New York City: I think the questioner in the beginning that said to the candidates, could you talk more to the issues, she was talking about how there had been a lot of negative criticism and mudslinging, and the moderator, Carole Simpson, said, let's ask the voters, are you happy with the way the campaign has been going, and they all said, no. And I think it kind of put all three of the candidates on notice that tonight we don't want all this attack, and attack, and attack, we want to really hear what you have to say, and at the end of it, I thought that this was the firsttime that each of them really had a chance to lay out some specifics.

JASON CONLEY, College Student, Republican, Wake Forest University: The format really bothered me in the sense that I didn't like the moderator injecting her personality in -- into this. And I also thought that the randomness of the questions tended -- tended to give us a sort of bias, and especially in the saliency of the questions, particularly to Perot, and to -- and to Clinton. Some of those were tailor made, and one or two for Bush. But still I don't want to see the degree of bias in the questions.

GWEN CLINKSCALES, Teacher, Independent, New York City: But I really enjoyed the format. The first night it was so civil that no one was talking about anything. And in this format, one person actually got to ask, well, what is the recession, or what does the deficit, how does it affect you personally? And I don't think in the format the first night that they debated, that kind of question could have been asked.

JASON CONLEY: That's an emotional question. That's not -- not a rational question.

STEPHEN HERRING, Substitute Teacher, Republican, Hattiesburg, MS: That's not an issue. That's not an issue in the campaign -- how it's affected him personally.

JASON CONLEY: -- really affected by the recession. I mean, these -- all of these men, Ross Perot, President Bush, Bill Clinton, have been cloistered, and they're very safe economically. I don't think that determines how they can perform in the Oval Office.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But I think maybe implicit in the question was, how can you hope to come up with something that responds to our needs if you don't understand what we're going through.

JAMBEY CLINKSCALES: I think that's one of the questions that Clinton answered the best of the three. There were some questions that maybe Bush answered the best and that Perot answered the best, but that question on the deficit was the one that he sat there and he got up and he walked over to the woman and he had some specific examples to talk to her about it because of what he has been doing.

MARTHA MacCORMACK, Teacher, Democrat, Denver: I'd like to say that what I liked about the format, even though I can agree with Jason about how it could have been biased because of the format, as I watched it, I felt that they were interviewing for a job. You had three candidates. And I sat there thinking if it was my company -- and it is my company -- it's my country -- that I'm here to hire them. I don't have to like any one of them, but these are the only three people that have applied.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: There was also a lot of conversation tonight, a lot of conversation about the economy and jobs. Did anything resonate to you here in a decisive way?

ALLEN RAMSAY, Graduate Student, Independent, Wake Forest University: I would say I'm still fence sitting. I'm extremely concerned about the deficit. And I felt like Clinton delineated a lot of new programs and he did a very good job explaining them and being very specific, but they also sounded extremely expensive. And I can't stress enough my concern over something like that, and the tax and spend reputation that the Democrats have. Also, he seemed overly sensitive to the audience, and it gave him a fake feeling from me, and that didn't do much to help me believe him.

ROBIN GANZERT, Accountant, Democrat, Winston-Salem, NC: I disagree. I think that just added to his sincerity and his credibility. I feel like he was much more sincere, especially in response to that one woman's question about how has the recession affected you, Bush seemed very fake. On the other hand, by saying he had actually gone to a black church and read the -- the little pamphlet, bulletin about teen-age pregnancies, well, he has to read a church bulletin about teen-age pregnancies, whereas Clinton actually came across very sincere. He's been out talking with the people. He has been affected and seen.

DR. WILLIAM EURE: I don't think -- it's not so much what President Bush said. It was the presentation that -- that Gov. Clinton came forth with, where I simply couldn't see through his plans to see how it would affect this without raising taxes on everybody.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But -- go ahead.

JAMBEY CLINKSCALES: A couple of people have said just now that they don't see how Clinton is going to pay for this. He specifically said out there -- he listed five things that his educational proposal would do, and then he walked away from it. Somebody in the audience said, well, how are you going to pay for that, and he came back, and he said, specifically in my plan, it talks about how I'm going to pay for this. So I -- I don't hear this -- this tax and spend proposal. First of all, he has plans, so you have to find some way to finance them, but his budget proposal has ways in there to pay for that. So I think that that's a false claim to say that it's the same thing over again about tax and spend.

ROBIN GANZERT: And it also has been approved by nine Nobel Peace Prize winners, you know, his economic plan, as well as 500 economists, which is much more than the Bush plan.

SCOTT MacCORMACK: If you have 11 economists in a room, you're going to have 11 different opinions. The problem - -

JAMBEY CLINKSCALES: Well, how is anybody going to pay for any of these proposals if they don't have some way -- it's just like saying, you can't have any new plans, because if you have any new plans, it's going to raise the deficit.

JASON CONLEY: The problem with government, new government spending is that these new government programs tend to snowball, and you -- you tend to have ingrained bureaucracy as a result, and are much more difficult to remove than they are to -- to not implement in the first place. And if you want to reduce the deficit, you're not going to be able to do that with all these new programs, because they're going to be fixed costs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. How about the next debate, is that, you do think given what's happened to your own mind during these last three debates, do you think the next debate's going to get you any closer?

JAMBEY CLINKSCALES: Well, Clinton has moved me a little bit tonight with his sincerity, and it seems that Bush had settled on blaming the Congress for not getting his bills enacted, so it seems as though if Clinton can hold his own and if Bush doesn't come up with something really, really dramatic, then I'm still going to be leaning towards Clinton.

DR. WILLIAM EURE: You can say what you will about the format, but I think the format made this a more civil debate.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And the answer to the question -- well, you already are declared --

DR. WILLIAM EURE: I'm already leaning pretty strongly to Bush.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And the next debate for you, do you think you're almost there?

MARTHA MacCORMACK: I'm hoping that Clinton sells himself, and I'm hoping that he can come out, giving me specifics, clarify the tax and spend so that I'm not nervous about it, and not make anyone look bad, but can he really sell himself?

SCOTT MacCORMACK: I will make my mind up after the last debate. I'm close. I'm tired of this too. I'm worn out, and Iwill decide.

ANNE GREER: Well, in the next debate if Mr. Perot stays as strong as he has been, I will vote for him because what he says is what I feel and what I believe.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Jason.

JASON CONLEY: Well, my mind's already made up. It looks like Bush.

ALLEN RAMSAY: Like they say, I'm not convinced that any of them are great candidates, but you have to pick one.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But by this debate tonight, will you -- did you get any closer?

ALLEN RAMSAY: To a decision? No.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Robin Ganzert.

ROBIN GANZERT: My mind's almost already made up as well. I'm with Jason, except I'm for Clinton.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And Gwen Clinkscales.

GWEN CLINKSCALES: I'd like to put a check next to Clinton, and if he can give us a little more specifics about how to -- how he's going to plan to pay for these programs, I'm -- I think he has my vote.

STEPHEN HERRING: I'm still convinced that Clinton cannot do what he wants to do without raising taxes because of his plan, and -- and I was impressed with Bush admitting that raising taxes was a mistake, and that that was not the way to clear it up. So I'm leaning toward Bush.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, we'll see you at the next debate. Thank you. FOCUS - '92 - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MS. WOODRUFF: Now that we've heard from the voters, we have some inside-the-beltway political analysis of last night's debate. It comes from our own Gergen & Shields. That's David Gergen, editor at large of U.S. News & World Report, and syndicated columnist Mark Shields. Mark, you're not protesting because --

MR. SHIELDS: Inside-the-beltway --

MS. WOODRUFF: This is inside the beltway.

MR. GERGEN: He spent three days in Portland this week.

MR. SHIELDS: That's about as far off the beltway as you can get.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Did the debate change anything, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Sadly for George Bush and the Republicans, no. I mean, George Bush gave an appealing, authentic performance last night and I think he was likeable. But, as my colleague, Mr. Gergen, pointed out last night, there was no convincing consistent theme to his presentation. And it was a great debate on George Bush's part for somebody who is 10 points ahead. Unfortunately, he wasn't.

MS. WOODRUFF: Anything different, anything changed?

MR. GERGEN: The only thing that I think may have changed a bit is the support for Ross Perot, in the sense that my feeling right now is that Perot may have peaked in the first presidential debate. Adm. Stockdale's performance I think dampened as much as -- we talked about this before -- as a war hero as he is, nonetheless, it took a little of the bloom off the rose. I think that Ross Perot last night sounded a bit more repetitive and did not have the -- sometimes something to back up -- so my sense is that there's a bit of an edge coming off that.

MS. WOODRUFF: And that --

MR. GERGEN: George Bush is picking up a bit of that right now, but maybe --

MS. WOODRUFF: That's what I was going to ask. Who's helped by that?

MR. GERGEN: Well, what -- it will probably split, but I think Bush is picking up a bit of it right now, and that may help him. But I -- I have to say that I think in terms of the Clinton/Bush dynamic, that has not changed. George Bush was very good last night. I thought he was better than his first debate, but, nonetheless, he did not have a theme, did not have a message, and I thought this format fit Bill Clinton like a glove. He was clearly connected with the voters, and so I thought he was -- he was helped by it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: Ross Perot made a serious mistake. He should have run the half hour which he's running tonight on network television between the two debates.

MS. WOODRUFF: Why?

MR. SHIELDS: Because then he would have forced the discussion, he would have forced the debate, he would have forced both Clinton and Bush to address his ideas, and it's -- it's some pretty strong medicine. He would have had to defend it, but they would have had to come up with an explanation as to why they haven't offered equally severe or demanding solutions.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now some people have started to criticize Mr. Perot for not talking more about solutions, for talking so much about the defining of the problem, but not -- do we know what he's going to say --

MR. SHIELDS: The second one has been the promise, this is what I'm prescribing. That's -- now I have not seen it, but that's what it's been billed as, and --

MS. WOODRUFF: So you're saying if that had been out there --

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. If he had put that on with the proposed solutions, suggestions, and specific ideas of no can't and no rhetoric, then I think it would have put -- it would have changed the dynamic of the evening.

MR. GERGEN: But his solutions are in his book.

MR. SHIELDS: Yes, they are.

MR. GERGEN: I don't understand why he has not been pushing some of these answers.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. GERGEN: Some of them are pretty tough stuff. He's got a gasoline tax and the country has resisted so far, politicians regard it as poison. Most people in the public policy community think it's absolutely necessary for a 50-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax phased in in five years. He has not really pushed things like that. He hasn't asked --

MS. WOODRUFF: Not just in the debates, but anywhere.

MR. GERGEN: That's right.

MR. SHIELDS: He did debate -- Sunday night -- Sunday night --

MS. WOODRUFF: When he was asked about it.

MR. SHIELDS: When he was asked about it, he defended it and neither of the other two took a cheap shot at it. I noticed that George Stephanopoulos, George -- the campaign deputy, Clinton's deputy campaign manager, communications director, did take a shot at in the Wall Street Journal the next day by saying as people learn about the cost of it, they will -- they will be disenchanted with Perot.

MS. WOODRUFF: David -- it's been -- I've seen some commentators today saying the President didn't really defend himself. You may have even made this point, yourself, last night, that he didn't defend his own -- his own economic policy. What do you make of that?

MR. GERGEN: Well, even his own advisers are telling people they don't know what to make of it. You know -- they sat in sessions prior to the debates -- they feed a lot of things to him. And it's always on a basis he sort of takes it in, but says, I'll handle it as it comes up. So he goes into these debates, by all reports, without a clear strategy, except in his head, and then what comes out is essentially an ad hoc response to the question that's put to him, rather than a thematic approach, as Dan Quayle brought into the debate, and I think effectively helped the President in the vice presidential debate. The President is not helping himself much by not having a thematic approach. And beyond that, I have been stunned -- I can only say that -- by the number of times he has let things pass without responding. Bill Clinton has continually made the argument now that we're in the grips of a failed economic theory, trickle-down economics. Not once have I heard George Bush say, wait a minute, during these past 12 years, 18 million jobs, we had the longest period of growth in our peacetime industry, et cetera.

MS. WOODRUFF: But why hasn't he?

MR. GERGEN: I don't know. It's almost as if he believes it. And that's the impression he's leaving. Now there is an interesting question about format last night. And that was when the President took the question, as he often did, he often took it first, and then Bill Clinton will come after him. The President had no chance to respond. But even so, Judy, I thought that they were -- he had ample opportunity somewhere along the way not only to make a vigorous defense of himself, but to make a vigorous -- go on the offense, and I think that's why Republicans are frustrated today.

MS. WOODRUFF: Just quickly, Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: Just quickly, my friend, Mr. Perot needs the reaction of an audience. He feeds off an audience. And the failure of a good line -- it's not the Democrats, it's not the Republicans that caused the deficit, it's some extraterrestrial, not to get a response from that I think tended -- took a little wind out of his sails. Bill Clinton does something fascinating in these things. You've got to watch him. Ask him a question, Judy, and he'll come right at you. He'll start to walk toward the person. It gives a personal feeling --

MS. WOODRUFF: This is his format, as you said, several times last night.

MR. SHIELDS: It is ideal.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right, gentlemen. Stay with us. We'll be back in a moment. FOCUS - SENATE STAKES

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight, California, where two Senate seats are up for grabs on November 3rd. In each race, a Democratic woman candidate leads her Republican male opponent in the polls, adding gender to the economic issues critical to the state's votes. We have a reporter from -- a report from Correspondent Spencer Michels of public station KQED in San Francisco.

MR. MICHELS: It's a unique election. Two women from Northern California, both Democrats, won tough primary races and now are vying for two separate U.S. Senate seats. They're running against two Republican men from Southern California. The women candidates are five-term Congresswoman Barbara Boxer of suburban San Francisco, and former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. Both are surprisingly well ahead in public opinion polls. This year, women have the advantage of appearing to be political outsiders, according to Mark DiCamillo, associate director of California's Field Poll.

MARK DiCAMILLO, The Field Poll: Certainly Boxer and Feinstein have had credentials and are well known on the political establishment, but they're not perceived as such. I think women candidates have a benefit this year of being perceived as some -- in some ways as being one of us, rather than -- than one of them.

MR. MICHELS: And that's working to the disadvantage of the Republican men who are challenging Boxer and Feinstein. Feinstein's opponent is Republican U.S. Senator John Seymour. He was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson when Wilson gave up his Senate seat after he was elected governor in 1990. Feinstein and Seymour are vying for the two years left of that term. In the other Senate race for a full six-year term Boxer's Republican opponent is TV commentator Bruce Herschensohn of Los Angeles. They are seeking to replace retiring Senator Alan Cranston, who's been in office 24 years. In both races, just as on the national scene, all four candidates talk of job loss and a beleaguered economy as the principal theme.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, Democratic Senate Candidate: In California, since June of 1990, we have lost 770,000 jobs.

MR. MICHELS: Feinstein, a self-described centrist, campaigns before a group of newspaper executives.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: California has lost more jobs than any other state. California's unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 9.8 percent, almost doubling the rate that existed when George Bush took office.

MR. MICHELS: At campaign events, Seymour, considered a moderate Republican, also emphasizes the economy.

SEN. JOHN SEYMOUR, (R) California: I can tell you that there are three very important issues that California wants to hear from the candidates on. Those three important issues are jobs, jobs, jobs.

MR. MICHELS: But Feinstein says that women can be more effective. Never considered a doctrinaire feminist, she now says there is no question that this is the year of the woman.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: We can be the spear throwers of change. And it's not as much our gender; it's what can make us new and different in the arena, how we can avoid the "old boys" syndrome, and how we can put people back to work.

MR. MICHELS: Women have become major contributors to Feinstein's campaign. Many of them, like TV actress Meredith Baxter were drawn into politics because they are pro-choice, even though polls show the abortion issue is not a major factor to most California voters this year. In San Diego, Feinstein's forces organized this women's leadership luncheon at $125 a plate. Feinstein played up the fact that women, herself included, have been discriminated against.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Then I became a single mother with a child, and I recognized how very difficult it was, because the moment I mentioned it, the employment interview came to an end. Now, you should also know that the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that denies a worker the opportunity to take care of a sick child or a sick parent. Our current appointed Senator, John Seymour, voted against family leave plans every year since 1987. It's time for the status quo to go.

MR. MICHELS: Seymour says if family leave had been enacted, it would have cost businesses too much. He pressed to debate Feinstein on that and other issues.

JOHN SEYMOUR: I've already voted against the family leave bill, and should it come back for another vote, I will vote against it again. That's a clear difference between Dianne Feinstein and I.

MR. MICHELS: Feinstein cites the Senate confirmation battle over Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas in an attempt to draw another clear difference between herself and Seymour. Both candidates are pro-choice, but she points out that Seymour voted for Thomas's confirmation.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: The U.S. Senate, with ninety-eight men and two men, voted to confirm Clarence Thomas. And my opponent, after Clarence Thomas let the world know that he as a judge had never ever publicly or privately even discussed Roe V. Wade, John Seymour voted for him, then after he cast his vote, John Seymour said if he had to do it again, he would do it. That's not being pro-choice; it's being multiple choice, because you can't have it both ways.

JOHN SEYMOUR: I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-family and I'm pro-jobs.

MR. MICHELS: Seymour tried unsuccessfully in Houston to get the Republican convention to debate its staunchly anti-abortion stand. He has campaigned as a defender of women's abortion rights, although earlier in his career he was pro-life. In California, Seymour is on the attack. He defends water rights for the state's farmers against demands for fish and wildlife protection. On the stump, he constantly reminds audiences the State Fair Political Practices Commission has filed suit, accusing Feinstein of improperly reporting contributions and expenditures when she ran for Governor.

JOHN SEYMOUR: She doesn't want to explain the eight million dollar lawsuit. She doesn't want to explain the nine counts that have been filed against her in that lawsuit for violations of campaign law.

MR. MICHELS: Feinstein at first implied that her staff, in fact, had made some clerical errors. Later she blamed the accusations on politics. A civil trial is slated after the election. In the other California Senate race, gender and the economy are also major issues. Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Boxer.

BARBARA BOXER, Democratic Senate Candidate: I trust the women of California and the women of America a lot more than I trust Jesse Helms or Bruce Herschensohn or John Seymour or George Bush or Dan Quayle or Orrin Hatch, or you name it. We need a fighter in the Senate to fight for individual freedom. We need a fighter in the Senate to fight for jobs.

MR. MICHELS: Boxer is trying to link gender to the economy, and says the voters are receptive.

REP. BARBARA BOXER: I think they know that for so many years men have been in the backrooms of power and they're not happy with the way things are going. We also have the end of the Cold War, which means that it's time for a domestic agenda. So it's really almost like the country's agenda is becoming the agenda of a lot of us women. And it just seems to be the right time right now.

MR. MICHELS: Boxer's opponent, Bruce Herschensohn, is an ideological conservative.

BRUCE HERSCHENSOHN, Republican Senate Candidate: I don't care what a person's gender may be when it comes to voting. I care what's in their head when it comes to voting.

MR. MICHELS: Bruce Herschensohn seems more interested in promoting his ideology. That includes a flat tax, less government regulation, the abolition of the Department of Education, school vouchers, a strong defense, and a ban on abortion.

BRUCE HERSCHENSOHN: I want to win the election, period, whether it's men, women, or whomever vote for me, as long as they're qualified to vote for office, I want their votes. I'm not trying to appeal the one --

MR. MICHELS: Do you think anybody else, do you think your opponent is?

BRUCE HERSCHENSOHN: That's her business, not mine.

MR. MICHELS: In debates and speeches, Herschensohn's main pitch is for a flat income tax, 13 percent across-the-board.

BRUCE HERSCHENSOHN: My plan in terms of the economy is two- fold, one for a flat rate tax, both on business and on private citizens, and the total abolition of the capital gains, of any tax on interest, savings accounts, of any tax on interest of any kind, the total abolition of any tax on dividends, the total abolition of an estate tax, and making a corporation into a straight business with a flat rate tax.

MR. MICHELS: Boxer replies that a union-sponsored study shows that the flat tax would help only the rich.

BARBARA BOXER: Citizens for Tax Justice, not Barbara Boxer, said -- and I quote -- and this is available to anyone who wishes to see it -- "In our view, the Herschensohn tax proposal would be a boondoggle for the wealthy at the expense of middle and lower income families.

MR. MICHELS: Boxer's own oft-repeated economic plan centers on saving money for domestic programs by scaling back U.S. military expenditures for the defense of Germany and Japan. In the race thus far Seymour's attacks and Herschensohn's ideological warfare aren't working even in traditionally Republican strongholds like San Diego. Polls here show both Feinstein and Boxer ahead. One factor in the women's favor is California's registration figures. Women outnumber men by about 4 percent and considerably more women register Democratic than Republican. Polls show the women candidates doing better among potential women voters, the so-called "gender gap." And that's despite Boxer's opposition to the popular Gulf War and the fact that she bounced 143 checks at the House Bank. At Stanford University, Law Professor Deborah Rhode believes the time for women politicians is right. She teaches and has written widely on women's issues, and is encouraged by the large number of women running for office this year across the country.

DEBORAH RHODE, Law Professor, Stanford University: A 500 percent increase in women's candidates is not something to be scoffed at, nor is the enormous increase in the funding that's now available for those candidates.

MR. MICHELS: Rhode believes there are special factors this year.

DEBORAH RHODE: Most obviously, the Hill-Thomas hearings, cutbacks in abortion issues, women traditionally have cared more about, and here I'm invoking the stereotypes, but there is some basis for them in reality, issues concerning education, child care, resource distribution, now in this year's election parental leave, a range of issues, reproductive choice, on which the Republicans are not in general as good as the Democrats.

BARBARA BOXER: If we can build a bomber, we can build a bus, if we can build a submarine, we can build a subway. It's going to take leadership. It's going to take a change in direction.

MR. MICHELS: With the large number of women running for office in California this year, pollster Mark DiCamillo says there's a chance that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein could provide more than just a change in direction.

MARK DiCAMILLO: The ultimate effect of both Feinstein and Boxer's leadership on the ticket and, in fact, they're successful, could be that they could propel other women further on down the ballot to victory as well in close races, and what some people have been calling this is a potential skirt tail effect. And it would be interesting and certainly historic if that were the case.

MR. MICHELS: The candidates and the pollsters expect both races to draw closer as the election approaches. But unless Republicans Bruce Herschensohn and John Seymour can make up a lot of ground, California this year could by itself double the number of women in the U.S. Senate.

MR. MacNeil: And those races have drawn somewhat closer. A poll published this week showed Boxer's 22-point lead over Herschensohn cut to 11 points. Feinstein's lead over Seymour dropped to 16 points from 20 points last month. Judy. FOCUS - '92 - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MS. WOODRUFF: David Gergen and Mark Shields are back now with their own perspective on the California races and other key congressional campaigns in this election year. David, how much of an advantage, if it is one at all, is it for Boxer and Feinstein, gender? How much of an advantage is it that they are women in this campaign?

MR. GERGEN: I think they're also strong candidates, and I think that they have expressed themselves extremely well. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have been around politics for a long time and have built a popularity of their own. I do think it's a clear advantage -- all other things being equal -- it's better this year in California and every other state in the nation as far as I can tell to be a woman candidate. I think it does add momentum to your campaign, enthusiasm. There a lot of independent and Republican women who in the past have voted for the Republican ticket for the presidency who are streaming out of the Republican Party to vote for a Democratic woman this year.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you agree with that professor who was interviewed who said it's the Hill-Thomas hearings, it's abortion, or do you think it's more complicated than that, Mark? What do you think?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't know how much more complicated it is. I think women have a certain advantage. I think there's a bias in favor of women right now. Women are seen as more honest and more compassionate even though women are telling us that there's no difference between the genders. That's the difference that voters bring, that women are more honest, more compassionate, more nurturing, at a time when the country is hurting, there's pain, when 57 percent of the American -- American women now work outside the home and are really plagued by questions like day care and family leave, issues on which the Democrats are far stronger by their judgment and by their likes and by their perspectives than are the Republicans and where the Republicans are playing very much on the defense.

MR. GERGEN: I would have to say that I don't think being a woman is in itself sufficient. Bruce Herschensohn in California is staging a very strong rally, and may catch Barbara Boxer in Pennsylvania. Everyone thought that Lynn Yeakel would take out Arlen Specter. Arlen Specter is now ahead. She's rallied here recently. In Illinois, Carol Braun started out with a huge lead over Rich Williamson, the Republican. That lead's been cut down some. So it's not -- it is not a be all/end all, but it obviously is an advantage this year.

MR. SHIELDS: The Herschensohn/Boxer race -- Bruce Herschensohn is a -- is a refreshing -- I mean, you heard him. He doesn't back away from his positions. Barbara Boxer doesn't back away from hers. I mean, they are -- they are two strong advocates of two strongly- held conflicting and competing and polar opposite beliefs.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about overall the impact that the presidential campaign is having on what is going to be the make-up of the Senate and the House?

MR. SHIELDS: This was to be the Republicans' year, Judy. First of all, you had the census. The 1990 census showed a shift in population from the snow belt to the sun belt. The sun belt's a lot more conservative, so 20 House seats went down -- left Massachusetts and New York and all the Democrats in Pennsylvania went down to the South and West, and there's the big, big Republican sweep was going to emerge. The Republicans were finally going to break that Democratic lock on the Congress, on the House of Representatives. And George Bush was going to be coronated. And you had the House post office and all these scandals and banks and everything else, and it hasn't happened. The irony is that this past week George Bush, President of the United States, had a full and media opportunities session for Republican candidates for the House of Representatives at the White House. It's a great opportunity. You come in, you're there with the President, you bring it back home --

MS. WOODRUFF: Have your picture taken.

MR. SHIELDS: Have your picture taken. It makes the news back home. Twenty-six candidates showed up.

MS. WOODRUFF: Out of?

MR. SHIELDS: Out of 413.

MR. GERGEN: And not one Republican incumbent, congressional person, came in, not one that's incumbent.

MR. SHIELDS: By contrast, they're clamoring, the Democrats are clamoring to be seen with Bill Clinton.

MS. WOODRUFF: So don't be shy. What does that mean?

MR. SHIELDS: I'll tell you exactly what it means. I'll tell you exactly what it means. It means a lot for Bill -- if Bill Clinton is as shrewd as his political gift suggests that he is, that has brought him this close to victory, to the White House, he will spend the next two and a half weeks campaigning, appearing with Democratic candidates across the country, and saying the following thing, I seek accountability, I want these people, we seek accountability for national leadership. It will be so refreshing after the fingerpointing and the blame back and forth between Congress and the White House. Secondly, it will send a message to Democrats, who have basically been elected, Judy, time and time again in this country in the House of Representatives when Republicans have been carrying the congressional district, Ronald Reagan carried 377 of the 435 congressional districts.

MS. WOODRUFF: So they've had to pull --

MR. SHIELDS: They've had to be independent, entrepreneurial contractors almost.

MR. GERGEN: As Bush's fortunes have gone down, the Republican hopes for the House and Senate have also gone down just quite substantially so that in the Senate the Democrats may actually pick up three seats if they get fifty-seven, which is where they are now, to sixty, to have enough votes to close off a filibuster, and a filibuster is the one weapon of a minority to stop legislation. If you don't have filibuster power, you really don't have much power at all, so that the Democrats have enormous authority in this city. What's all happened, Judy, in the beginning of this campaign, it was assumed that some of these women candidates, the Democratic women candidates, would add two, three, four points, to the total for the presidential candidate on the Democratic side. Now if Bill Clinton continues this lead, it looks like he, in fact, may have coat tails. If he were to win by 10 points, Republican strategists calculate that could translate into a couple of points across-the- board for Democratic candidates and congressional and Senate seats.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Where are some places where that might make it? I mean, is it possible to say now where that might make a difference?

MR. SHIELDS: I can tell you this. At least where the Democrats feel it's going to make a difference, Florida, okay, House seats, and we're talking about five or six marginal House seats, Georgia, the very same thing, California, which we just saw. President Bush has not been --

MS. WOODRUFF: We have a number of women running against --

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. Exactly. President Bush has not been in California, Judy, since the 14th of September. He's basically written it off. Last night, the Senatorial debate, Oregon, Bob Packwood, durable, wily Republican incumbent, 24 years in the Senate, seeking his fifth term, being challenged by Democratic Congressman Les AuCoin, Les AuCoin asked Bob Packwood the question: "Mr. Packwood, are you going to vote for George Bush, and if so, why?".

MS. WOODRUFF: And what did he say?

MR. SHIELDS: He said, he said, yes, he was, and then went on to distance himself from -- from the President. My point is for the first time, the President, the Republican Presidents are seen as an albatross by Democrats running against Republicans.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's a big change. Just quickly.

MR. GERGEN: Well, I think there are several states, California being one of them, where a big Clinton victory -- Bush is apparently not going to go back into California the rest of the election, and a big Clinton victory in California could pull both Boxer and Feinstein through.

MS. WOODRUFF: A lot to chew over. Gentlemen --

MR. SHIELDS: From outside the beltway, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Inside the beltway. Mark and David, thank you both. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of this Friday, the attorney general appointed his own special investigator to probe the administration's handling of illegal loans to Iraq; the appointment fell short of Democratic demands for an independent prosecutor. The trade deficit soared more than 23 percent in August, while industrial production fell. Guatemalan Rigoberta Menchu won the Nobel Peace prize for promoting the rights of Indian people throughout the Americas. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back Monday night with a preview of the last presidential debate. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a good weekend.