The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas asked the Senate to delay its vote on his confirmation to clear his name of sexual harassment charges. President Bush took steps to ease the nation's credit crunch. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we look at the day's events in the Clarence Thomas confirmation saga with excerpts from the Senate floor debate and analysis and reaction from David Gergen and Mark Shields, and six editors. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Clarence Thomas asked the Senate today to put off his moment of truth. He requested a two-day delay to clear his name of sexual harassment charges. The charges by University of Oklahoma Law Professor Anita Hill became public over the weekend. Thomas's request followed a day in which some Senate supporters had asked for a postponement, saying the Senate's credibility was on the line. Late this afternoon, Thomas's leading supporter, Republican Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, took the floor after speaking with the nominee.

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Clarence Thomas said to me on the phone, "I have to clear my name, I have to restore what they have taken from me, I have to appear before the appropriate forum and clear my name."

MR. LEHRER: Earlier in the day, Sen. Danforth presented a sworn affidavit from Thomas denying all of Prof. Hill's charges. We'll have much more on this story right after the News Summary. Smoking was the issue today before the eight Justices now sitting on the Supreme Court. A lawyer for the family of a New Jersey woman argued warning labels on cigarette packs should not protect the manufacturer from lawsuits. The woman, Rose Chipaloni, died from lung cancer in 1984, after 40 years of heavy smoking. A lower court awarded her family $400,000, marking the first time a tobacco company was required to pay damages in such a case. That decision was overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by July. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: President Bush today approved a plan to ease the nation's credit crunch. Steps include instituting a process for banks to appeal decisions by federal regulators, which they view as too strict. It would also relax rules on how bank holding companies raise capital. Mr. Bush talked about the credit situation before a meeting with his economic policy council.

PRES. BUSH: Good banks should make good loans, but they've got to determine what that is, and what we want to do is be sure the federal government is not in the way, but fulfills this responsibility. And that's the way we're going to be working here, but I want to finish this photo opportunity because I'm very anxious to get the details of some more planning here as to what we might be able to do.

MR. MacNeil: House Speaker Tom Foley today ordered the House sergeant-at-arms to stop helping Congressmen get out of paying their parking tickets. Members of Congress are allowed to park almost anywhere in the District of Columbia, regardless of regulations, as long as they're on official business. Following today's action, members will have to appeal tickets, themselves, rather than having the sergeant-at-arms do it. A federal judge in Alaska today accepted a settlement in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case. Exxon will pay more than a billion dollars in civil claims and criminal penalties for the 1989 spill. The judge rejected a similar deal five months ago, but said today the new settlement provides more money for rehabilitating Prince William Sound.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. of State Baker will try again to firm up a Mideast peace conference. The State Department said today Baker will leave Saturday for talks in Israel, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. He will also meet with Palestinians. It will be Baker's eighth trip to the Middle East since the end of the Gulf War in February. Israeli police imposed strict security in Jerusalem today, the anniversary of the Temple Mount killings. More than 1,000 police patrolled the holy site where 17 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces during riots last year. Palestinians from the occupied territories have been kept from entering Jerusalem since yesterday.

MR. MacNeil: United Nations inspectors in Iraq said today they had supervised the destruction of the country's two super guns. Mark Austin of Independent Television News was with the inspectors and he filed this report.

MR. AUSTIN: Deep in the Iraqi Desert, two British engineers get their first look at Saddam Hussein's super gun. These pictures, the first released by the U.N. super gun inspection team, show the sheer scale of the weapon that's fascinated and frightened the world. In a nearby weapons bunker, the shells that go with it, they've been fired only in testing. They then headed for an industrial estate just South of Baghdad, where lie barrel parts from what's being called the dooms day gun. With this 1,000 millimeter barrel, the Iraqis were trying to build the biggest gun in the world.

SPOKESMAN: Pretty good condition, not much deterioration.

MR. AUSTIN: It is designed by the Canadian super gun pioneer, Gerald Gault, mysteriously shot dead in March last year. Under U.N. supervision, the Iraqis have begun the destruction process, but cutting up the barrels of the super guns could take several weeks. The dismantling of a weapon the Iraqis couldn't hide. A ton of gunpowder, large grains of it, was also disposed of, this time in front of U.M. inspectors. Helicopters have greatly improved the ability of the U.N. teams to cover the vast distances of desert where Scud missile launchers are located. Landing can be hazardous at times, but the inspectors were able to tour several different launch sites which will also now be destroyed.

MR. MacNeil: Kurdish rebel leaders today admitted that their supporters executed 60 Iraqi prisoners of war yesterday. The leaders condemned the killings which occurred during a new wave of clashes between Kurds and Iraqi troops in Northern Iraq. More than 400 people have been reported killed in the fighting.

MR. LEHRER: The Organization of American States talked today of further action against the military regime in Haiti. OAS Foreign Ministers considered a request from deposed President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to send a mission of several hundred civilians to Haiti to restore democracy. They also debated whether to tighten sanctions against the Caribbean nation. Last night, soldiers in the capital city of Port Au Prince stormed the parliament building and forced lawmakers at gunpoint to name a Supreme Court judge to replace Aristide. Aristide was overthrown in a military coup September 30th.

MR. MacNeil: Fighting eased in Yugoslavia today. The federal army held talks with the separatist republic of Croatia over details of a new truce. The talks were mediated by European Community officials who said Croatia's president agreed to a cease- fire. But they didn't specify the terms. Meanwhile, the neighboring republic of Slovenia, which has also declared independence, reopened its borders with Croatia and with Austria. Long lines quickly formed at the border crossings. Japan today announced its first major aid package to the Soviet Union. It said it would lend the Soviets $2 1/2 billion. A Japanese official told reporters the aid was intended to support reforms in the Soviet Union. He said it had nothing to do with efforts to resolve a territorial dispute with the Soviets over the Curiel Islands.

MR. LEHRER: Security was tight in South Africa's black townships today after a day of bloodshed left 18 people dead. President DeKlerk and Nelson Mandela exchanged blame for inciting the violence. We have more from Peter Sharp of Independent Television News.

MR. SHARP: They had gathered in their thousands at Takoz Township, East of Johannesburg, for the funeral of a leading ANC activist, Sam Entouli, assassinated eight days ago. Although feelings were running high among the mourners, the ceremony, itself, passed off peacefully watched by police and army as leading members of the ANC called for an end to the DeKlerk government.

CYRIL RAMAPHOSA, ANC: As we bury Comrade Sam Entouli, tomorrow we must bury DeKlerk government. We are sick and tired, comrades, of burying our leaders who have been killed by DeKlerk's killing machine.

MR. SHARP: And the killing continued. Less than an hour later, 12 mourners were shot dead as they left the funeral, fired on from passing vehicles. These were the bloodiest attacks since Nelson Mandela signed last month's peace accord with Pres. DeKlerk.

NELSON MANDELA, ANC: The absence of the police is very scandalous, indeed, and it makes a mockery of the peace accord which we have signed.

MR. SHARP: These latest killings will only increase calls by the ANC for an interim government in South Africa to contain the violence in a run up to an all party conference.

MR. LEHRER: And in that conference, the government will discuss sharing power with the ANC and other opposition groups. South African President DeKlerk responded to Mandela's criticism last night by denouncing him and his African National Congress. He said the ANC could not be trusted. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to full coverage of the Clarence Thomas drama in the United States Senate. FOCUS - AGONIZING DECISION

MR. MacNeil: And we devote the rest of this program to the whys and wherefors behind the Senate's 11th hour moves to postpone a vote on the Clarence Thomas nomination. They followed a day of meetings and debate on Capitol Hill from Senators trying to decide how to respond to the charges of sexual harassment leveled at Thomas by a woman who worked for him 10 years ago. In a sworn affidavit released today, Thomas totally and unequivocally denied any misconduct, sexual or otherwise, toward Anita Hill, the former assistant to Thomas at the Equal Unemployment Opportunity Commission. Thomas said in the affidavit, "I am terribly saddened and deeply offended by these allegations." Correspondent Roger Mudd has been following the Thomas debate and has this report on today's developments.

MR. MUDD: For the past 36 hours, the Senate has been playing a high risk game of damage control, Republicans trying to control damage to Clarence Thomas, Democrats trying to control damage from outraged women's groups, individual Senators trying to control damage to their own credibility, and the so-called "Senate men's club" trying to control damage to its reputation. It was the charge of sexual harassment made by Oklahoma University Law Professor Anita Hill against Thomas that seemed to loosen the very plaster of the Senate.

ANITA HILL, Law Professor, University of Oklahoma: Reliving this experience has, it has been really bad for me. I mean, I can't even describe. It was bad enough to experience it once, but to relive it has been very bad, and especially with the frustration that I have felt with trying to get the information in the right hands.

MR. MUDD: Almost within the hour, the Republicans, led by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, opened a barrage against character and motives of Prof. Hill.

SEN. STROM THURMOND, [R] South Carolina: If she had been harassed in the Education Department, why did she choose to go with him again and run the risk of being harassed again? She didn't have to go there. She had a job with the Education Department and could have stayed there if she wanted to. And instead of that, she got up and wanted to go with him and did go with him.

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH, [R] Missouri: It cannot be true that we are going to tolerate a situation where anybody who wants to throw the mud gets to throw the mud, and if it sticks, that's just wonderful.

MR. MUDD: From the beginning, there were gaps and inconsistencies not only in Prof. Hill's account, but also in those from certain Senators and from the White House. Who talked to Prof. Hill first and when? Did she come forward on her own? What role did Senators Metzenbaum and Kennedy, who are opposing the Thomas nomination, play in the story? Did Judiciary Committee Chairman Biden and his staff fail to take her charges seriously? Did Hill delay the committee process by insisting on confidentiality? Did the FBI dismiss her allegations, as the White House claims, or did the FBI reach no conclusion, as Anita Hill claims? For most of today, one Senator after another gave their answers.

SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI, [D] Maryland: Now, Mr. President, I do not like the term "sexual harassment," because it doesn't give the full impact of what that means to the person who must endure this type of abuse. And make no mistake, it is abuse. It is as abusive as a physical blow.

SEN. KENT CONRAD, [D] North Dakota: Mr. President, Prof. Hill has made serious allegations to the FBI. Judge Thomas has denied those allegations to the FBI. Clearly, someone is not telling the truth.

SEN. HOWARD METZENBAUM, [D] Ohio: One of my colleagues, whom I considered a friend, on the other side of the aisle with absolutely no evidence is telling reporters that I am responsible for leaking Anita Hill's story to the press. That is wrong; that is untrue. Let me say emphatically again that nothing could be further from the truth. He owes me a public apology. Prof. Hill struggled to make her story known to Senators and expressed a desire to keep her confidentiality protected. I would not violate that request. I knew full well the impact these charges would have on the lives of both Judge Thomas and Prof. Hill. And I would never have so callous a disregard for those consequences. I resent bitterly the suggestion that I would.

SENATOR: The chair recognizes the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, [R] Utah: Mr. President, I'm happy to have this opportunity to make a few remarks and to clarify the record. I know that my distinguished friend from Ohio feels that I named him as the person who leaked the information with regard to the FBI report. And that is not true. I was interviewed -- I must have been interviewed 50 times on this. I have my suspicions who did, and I don't believe it was any Senator who leaked the report. I do believe it was staff. But I have to say I never said that the distinguished Senator from Ohio did leak the report. Now, having said that --

SEN. METZENBAUM: Would the Senator from Utah --

SEN. HATCH: Sure.

SEN. METZENBAUM: -- yield for one comment of mine to him, please?

SEN. HATCH: Well, let me just say one other thing. I apologize if that was the implication that the Senator took but --

SEN. METZENBAUM: Neither I nor my staff have made this story available to the press.

SEN. HATCH: Well, I'm happy to have that. I'll take your word on that, Senator. I have to tell you though that somebody on somebody's staff did this, and I'll take your word that it was not you or your staff. You're welcome.

MR. MUDD: Hanging over the Senate as the debate rolled on was a scheduled vote on the Thomas nomination set for 6 o'clock this evening, a vote which could be changed only by unanimous consent. A lengthening string of Democrats urged the Republicans to permit a delay.

SEN. BILL BRADLEY, [D] New Jersey: When he said no and she says yes, we don't know which one of them is closer to the truth. And I believe we have a responsibility to find that out before this vote. Supporters of Judge Thomas who believe his aversion should have, in my view, nothing to fear for waiting a few days and letting these allegations have a full hearing, with all respect to the Supreme Court, this country will not be plunged into crisis by waiting in a few days to have a ninth Justice voted upon. There really is no hurry.

SEN. JOHN KERRY, [D] Massachusetts: Because we're where we are, because this has now become public, because Senators outside of the committee were not aware of this, because the full Senate must vote in order to confirm and advise and consent, that because the nation as a whole and particularly 50 percent or more of our country made up of women now have a doubt about the process, don't we have an obligation to air the very kinds of arguments the Senator is making in an appropriate way that allows people to sense that there's an integrity and process that's, in fact, being put in place, and not simply the Senator from Utah, who I know speaks with conviction and a sense of faith about it, that he's not the voice in this, but the people who are the participants and the players, particularly Judge Thomas, are the voices we're hearing today?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, [R] Utah: Well, I think it's a good question, but I have to point out to the Senator that everybody on the committee knew about it. That's what our job is to do, is to screen these things out. And all 14 members of the committee basically screened them out. They had a full access to the FBI report. You have a disparity. You have Miss Hill alleging that there was sexual harassment and you have Judge Thomas denying it. Now, nothing's going to occur to change those two facts. And it's nice to say that. And it's nice to talk about that, but we're talking about a Supreme Court Judgeship nomination. And we're talking about proceeding because he's been smeared over the last three days, four days, while most of us were out of town. And we don't want to see the smear continue.

SEN. ALBERT GORE, [D] Tennessee: Surely, this body of ninety- eight men and two women ought to have just a little self-doubt about our ability to cavalierly dismiss a charge to which the average woman obviously reacts in a very different fashion than the average man.

MR. MUDD: As the pressure for delay built up, Senate Republicans and the White House grew nervous. Sen. Danforth of Missouri, who has been serving as Thomas's patron and spokesman, called a press conference in a dramatic move to deflect the pressure.

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH, [R] Missouri: If he loses the nomination because of this, if he is telling the truth and he loses the nomination because of this, that to me is an earth shaking development.

MR. MUDD: Danforth went from the press conference to the office of Republican Leader Robert Dole to talk by telephone with Clarence Thomas. Danforth then revealed to the Senate what Thomas had said.

SEN. DANFORTH: What Clarence Thomas said to me on the phone, "I have to clear my name. I have to restore what they have taken from me. I have to appear before the appropriate forum and clear my name." So for a hundred days, I've been the spokesman for this person, Clarence Thomas, and on this hundredth day, I act as a spokesman again with great pain and great anger at an injustice which is being perpetrated on him. And I ask for a delay, and Mr. President, not a delay to torture him, a delay I would say of one day -- some would say you can't do it in one day, two days -- to bring her here, to bring him here, to do whatever else they want to do, and then to have a vote at a time certain, 6 PM, next Thursday, this coming Thursday, two days from now. Now, that is reasonable. I think it's unfair.

MR. MUDD: Republican Leader Dole could see his party losing control of a nomination that appeared last week to be a lead pipe cinch.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: I think it's fair to say that the jury is right next door. The jury has gathered in Sen. Mitchell's office. And they're going to determine the fate of Clarence Thomas. And I heard almost every Senator, regardless of his final position on the nomination, say that Clarence Thomas is a man of integrity and honesty, but when it was called into question, I hope they would keep that in mind.

MR. MUDD: At the stroke of 6 o'clock this evening, Democratic Leader Mitchell announced a delay while negotiations were concluded on whether to go ahead with the vote or whether to postpone it to give the Judiciary Committee time to reconvene and hear both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill testify under oath. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: A short time ago in Norman, Oklahoma, Anita Hill told the press that she would cooperate fully with the Senate and will go to Washington as quickly as she can. Now we have two views from the Senate on the latest developments in the nomination. Sen. Al Gore, Democrat from Tennessee, whom we just heard in that piece adding his voice to those calling for a delay on the vote, Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican from Pennsylvania, a member of the Judiciary Committee, also asked for a delay. He'll be joining us in a moment. Sen. Gore, what happened today? The tone seemed -- what happened overnight? The tone seemed very different today from yesterday.

SEN. ALBERT GORE, [D] Tennessee: Well, I think the full impact of Prof. Hill's presence as she made her allegations at her press conference sank in. People in the Senate, an institution which is made up of ninety-eight men and only two women, began to realize the fact that there is a big difference in the way women see this kind of allegation and in the way most men see it. And a feeling began to build that really it is wrong for the Senate to just dismiss this charge simply because the way in which it came to the Senate's attention made it apparent to most members of the Senate only at the last minute.

MR. MacNeil: Which was uppermost in the minds of all these Senators who wanted a delay, defending the Senate's reputation or Judge Thomas's or Ms. Hill's?

SEN. GORE: Well, I think uppermost in the minds of most of us who have urged a delay -- and I hope there will be a delay -- is a devotion to a sense of fairness in this matter. Roger, we have in this country a revolution in thinking underway. It's been going on for quite some time, but building in strength and momentum in the last couple of decades, where the relationship between men and women is concerned. And there's a growing awareness on the part of men that issues like sexual harassment have to be seen not only from the old traditional male point of view, but also with an adequate respect for the different perspective that women have on this issue. And this seemed to crystallize that.

MR. MacNeil: Was that seen that clearly yesterday in the Senate, or has that sort of sociological change happened overnight?

SEN. GORE: Well, I think that change is one that is taking place in the country and is reflected in the Senate's view of this matter. I might say that it's not irrelevant that one of the central issues in the nomination, itself, is what the court might do to a whole series of issues that affect that evolving relationship between men and women, how that might come out after Judge Thomas is confirmed if he is confirmed.

MR. MacNeil: What do you say to what we just heard Sen. Danforth, Thomas's sort of sponsor in this, these proceedings, say very emotionally now that a great injustice had been perpetrated on Judge Thomas?

SEN. GORE: Well, I think it's absolutely true that he and his family will experience pain and anguish as a result not just of any reasonable delay but as the result of the fact that these allegations that are aired. But that cannot be helped and that anguish has to be weighed against the anguish that would be felt not only by Prof. Hill if these charges were just cavalierly dismissed, but the anguish that would be felt by every woman in this country who has ever tried to bring a concern like this forward and has had it cavalierly dismissed.

MR. MacNeil: We're joined now by Sen. Specter. What's your response to Sen. Danforth saying a great injustice has been perpetrated on Judge Thomas? We just heard that a moment ago.

SEN. SPECTER: I think that it has been very hard on Judge Thomas and by 20/20 hind sight it would have been much better had this matter been inquired into before. And the fact was that we didn't know about it back on Thursday, September 26th. When I found out about it, I was very concerned, studied the FBI report, then asked for a meeting with Judge Thomas and discussed it with him. But we really have to move from this point forward and the integrity, in a sense, of the Senate has been questioned about the thoroughness of our investigation, which could have been better in the past. But most important of all, we have the Supreme Court, which has to make very monumental decisions. And anybody who's confirmed there shouldn't go there with a cloud.

MR. MacNeil: You obviously underwent some conversion yourself overnight, Senator, from your position on this program last night, this time last night, so what went through your mind overnight to make you say that you thought there should be a delay?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, [R] Pennsylvania: Well, I said last night that I was willing to consider it and I did consider it and came to the conclusion that there was just too much, too much at stake here. My thinking has evolved. I was very unhappy in my exchange last night with Sen. Simon of Illinois on the basis of the fact that he and others on the Committee had this information back before the Committee vote. And I think that was the time to air it, but after thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that whatever the motivation may be, the charges are there now and there are a lot of people in this country who were very uneasy about what the Senate has undone, very uneasy about the whole situation, and I think we can take a little more time, hear Prof. Hill, hear Judge Thomas's response, make a judgment. I still don't think the votes are going to change. I think we'll end up about the position we were a couple of days ago.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Gore, what's going to satisfy you, what kind of a proceeding? I mean, is it going to be an open, televised interrogation of the Judge and of Prof. Hill with other witnesses? What is going to satisfy this now?

SEN. GORE: Well, I think that'll be for the Committee to decide. That would be my idea of a reasonable way to proceed, but that'll be up to the Committee. I do want to point out that the Committee knew about the evidence but was constrained by a pledge to Prof. Hill not to discuss her identity to anyone outside the Committee. And I don't know all of what went on in the Committee and what didn't, but I do know that that puts a real constraint on the Committee. Now this next proceeding has to be impeccably fair and thorough. And I'm confident that it will be if there is reasonable time to conduct it.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Specter, what do you see as -- you're a member of the Committee -- what do you see as an adequate process from here on? How long should it take?

SEN. SPECTER: I think that it ought to be a public hearing. The American people ought to be privy to it. I think we ought to hear from Prof. Hill. I think we ought to hear from one corroborating witness which she has, and I think we ought to hear from Judge Thomas. Now, that is the central issue. I think we ought to move ahead promptly and I think we can get it resolved if we go to the hearings promptly within the course of a few days, by the end of this week.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Dole, the Republican Minority Leader, said on the floor today, what happens if we open it up, all kinds of allegations will come out of the woodwork the way they have on previous occasion; he mentioned some other instances. I mean, if other allegations appear as a result of these proceedings, would you then extend the hearings and bring more witnesses in?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, I think we have to be prepared to deal with whatever comes up. But Judge Thomas has been in the public eye now since July 1st, and I doubt very much if there's anything else out there, but if there is, we just have to deal with it. There comes a point where we vote and it's finished. And if somebody comes up after the fact, so be it. That doesn't ordinarily happen with some issue which is as highly publicized as a Supreme Court nominee. I think we have one additional issue here. It's been in the background for some time and now we ought to resolve it.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Gore, Sen. Conrad said on the floor in the excerpts we hear, clearly, someone is not telling the truth. Is that the way you see this?

SEN. GORE: Oh, there's no question about that. It's a felony to make a false statement to an FBI agent compiling one of those reports. And I spent a good deal of time reading the whole file this afternoon and Prof. Hill's statement and Judge Thomas's statement are directly contradictory. So one of them has, it seems, committed a felony. But it seems to me there's one other important point here, Roger. If the Senate does delay this this evening and give adequate time to explore this matter, we will be sending a very powerful signal to every employer in this country, to every woman in this country, to every citizen that sexual harassment is now going to be taken extremely seriously. It's not going to be swept under the rug if it comes to the attention of the United States Senate, and I think that's a statement about the way the country is changing in our reaction to this whole matter.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Specter, do you agree with what's just been said, clearly one of them is not telling the truth?

SEN. SPECTER: I think that's true.

MR. MacNeil: And do you think that a day of questioning each of them is going to, is going to reveal which one of them that is?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, we'll start with a day and we'll see. It is a very frequent occurrence in trials or controversies that there is conflicting testimony. And we just have to tackle it. Our job is to make a decision on who's telling the truth. Judge Thomas has been hanging out there for a long time. He's entitled to fairness. Prof. Hill says, and understandably, that her integrity is at issue, and that's something we just have to resolve. But it happens in the courtrooms and hearings and proceedings all the time.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Sen. Gore and Sen. Specter, thank you both for joining us.

SEN. SPECTER: Nice being with you.

SEN. GORE: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Now how all of this looks to Gergen & Shields and six editors. David Gergen is editor at large of U.S. News & World Report. Mark Shields is a syndicated columnist. The editors are Lee Cullum of the Dallas Times Herald, Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution, Erwin Knoll of Progressive Magazine, in Madison, Wisconsin, Ed Baumeister of the Trenton, New Jersey Times, Patrick McGuigan of the Daily Oklahoman in Oklahoma City, and Gerald Warren, editor of the San Diego Union. Mark, the assumption at this point is, at the time that we are talking now, that the Senate will eventually tonight decide to - - they've already delayed, they did not vote at 6 o'clock Eastern Time, the question now apparently is, how long they're going to delay it and how they're going to do it, I mean, what the process will be from this point on. Are they doing the right thing? MARK SHIELDS, Washington Post: Is the Senate doing the right thing?

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

MR. SHIELDS: I think the Senate is doing the only thing it can do right now. I think two things happened. First, there was a sea change in attitude in this city today. And I think it was that 14 men on the Committee were all of a sudden hit by an awful lot of women. They were women they knew, they lived with, they were married to, or worked for, worked with, about the charges made by Prof. Hill. Prof. Hill seemed a very plausible and compelling person and this was a nomination, that of Clarence Thomas, that was based upon his character. It's not based upon his towering intellect. It was based upon his character, and that's what his supporters and his advocates -- and this is a fundamental question of character. And I think that the Senate would be very hard pressed, especially when the vote was as close as it has been, it wasn't a 90/10 vote, not to examine this and to make that judgment, decide who is telling the truth here. Obviously, we have two conflicting stories. That's what Senators have to do.

MR. LEHRER: That's what Sen. Specter just said. David, what happened? What do you think happened?

DAVID GERGEN, U.S. News & World Report: Well, I think overnight, Jim, that there were a number of Senators who were for Clarence Thomas but not strongly for him who began to waver. Essentially, there were Senators in the middle and they felt that the integrity of the Senate was at stake, that they needed it because it is essentially an all male institution that they really did, in fairness to women, given the seriousness of sexual harassment charges, they had to have a further investigation. I also will tell you I think there were people on the left who had been pushing this for a long time who wanted a delay for one very specific reason. They want to dig up some more dirt on this guy. They've been trying to engage in character assassination right from the beginning, they've been pushing this very hard, and they hope that the extra time will bring some other people out of the woodwork. There are some people on the right who did not want a delay. They have only agreed to the delay because they don't have the votes anymore.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Dole said that; we've got 41 votes for confirmation and all these people essentially said, if we don't get a delay, those who were, the Democrats who were favoring Thomas, many of them said, well, we'll go ahead and vote, if we have to vote tonight, we'll vote against him.

MR. GERGEN: That's correct. And they felt on the Republican side that they had about 41 for, about 41 against, and the rest were in the middle. And under those circumstances, it would be worse to have a vote and have him lose based on these charges than to go ahead and have a hearing.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, what does delay do? Is it, is it going to work against him? I mean, do you think these votes are going to stay in place as a result of this?

MR. SHIELDS: No, I think they're up for grabs right now and I think it comes down to his being able to make the case. His testimony before the Committee up to now was not marked by, by transcendent openness and candor. His character was emphasized and his background, but this is a man about, his openness in dealing with the committee was questioned even by his supporters. I do want to say to David, I don't want to leave one point hanging, and that is that in every political dispute anybody's ever been in, there are certain people on your side you always devoutly wish were on the other side. I mean, just the fact that people were trying to dig up stuff about Clarence Thomas for months has nothing to do with Prof. Hill. I mean, Prof. Hill made this charge. Some people want to capitalize on it. It's totally extraneous to what she did. I mean, this is somebody who is a conservative, who was for Bork. She's a tenured professor at the University of Oklahoma Law School. This is not somebody who has invented whole cloth out of the woodwork or ever, to mix all kinds of bad metaphors. I mean, she has -- this is somebody who really went to Oral Roberts University to teach law for the first, I mean, this is not some lefto pinko who is throwing stink bombs at Clarence Thomas.

MR. GERGEN: But it's also true, Mark, that we've had in this city increasingly, and we talked about this before about other people, and it's happened to Democrats, and it's happened to Republicans, there is a viciousness and an ugliness about the way we now sit in judgment on people. And there has been an attempt over the last couple of weeks, ads in newspapers asking people to send in dirt on Clarence Thomas. The Senate Labor Committee was the first one who contacted this woman; it wasn't the Judiciary Committee. It was members of the staff. When the Senate Labor Committee went forward and contacted her and brought her out of the woodwork, because they've been calling all over to everybody who's known Clarence Thomas, do you have any dirt on this fellow, there is a concerted effort, this is unlike what we -- it is getting worse and there's something wrong with it. Now, I just want to make one point back to you, but you said it's up to him to prove that he didn't do it. It seems to me that he is innocent until proven guilty.

MR. SHIELDS: Okay, good point. Let's get one thing straight. This poisonous attitude in this city David alludes to began, if I recall, by a Republican Senator in 1988 accusing Kitty Dukakis of burning the flag.

MR. GERGEN: That's correct.

MR. SHIELDS: Okay. Let's get that out. Let's remember the Willie Horton campaign. But this didn't all of a sudden come out of the Senate Democratic fulcrum. There is an atmosphere that has been tapped into.

MR. LEHRER: Let's tap into how this looks out in the country. Lee Cullum, is this Washington up to a nasty trick, or is this, is this the way democracy is supposed to work?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Times-Herald: Jim, I think it is the way democracy is supposed to work. I think Prof. Hill is very impressive. I think that every woman in the country, I shouldn't speak for every woman but I'll speak only for myself, looked at here, and identified with her. She's, she's accomplished; she's persuasive; she's calm; she's believable. So these charges can't be dismissed and I very much resent the way this Senate Committee let them go by. The Senate Committee has been unfair to Thomas. It's the Senate Committee that should have protected him by dealing with these allegations at the proper moment and not risking their leaking at the last moment, which was always a risk, and they're grown-ups, they knew that.

MR. LEHRER: Gerry Warren, do you agree that it was the Senate Committee that's been unfair to Clarence Thomas and everyone else?

GERALD WARREN, San Diego Union: I think the Senate Committee has failed to do its job. Had the Committee investigated these charges and had the members determined among themselves that there was no merit to these charges then they, they could go ahead and vote him out to the full Committee. And when the charges came out at the last moment, and I think that's very suspicious the way they came out, when they came out, the Committee members, the chairman on down, should have stood up and said, we looked at this allegation and we see no merit in it.

MR. LEHRER: How does it look to you, Cynthia Tucker? Is the Senate now in the process at least of trying to, or do you think it's doing the right thing in trying to make up for some mistakes it made before?

CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: Well, I think the only good news from today is that it appears that we're finally at the point where we should have been earlier in this process. If the Senate votes to delay the vote, and I think it should, then we will finally have time to have these charges fully investigated, as they should have been in the first place. Of course, the Senate is now busy trying to clean up its act. I think the almost, the overwhelmingly male Senate has understood how its handling of this affair appears to women all over the country. It appears as though the Senate Judiciary Committee did not take the charges seriously enough. If Prof. Hill is to be believed, and I find her very credible, then not only did she give a statement to the FBI, but someone that she had talked to atthe time that the harassment took place also gave a statement to the FBI. That means then it wasn't just a matter of he said and she said. She had a corroborating witness. I would think that that information alone would be enough for the Senate Judiciary Committee to want to know more. And I think that they now understand that from the beginning they should have wanted to know more.

MR. LEHRER: Ed Baumeister in Trenton, or from your perspective in Trenton, does it look to you like it's a case of the Senate just having made a terrible mistake, or were they, is it a case that it is a man's club and they operate it accordingly?

ED BAUMEISTER, Trenton [N.J.] Times: Well, when I worked in Washington, one of the big stories was that the Congress had exempted itself from the Clean Air Act so that it could have a dirty power station. And I'm reminded of that because it looks like the Senate has exempted itself from understanding what's really going on. They've sort of just discovered that they're all male. My newspaper company is relatively small, 500 employees, middle age men run it, as middle age men run many companies, but we have a, we're very, very sensitive to this charge. When it is made, we all mobilize to investigate it and to deal with it. They're sort of hiding behind a recent discovery, it seems to me, that they're all male and that this issue is important. I think most companies take this issue very, very seriously. And their failure to take it seriously when they had evidence, and their characterizing it tonight, listening, was it staff, was it your staff, was it my staff, is it because you only have two women, is it because there are left wing and right wing, this is the point. I think Sunday when this thing first surfaced on National Public Radio, you called your neighbor outside the capital beltway and you knew that this thing had to be stalled, because it, in the country at large, I think, we take the issue very, very seriously.

MR. LEHRER: Is it taken seriously in Oklahoma, Pat McGuigan?

PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: Of course, sexual harassment is taken seriously in Oklahoma, and it should be taken seriously. That's a different question in this process. You know, I heard Sen. Gore refer to supposedly this process having resulted in charges being cavalierly dismissed. I do believe that Sen. Danforth spoke for me at least when he said a terrible injustice may be in the process here. Danforth pointed out, has pointed out in recent days, that this man has appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee longer than anybody ever. Now, if there's any fingers to be pointed in terms of the charges, I think the fingers have to be pointed at the Democratic staff. Sen. Metzenbaum says it didn't come from his people. I wonder who it did come from. This thing got handled very slowly from its origins in early September, and the one thing I'll credit Prof. Hill on is her assertion yesterday that she's not responsible for the timing of this. I'm absolutely convinced that staffers on the Hill are responsible for the timing and she's not. Having said all that, I'm completely confident that the charges at their core are false.

MR. LEHRER: Why are --

MR. McGUIGAN: Because I know Clarence Thomas, and, you know, one of the earlier editorial commenters said this is more than he said he said -- she said he said. I'm not really sure it's going to be more than that, despite the fact that there's allegedly one corroborating witness. You've got Phyllis Berry Meyers, a former EEOC official, who is issuing her own allegation that, if anything, it's the other way around, and that the reason Judge Thomas is in deep trouble now is that he wouldn't respond to Prof. Hill's interest in him. Now, you know, this is getting soap operish. This is getting -- I'm very worried about the future because I think that this kind of confirmation process is on the verge of being institutionalized, and after this gets handled two days from now, what other last minute charge are we going to see? When will this finally be voted on yes or no?

MR. LEHRER: Erwin Knoll, was this a soap opera and a terrible tragedy?

ERWIN KNOLL, The Progressive: Well, it may be a terrible tragedy but it's also very important business, and I think the Senate of the United States disgraced itself before the American people and the way it handled this matter. First, the Committee members disgraced themselves by trying to brush this under the rug, and then the Senate as a whole by waiting until the very last minute tonight to decide whether this question was worth holding up a vote, it's an affront to every woman in America, it's an affront to every man in America who has some respect for his own dignity and that of women. I think the cavalier way that this was treated is mind boggling and the question needs to be sorted out. I don't know whether Prof. Hill or Judge Thomas is telling the truth. All I can do is form an opinion by hearing her sworn testimony, by hearing his sworn testimony. That's the only way the Senators can form a judgment. That they should even for a moment contemplate rushing to a decision on this crucial appointment, this man's likely to sit on the Supreme Court for 40 years, we need to know what kind of a human being he is. We need to know how he stands on basic questions of human decency. We're entitled to know that and to attempt to ignore for three weeks now or four to pretend that none of these allegations have been raised, and to rush to a judgment on this nomination without a public airing of this question, it just strikes me as terribly wrong.

MR. LEHRER: Lee Cullum, Sen. Danforth said on the floor of the Senate, we ran a piece of it, that no matter what happens from this point on, Clarence Thomas's reputation is gone. I mean, he'll never get it all the way back because there's no way it can ever be proved beyond the shadow or a certain doubt in a lot of people's minds, is he right about that?

MS. CULLUM: I think he probably is right about that, Jim, but there's an important point to be made here. Clarence Thomas had no reputation to lose. That's the problem here. He's very young. Forty-three is too young to be on the Supreme Court. This is not a mid-career move. This is the crown of a life. That's what it's supposed to be. I looked at --

MR. GERGEN: What about Bill Douglas?

MS. CULLUM: -- Brandeis, Oliver Wendall Holmes, Warren Burger, Earl Warren, all in their early sixties when they were named, Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, in their early fifties when they were named. Now we're dropping to 43. Shall we go to 35 and control the court for three generations instead of two? It was an unseemly appointment to begin with on the basis of experience. And I think he is getting caught in the saw mill because of it and that is a tragedy.

MR. LEHRER: David, you agree that he really had no reputation to lose in the first place?

MR. GERGEN: I'm stunned. Bill Douglas happened to come on the court at a pretty early age. There have been some others. I think that the man has worked very hard over his 43 years to earn a reputation and to say, let's just dismiss it, it doesn't make any difference what happens to him, as if that's not at issue, that is part of the issue here. And, you know, I trust that this proceeding will go forward fairly and be balanced. There are, I should tell you, Jim, there are a number of Republicans and some Democrats who continue to believe tonight that he will be confirmed because when it comes down to it, she made a very, very effective presentation yesterday, there's no question about it. She appeared to be a very sincere woman, which I think is very appealing. At the same time, there are aspects of this story which don't add up. There are inconsistencies already now coming out in the last twenty-four to forty-eight hours which Sen. Simpson and others have brought out, and a number of people who believe that when it's all said and done that she may not have a convincing case. He's entered an affidavit flatly denying it. We'll hear from her in a sworn statement. We haven't yet heard from a sworn statement, but there are aspects to this story which call into doubt her credibility. And if I can make just one last point, is this painting the Senate and Judiciary Committee as if it did a terrible, reckless job. It should have taken more time to investigate this, but after all, this woman is a graduate, a very fine woman, she is a graduate of a law school, she's a sophisticated woman, she knew what the process was, she refused to let them use her name and let any investigation go forward until after the Committee hearings were over. And then they did do an FBI investigation and to say -- and there are some very fine people on both sides of the aisle who have looked at this stuff and said, okay, we ought to go forward and we ought not to put this on a public record because it doesn't seem to add up, it doesn't seem to be a credible story.

MR. LEHRER: But that story, that particular position, or that point of view is not getting out to Trenton, New Jersey, is it, Ed Baumeister, that the Senate was actually acting responsibly in this case, rather than --

MR. BAUMEISTER: No, they look like the Keystone cops. I mean, these are supposedly tough guys. If they had some defense contractor who had found out a way to make a $6,000 toilet seat, whether the defense contractor wanted his name used or not, they'd have hauled him before them. This was a very important issue and it's important to all employers and these people are, if not employers, gate keepers to employment on the Supreme Court, and they just boggled it, and, you know, if you read the newspaper accounts starting yesterday and the chronology today, and hearing them today on the floor of the Senate, they do look like they don't know what they're doing. They're looking left, they're looking right, they're looking at staff, they're looking at various Senators, they're offering different explanations, they do not look like a credible body to be, to be metering people through to high positions at the moment.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, that's a serious charge to be made about the United States Senate.

MR. SHIELDS: It is and Ed is not alone in making it. I mean, the Congress has certainly suffered a number of body blows as to what he knows, many self-inflicted recently, whether the House Bank, pay raises in the dark, perks, PAC money, or whatever, but I really, I think David is right, I think to Joe Biden's credit, he was dealing with a terribly, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a terribly difficult and dangerous and still unresolved area of the law, and that is a charge is made without a face and a name attached to it, and it's a serious charge, that of sexual harassment, just as a charge of rape is that we went through in Palm Beach. Until there is a name and face attached to it, and that's what happened yesterday, a name and a face and a person and a background and a resume was put to it, and then you've got, you've finally got a charge because at that point, Prof. Hill, Prof. Hill -- Chairman Biden said today, and I know it's going to - - my statement in his behalf is not going to absolve him from a lot of criticism that's going to come his way and the Committee's way, he said, we're preserving her own anonymity and her own desire for confidentiality.

MR. GERGEN: Which she asked for.

MR. SHIELDS: Which she had asked for.

MR. LEHRER: Cynthia Tucker, do you have any sympathy at all for that position?

MS. TUCKER: Actually, I do have some sympathy for that position. I believe that the Senate Judiciary Committee had its call for a thorough investigation, could have still done stuff quietly and privately and could have quietly and privately come to the conclusion that the charges either were unfounded or could not be substantiated. I don't think that is what happened in this case, however. I think the very surprise that we are hearing from some members of the Committee indicate that not all of them were fully aware of the level of the charges or of Prof. Hill's insistence on her willingness to cooperate. There's something else though interesting, I think, about this entire matter, and we haven't discussed it yet. I think the entire issue of sexual harassment is so vague not only for most men but throughout the work place for women as well that the Senators on the Judiciary Committee perhaps didn't know precisely what they were being told when they heard it. And I think that's one of the reasons that an investigation is absolutely necessary. The hearings could be helpful in helping all employers to understand what sexual harassment is all about.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Pat McGuigan, that some good could come out of this in that regard?

MR. McGUIGAN: Well, I'd like to hope for the best. I'm a little bit pessimistic. I'll admit I'm a little bit surprised to agree with Ed in his use of the terminology, the Keystone Cops. That's certainly the perspective that I have watching the Senate as this unfolds. I would like to mention one other --

MR. LEHRER: Very quickly please, Pat.

MR. McGUIGAN: We have one other young Justice, one of the Justices I admire, she's black, I think what one of our colleagues said earlier about Clarence Thomas having no reputation was just a scurrilous thing to say about a man of his accomplishment, and that is --

MS. CULLUM: Could I apologize for that? I think he's right. I think by that I meant a national reputation as an eminent jurist. Actually, he has had a remarkable career. He came from nowhere. He has scaled the heights. Give him 20 more years and he might be on the court.

MR. LEHRER: Thank you all very much. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of this Tuesday, Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas asked the Senate to delay its vote on his confirmation so he could clear his name of sexual harassment allegations. President Bush moved to ease the nation's credit crunch by loosening bank loan regulation. And tonight the United Nations said Iraq was working on a hydrogen bomb program as well as the atomic bomb program discovered earlier. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.