The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. From Los Angeles, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a post- convention look at the campaign ahead, Kwame Holman talks to Democratic delegates, Margaret Warner to a top Gore campaign official, Terence Smith examines the convention's message, and Mark Shields and Paul Gigot provide analysis, then Ray Suarez reports the John McCain skin cancer story. That all follows Ray's summary of the news this Friday from Washington.

NEWS SUMMARY

RAY SUAREZ: Vice President Gore and Senator Lieberman began a riverboat tour today, fresh from the Democratic National Convention. They flew overnight from Los Angeles and boarded the boat in La Crosse, Wisconsin, with their families. They'll take a trip down the Mississippi River through the weekend, appealing to Midwestern voters. We'll look at what the Democrats are saying about their new ticket right after this News Summary. Republican candidate George W. Bush returned to campaigning today. He traveled to Vice President Gore's home state of Tennessee, and was joined by running mate Dick Cheney for a rally in Memphis. He told the crowd of about 6,000 he'd carry the state, and he criticized Gore's acceptance speech.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Last night we heard a laundry list of new promises, which I thought was an attempt to cover up old failures -- a long list of promises without priorities, a list of promises without purpose or vision. As much as he tried to separate himself from the squandered opportunities of his own administration, the Vice President's speech reminded us of the fundamental choice in this election: Will we prolong four more years of Clinton-Gore, or will we give America a fresh start?

RAY SUAREZ: Bush was traveled next to Dallas. He campaigns in New Mexico tomorrow. Senator John McCain said today he's confident he will beat his skin cancer. He met today with doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona. They said it does not appear that two spots of melanoma on McCain's temple and arm have spread. That increases his chances of being cured. He will have surgery tomorrow to remove the spots. Reform Party presidential nominee Pat Buchanan had his gall bladder removed today at a Washington hospital. The reason was gallstones. Buchanan was going to wait until after the November election to have surgery, but over the past few months he suffered repeated stomach pain. A rescue capsule today reached the escape hatch of a Russian submarine stranded on the arctic seabed, but the capsule couldn't gain access because of heavy damage to the submarine. Still, a Navy spokesman said rescue efforts would continue. Also today, Russian President Putin faced growing criticism over his response to the crisis. He had been away from Moscow since before it began. We have a report from John Draper of Independent Television News.

JOHN DRAPER: No sooner had a grim-faced President Putin landed in the Crimea for a conference, than he finally succumbed to mounting pressure and ordered his plane to turn around for Moscow. He walked briskly past a navy guard of honor, aware that many of these sailors think he let down their colleagues by staying in the Russian sunbelt while men were trapped beneath the sea. (Speaking Russian) "There's an extremely small chance of anyone being saved," he said. And no doubt with his critics in mind, he stressed that he personally knew the captain -- that the navy had not needed him to call off his holiday. But one opposition leader who did end his summer break, Boris Nimsoff, told me that the president had failed to show leadership.

BORIS NIMSOFF: I can't even imagine that such leaders like Tony Blair or Clinton will do the same like our president.

JOHN DRAPER: Across the capital and on the phone-in shows, they're saying the same thing. On this station's phone vote, 4,000 called in; three-quarters were critical of Putin. On the independent TV stations, criticism of the president in the Russian press is now reported daily. Just five months on, his competence as president is being severely questioned.

RAY SUAREZ: The Russian navy also drew criticism because it would not say officially who was on board the submarine.

FOCUS - FULL STEAM AHEAD

JIM LEHRER: Now it's on to our day after look at the Democratic convention, beginning with some delegates' views. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Presidential campaigns often shift into all-out sprints to the finish line once the major party conventions end. But Al Gore and Joe Lieberman decided to spend their first post convention days floating down the Mississippi River on a paddle wheeler. Gore and Lieberman flew overnight from Los Angeles and arrived early this morning in La Crosse, Wisconsin...the launch point for a four-day...five city...400 mile campaign cruise on a riverboat named "Mark Twain." Wisconsin traditionally has been a Democratic state, and hundreds of supporters from in and around La Crosse gathered at the riverfront for a sendoff rally.

AL GORE: We always - remember - always - that our campaign to take the White House on behalf of working families began the morning after the convention right here in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

KWAME HOLMAN: While La Crosse rallied, many of Wisconsin's 92 convention delegates prepared to leave their Hollywood Hotel. Delegates from La Crosse watched the rally on TV and wanted to be there.

DELEGATE: I would have loved to have been there. I always thought I'd be there if they ever came, but, on the other hand, it was really exciting to be here in Los Angeles for the convention, and it was impossible to get back.

KWAME HOLMAN: From La Cross the riverboat campaign will head south to Dubuque, Iowa....Moline, Illinois...Keokuk, Iowa before finally docking at Hannibal, Missouri. Missouri is considered a swing state that could go either way in the presidential election. Show-me state delegates who watched and listened to Al Gore's speech last night believe their candidate went a long way toward swaying Missouri's swing voters. Becky Cook is Missouri's Secretary of State.

KWAME HOLMAN: What do you think your fellow Missourians might get out of this speech?

BECKY COOK: Well, I hope they got the fact that Gore is really educated, prepared, experienced and intent on doing the right thing, and that he's not going to just sit back and try to look good.

KWAME HOLMAN: That's what they are looking for in the "show-me" state?

BECKY COOK: That's what Missourians want. They want performance. They want problems solved.

KWAME HOLMAN: Gore took the podium in an unorthodox manner.... from the front....through the crowd...like a popular talk show host. One of the concerns among Republicans was whether Gore would be able to distance himself from the shadow of Bill Clinton. Gore mentioned the President only once.

AL GORE: For almost eight years now, I've been the partner of a leader who moved us out of the valley of recession and into the longest period of prosperity in American history. I say to you tonight: millions of Americans will live better lives for a long time to come because of the job that's been done by President Bill Clinton. "But now we turn the page and write a new chapter. And that's what I want to speak about tonight. This election is not an award for past performance. I'm not asking you to vote for me on the basis of the economy we have. Tonight, I ask for your support on the basis of the better, fairer, more prosperous America we can build together.

KWAME HOLMAN: Delegate Gene Oakley is a former college professor.

GENE OAKLEY: What I know about Al Gore and what I read is this is the real deal. This is the kind of guy he is. And I think, you notice Bill Clinton was mentioned, I think, once in the speech, and certainly he owes a lot to him, but it's a new day, and I think he's his own man, and he said that tonight.

KWAME HOLMAN: From that point on in the speech it was all about Al Gore's vision of America.

AL GORE: Together, let's make sure that our prosperity enriches not just the few, but all working families. Let's invest in health care, education, a secure retirement, and middle class tax cuts. To all the families in America who have to struggle to afford the right education and the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs - I want you to know this: I've taken on the powerful forces. And as President, I'll stand up to them, and I'll stand up for you. To all the families - to all the families who are struggling with things that money can't measure - like trying to find a little more time to spend with your children, or protecting your children from entertainment that you think glorifies violence and indecency - I want you to know: I believe we must challenge a culture with too much meanness and not enough meaning.

KWAME HOLMAN: Joe Carmichael is chairman of Missouri's Democratic Party.

KWAME HOLMAN: Did you feel that he was under intense pressure to deliver very well tonight?

JOE CARMICHAEL: Well, if he was it didn't appear that way from the podium. I thought he did a great job. His delivery was superb and he talked about the issues that are important to all the people in Missouri, and particularly our working families.

KWAME HOLMAN: Gore needed less than an hour to deliver his speech. He detailed specific solutions to more than a dozen problems and vowed to address them as President.

AL GORE: Notso long ago a balanced budget seemed impossible. Now our budget surpluses make it possible to give a full range of targeted tax cuts to working families - not just to help you save for college but to pay for health insurance and child care - to reform the estate tax so people can pass on a small business or a family farm - and to end the marriage penalty the right way, the fair way, because we should not force couples to pay more in income taxes just because they're married. But let me say it plainly - I will not go along with a huge tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else and wreck our good economy in the process.

KWAME HOLMAN: Delegate Tom Campbell is a St. Louis lawyer.

TOM CAMPBELL: He is in favor of tax cuts, but he is in favor of appropriate tax cuts, and not the squandering of the great benefit that this economy has given us. And if we can remove the debt of this nation in the next four years, that is a phenomenal feat that no one eight years ago ever thought could ever be attained.

KWAME HOLMAN: Gore also dedicated a portion of the speech to family, speaking about his wife, Tipper, his mother, and himself.

AL GORE: I know my own imperfections. For example, I know sometimes people say I'm too serious, that I talk too much substance and policy and maybe I've done that tonight -- but the presidency is more than a popularity contest. It's a day-by-day fight for people. Sometimes, you have to choose to do what's difficult or unpopular. Sometimes, you have to be willing to spend your popularity in order to pick the hard right over the easy wrong.

KWAME HOLMAN: Kansas City's State Senator Mary Groves Bland said she isn't worried that the polls show George W. Bush leading in Missouri.

MARY GROVES BLAND: I'm only worried if people won't take the time to look at how Vice President Gore will impact our country. I think they should fairly look at the issues, and then they decide. And I believe, if they did that, they would have to decide the Democratic Party is the best party for the people, and I believe that to my heart.

AL GORE: I know one thing about the job of the President. It is the only job in the Constitution that is charged with the responsibility of fighting for all the people; not just the people of one state, or one district; not just the wealthy or the powerful-- all the people -- especially those who need a voice, those who need a champion, those who need to be lifted up so they are never left behind. So I say to you tonight, if you entrust me with the presidency, I will fight for you. (Cheers and applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: Some of these Missouri delegates will be back in their home state in time to catch Al Gore's river tour at its final stop in Hannibal on Monday. These Wisconsin delegates missed their opportunity. They'll go home and campaign for Al Gore and hope he returns. Polls show the presidential race is tight in Wisconsin, but delegate Linda Honal is confident.

LINDA HONAL: I think we're going to see a dramatic change from here on out, and Gore is going to pull ahead. We're going to be doing just fine when it comes election day because we're going to win.

FOCUS - WINNING WAYS

JIM LEHRER: Before the convention ended yesterday, Margaret Warner asked campaign strategist Tad Devine to explain the Gore game plan for the fall.

MARGARET WARNER: Welcome, Tad Devine. Thanks for joining us.

TAD DEVINE: Good to be with you.

MARGARET WARNER: Did you do in this convention what you had to do?

TAD DEVINE: I think so. I think we hit the marks. You know, we wanted people to get to know Al Gore better. He talked about himself, and he talked about his plans for the nation.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think you brought him out from under Bill Clinton's shadow, which is

one of your goals here?

TAD DEVINE: I hope so. I think it's just a natural process for a Vice President to come on the stage for himself, to be his own man, really, for the first time. And I think the Vice President made enormous progress on that dimension.

MARGARET WARNER: Unlike the Republicans, you came into this convention without having even solidified your own base, self-identified Democrats. Have you done that now, or do you still have work to do there?

TAD DEVINE: I think we've seen tremendous movement already within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Remember, we've been the party in power, so I think our partisans aren't as anxious to have the White House back as the other side. So we've seen consolidation within this court, and you've certainly felt it in this hall during the last four days.

MARGARET WARNER: Where do you go from here? What do you have to do now?

TAD DEVINE: Well, we've got to continue to make the case that this election is about the fight for America's working families. That's really at the heart of it. Al Gore and Joe Lieberman want to stand up and fight for issues that matter to them. The other side, really, has a different agenda, and that's going to go be the focus of this campaign.

MARGARET WARNER: How much are you going to be talking about the other side's agenda? In other words, some would call it going negative.

TAD DEVINE: Well, I think there will be a debate about... Particularly about Governor's Bush's record in Texas. He has some problems on issues like the environment and health care. The voters want to know about both of these candidates. There's going to be a discussion about the respective agendas, whether it's Social Security, privatization, or his tax cut. But I think for the most part it's going to be a focus on issues that matter to people, and the working families, in particular, that are at the heart of this election.

MARGARET WARNER: So was Senator Lieberman's speech kind of the road map for how you're going to handle these attacks?

TAD DEVINE: I think so. They'll be a little needling going on, I'm sure, in the months ahead. But I think will we not make the mistake that they made, either at the convention or in the weeks ahead. They talked in personal terms. I think they tried to get to issues like character in other ways. They used the President as a foil for it. They tried to discredit the Vice President. This isn't going to be a personal attack from our side. There are real disagreements on issues. They will be made. The voters want to know about these disagreements, and I think that will be a big part of the campaign ahead.

MARGARET WARNER: Bush's chief strategist, his campaign manager, Carl Rove, says you all have to go negative, because Bush's personal popularity is so high, you're going to have to pull him down. Is he right about that?

TAD DEVINE: No. I think... You know, listen, the Republican National Committee last week was running an ad saying that Al Gore's a polluter, okay. (Laughs) you know, the attacks that they've made, both in their convention and also in their paid media, have been personal in nature. We're not going to go in that direction. There will be comparisons on issues, but for the most part, we're going to tell a positive story. That's what's this convention's been about; the story of Al Gore, the agenda of Democrats, and particularly the Vice President and his vision for the future.

MARGARET WARNER: Now the polls show that the public, at least, says they don't like attacks, yet obviously you want to make this comparison. How do you spread that needle?

TAD DEVINE: By talking about issues and not about personalities, or not, you know, negative information about someone's background or character. That's really what the Republicans have been doing in this campaign, and the voters are rejecting it.

MARGARET WARNER: Now what about your geographical focus? The Bush folks say that-- and the polls show-- that they... That Bush is even at a competitive advantage in some states that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996: Oregon, Washington, California. The big states like, what, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio.

TAD DEVINE: Well, we've got a much bigger playing field to defend, that's because we've been winning landslides and presidential elections the last two times. So it's not surprising that, you know, some of these states that Democrats have won would be competitive. I think the electoral college has changed fundamentally in the last decade. The Democrats really now have the advantage. And Governor Bush, in a close race, is likely to lose an overwhelming... Have an overwhelming defeat in the electoral college. That's because some of his leads in states like Texas are enormous, and they can count for one or points in a national horse race. So all we've got to do is get this thing close. If we do, these Midwest battlegrounds; the East, which is pretty good shape; the entire west coast, I think, provide an enormous base for support for Democrats.

MARGARET WARNER: See, a lot of Republicans would say they have a natural advantage because they have a pretty solid south, Rocky Mountain West.

TAD DEVINE: Yeah, well, let's take a look at the states: California, the biggest state, I think we have enormous advantages. Governor Davis made the case in the convention about the fact that a candidate like George Bush just doesn't win statewide in California. New York: The Vice President is very well situated. Florida: You know, a big state where you would think George Bush would be in good shape. He's not in good shape there. One of the reasons that Florida was chosen to put Al Gore over the top is we're going to stay there and fight, because we think we can win in Florida. So three of the four biggest states are already problems with Republicans. I'd say they're in trouble.

MARGARET WARNER: What kind of a factor is Ralph Nader going to be in the end?

TAD DEVINE: Well, I don't think he'll be a significant factor in determining the outcome of this election in any single state. I think right now people are interested him as someone who they know. But I think as they get to know Al Gore better, both personally, and understand where Al Gore is on the issues, particularly as it relates to standing up to some powerful interests in this society, they're going to understand that a vote for Nader could, in fact, help George Bush. And I think that's the last thing a Nader voter wants to do.

MARGARET WARNER: Now what's Joe Lieberman's role going to be? Is it going to be the classic Vice Presidential running mate role of attacking the other side?

TAD DEVINE: No. He's going to... We're going to build on his enormous strengths. He's going to campaign everywhere in this country. He's going to bring the message of fighting for working families to everyone, both based on his own career as an attorney general who stood up to powerful interests, and as a Senator who's been in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. I think he's someone who completely complements the Vice President, both in terms his political goals and also his personality. So I expect to see the two of them together campaigning, and also Senator Lieberman campaigning, really, everywhere

America.

MARGARET WARNER: The Republicans came out of their convention with a big bounce in the polls, as it's known. What kind of a bounce do you think he's gotten here?

TAD DEVINE: Well, I think the bounce back was really horse race only. You know if you look below the surface of it in terms of a perception of Governor Bush's agenda or his record-- there was very little information, his favorable didn't move at all-- I think they depositing very little long-standing, long lasting information. What we're trying to get is to build the story, not just of the horse race-- which I think will be close in the aftermath of this election, and certainly by Labor Day-- but also something for votes to hang onto. The story of Al Gore, who he is, that's important to us. They didn't want to do that on the other side. We're doing it deliberately in this convention.

MARGARET WARNER: So do you think, say, next week when the dust settles-- because they'll be a few sort of phony polls over the weekend-- but by the middle of next week, do you think you will have pulled even or do will you still be in the hole?

TAD DEVINE: No, I think that, you know, he's going to have an advantage in this race. I think part of that advantage comes from some places which are... Where he has overwhelming leads, but I think it will be a close race.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, thanks. Tad Devine.

FOCUS - CONVENTION MESSAGE

JIM LEHRER: Now, getting the Gore message to the public: Media correspondent Terence smith has that story.

TERENCE SMITH: To help us analyze that message, we're joined by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. And Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief of "the Los Angeles times", and Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California. Welcome to all three of you. Kathleen, conventions are, after all, an exercise in communication. How effective was this communication?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: It's important to remember that even when you don't have high numbers of viewers across the experience of getting ready for the convention, having it appear, some people watched, national news, local news, you do get learning. We showed that in a survey after the Republican convention where the Bush's major themes got through. There was more accuracy. We expect that the same thing is going to happen from the Democrats. And contrary to what some of the pundits said, there was a key organizing theme in this convention.

TERENCE SMITH: Namely...

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: It occurred in all the major speeches. Bill Clinton signaled it in a paragraph that starts most important, and he says: "Republicans want to spend every dime of our projected surplus and then some on tax cuts leaving nothing for education, et cetera." Lieberman says in a sentence that begins, "this is a question of priorities." Our opponents want to use America's hard-earned surplus to give a tax break to those who need it least, at the expense of our other needs. And in a sentence in a speech that also has a pointing characteristic, that is, it's telling you, I'm important, Al Gore says, "but let me say it plainly: I will not go along with a huge tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else." That's the message I expect that's going toget through from the convention.

TERENCE SMITH: Doyle, do you think it was conveyed well?

DOYLE McMANUS: I think the message was conveyed well. But I think these Republicans had a problem in that they had three messages they wanted to convey at the same time-- and that's a hard road to hoe. As they described it themselves, they not only wanted to put across that issues message that Kathleen mentioned, they also wanted to convey a message about Al Gore's biography, that he's a more human, funnier, more real, salt-of-the-earth guy than you think he is. And then the third thing, and maybe in some ways the hardest, was they wanted to sort of take America by the lapels. The other line you heard in every speech was, this election matters. There are differences here -- because there have been in polls all year long, a very high number of voters saying, "I'm not sure it matters. I might vote either way." They've been terribly frustrated, these Republicans at the inability to get their own Democratic base and sympathetic independents to focus on what they're trying to say.

TERENCE SMITH: Marty Kaplan, you've written more than a few speeches. What did you think of both the speech and the convention, as a message?

MARTIN KAPLAN: I think he did an excellent job, and the Democrats acquitted themselves awfully well. I think that by contrast with the Republican convention, I think what Bush needed to do was to accomplish the impression of gravitas-- I am up to the job, I'm not an empty suit-- and instead, what he wanted to convey was, eight years squandered opportunity. I don't think Americans connected to that narrative. When they think back over the problems of the last eight years, squandered opportunity I don't think is what comes to mind. On the Democrat side though, they had to accomplish Gore saying, "I am my own man," and in the surplus, you hear the central substance of "I'm on your side," the kind of populism that swept through all the different issues. And then I think, again in contrast to Bush, he had the requirement to say, "boring is okay, broccoli is good, substance is fine. I respect you as a voter. I'm not going to just have partisan attacks. I'm not going to only use rhetoric. I'm not going to try to tap- dance my way through this thing. I'm going to take you seriously and I'm going to take my time, as a president might, in the state of the union."

TERENCE SMITH: Kathleen, what did you think of that self-deprecating approach?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I thought that what it accomplished was something that was very important in setting an agenda for the fall campaign, because what Gore was trying to do was to take a disadvantage-- that is, the fact that he's boring-- and translate it into somebody who cares about policy detail and cares about specifics. And one of the things I thought the speech managed to communicate successfully, by virtue of having so many specifics, was that this was a campaign that was ready to run on the details. Today, you hear George w. Bush saying in Tennessee that was Gore has is "promise not priority." But what is missed in all of that is the next step of the debate, and I see it going like this. The Gore campaign saying to the Bush campaign, "well, you've been talking about prescription drugs, we don't see it in your budget. How much does it cost? Where are you going to get the money?"

TERENCE SMITH: Specifics, in other words.

KWAME HOLMAN: Right. Then, Social Security-- "you keep talking about how you've got this plan that's going to help people invest their own money. We don't see how you're going to handle the financial transaction cost." If the Bush campaign can stay at a level of abstraction, it wins the election. If Gore can fight this election on the details of policy, he pushes it into an entirely different domain, consistent with that theme, "what are we going to do with the surplus?-- Then the message has to be in the details, and the details are, Democratic social agenda versus Republican tax cuts.

TERENCE SMITH: Doyle, to use Vice President Gore's own words, did he project himself as "his own man."

DOYLE McMANUS: I think he did, Terry. It was hard for him because it took President Clinton a little while longer than it needed to, to get offstage, and the kind of heroic scale of the Clinton speech on Monday, with that long walk down the hall, wasn't really designed, it seemed to me, to get him out of the delegates' or the voters' minds as quickly as it might have. But I thought-- this may be down to the level of detail, or of arcana-- I thought it was interesting that Al Gore, who for much of the year has flirted with earth tones, appeared last night in the presidential uniform: Blue suit, white shirt, red tie-- and he looked terrific.

TERENCE SMITH: Presidential?

DOYLE McMANUS: Presidential.

TERENCE SMITH: That's, of course, the key word. Marty Kaplan, he had an interesting mix, both-- in fact, the whole convention did-- between the positive and the negative. What did you think of that?

MARTIN KAPLAN: I think it was a shrewd choice that he himself was largely positive. I think people feel that attacks is part of politics as usual and they want to take a shower when they have that experience. And by his focusing on attacking not his opponent, but the traditional populistic enemies like the big pharmacy companies, big oil, health maintenance organization, bureaucrats, that he turned himself into a fighter on their side rather than a politician out to do a scorched earth campaign.

TERENCE SMITH: And then left it to Senator Lieberman to carry the attack.

MARTIN KAPLAN: Yes, exactly, which is, alas, a historic role for the Vice President, but he seems up for the job, as did his opponent, Dick Cheney.

TERENCE SMITH: Right. The country seems, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, to be in a mood in which they're not very interested in hearing negative attacks. Is that right?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: One of the things that I argue in the book "everything you think you know about politics and why you're wrong," is that we should stop using the word "negative," because the public's definition of negative and the pundit's definition don't agree at all. The public realizes that attack is a legitimate part of discourse, but it doesn't want personal attack, and that's why you haven't seen it in these two conventions. It doesn't want hyperbolic attack, and you've certainly seen a lower level of hyperbole this year. It wants contrast: "I will do, he will do." We've seen an increase in that this year. And it loves attack that is couched in humor-- hence, in a major move in the Lieberman speech, which is not a hard- edged attack, one of the most telling lines, which ordinarily would have phrased as "trickle down economics, that's them," you have "they think the way to get food to the birds is to feed the horses more oats." And it takes a moment. You almost hear the "ta-dum" where the audience realizes exactly what he said, but it's funny. And so what you have is, I think, a profile of this year that we can explain by looking at what the public has said to the process about political discourse. It's said, "we'd like attacks that are relevant to us on significant issues, not personal or hyperbolic, that tell us where you're going to be, too."

TERENCE SMITH: Was... The message varied, it seemed, Doyle, from night to night. Liberal on Tuesday, centrist on Wednesday, and then last night.

DOYLE McMANUS: Beginning with Bill Clinton nostalgia night on Monday. And then finally last night, Gore being allowed to present his own synthesis. I think that's right, and in the short run, that probably was a difficulty for the democrats. You know, the Republicans had four days. They arrived in Philadelphia, they knew exactly what they wanted to say. As one of them told me, "we've all taken our medication." They were all on message from day one. Well, if the Republican convention was one beautiful scripted infomercial, this was more like reality TV, with the hand-held mini-cam and a couple of strange jumps and cuts, which made it much more fun to watch, but may have delivered kind of a mixed message. Now, as Kathleen suggests, the rest of this campaign from the Democratic side is going to be contrast, contrast, contrast -- trying to pull people's attention to those issues, and that will really be the proof of whether this works or not.

MARTIN KAPLAN: The Republicans conveyed the sense of "this is an infomercial" by being so much on message, so that the stagecraft, the kind of post-modern mechanics of image manipulation became the subject rather than the content. I think in this case, the subject is, what do we do with the surplus? Who's on your side? And in the contest between a kind of an image manipulation and caring about a particular set of issues, I think the democrats won on that.

TERENCE SMITH: Mm-hmm. And Kathleen, from those quotes you read at the very beginning, you found the message on message.

KWAME HOLMAN: Yeah, throughout the evening, even as you had nostalgia night, liberal night, the synthesis, the core message was getting through. One of the things that I think confused the people who sat in the sky booths and watched the convention gavel to gavel was that a lot of what looked to be incoherent was actually the Congressional and Senatorial candidates being positioned for local media with the party fully aware that national news wasn't going to give them any attention, nor were you in the sky boxes. And so I think that the conclusion that many people drew that this was not a coherent message is actually their misunderstanding of what was very coherent: Message, message, message to the congressional districts that are being contested. Remember, the Republicans didn't feature their members of Congress or Senate. As a result, they lost that local news advantage. And we followed the process of watching those local folks get up and talk about their issues to a virtually empty hall with some scattered applause. But if you noticed, there was always off to the podium, the local news cameras who then interviewed that person coming off the podium. They couldn't do it in Philadelphia, because they weren't on the podium in Philadelphia. And instead the republicans were featuring such people as Elizabeth Dole. Now that's great, that advantages Bush doesn't do much for the congressional or senatorial candidates.

TERENCE SMITH: Doyle, just a final word, maybe both of you, on the speech as a speech.

DOYLE McMANUS: The speech as a speech. I think it was the speech of Al Gore's life. Was it good enough? It won't bring him over the top, an awful lot rides on debates.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay; Marty Kaplan?

MARTIN KAPLAN: I think the expectations were so low that boredom was inevitable, that Al Gore sailed mightily above that.

TERENCE SMITH: You're brutal, but true. All right. Thank you all three very much.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Now some final words of analysis this Friday from Shields and Gigot here in Los Angeles, where, as you know, they have been all convention week; that's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot.

Paul, how does the speech look to you almost, not quite, 24 hours later?

PAUL GIGOT: I think it helped Gore some, particularly in terms of his personal presentation and delivery. The condescension, the "I'm the smartest guy in the room - I'm going to tell you what to do" that you often see attached to Gore addresses was gone. I mean, he looked presidential. He got through it well. He presented himself well. And I think that's reflected in some of the personal favorable ratings that came up. I think it did help him that way. I think the substance is where they were making the bigger gamble. And I think we don't know yet what will happen, and that's a substance -- that was a decision to really run as a kind of new age populist and hit all these issues and try to, you know, the wealthy, the powerful, and I don't know if that's going to work in times when really we're all pretty good. We're all feeling pretty good. His message seems to be the country is rich as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.

JIM LEHRER: You see that message?

MARK SHIELDS: No, I don't see that message, Jim. I think Al Gore helped himself enormously.

JIM LEHRER: You must admit that's a really good line that your colleague, Gigot, gave.

MARK SHIELDS: It is, you know, and one shouldn't use a line like that on Friday afternoon after a long week. He could have used it Wednesday. Now back to... two things happened at this convention. One is that they made the decision, the Democrats did, not to go negative on George W. Bush. And an overnight survey done by Bob Teeter, the Republican - Peter Hart, the Democrat -- two of the pollsters for the "Wall Street Journal" and NBC News, found that George Bush's favorable rating was the same, identical. I mean I think there was one point changed after the convention that hadn't been before the convention.

JIM LEHRER: You mean this convention?

MARK SHIELDS: This convention. The difference was Al Gore rose. Al Gore all year long has had a personal favorable rating... this is personal favorable about even. I mean it went from 50 to 33 favorable. It helped him enormously. It helped him in a couple of other places.

JIM LEHRER: Wait a minute. Do you think a poll like that really means a lot?

MARK SHIELDS: No, I don't. Do I think it's permanent? No, I don't. I talked to Peter Hart about it. He said look, this is one day. There is no way of looking at those numbers and not suggesting that he helped himself. I mean he helped himself with independents - he helped himself with Democrats.

JIM LEHRER: And you agree with that.

PAUL GIGOT: I do and I think that Mark is absolutely right about the decision that was made. They felt - they obviously decided that they couldn't go on the attack and Gore couldn't carry an attack, which I think they still have to make. But they couldn't do it unless Gore had built himself up first.

JIM LEHRER: First, I see.

MARK SHIELDS: And I think both of us last night thought the speech was a little bit State of the Unionish in the Clinton era of a laundry list of initiatives -- and yet on best ideas of the future, an area where George Bush had a big lead over Al Gore, I mean, consistently, Al Gore for the first time last night went ahead of George Bush. Now, I mean, is this written in stone? No. But I mean in other words he improved the perception, not simply the favorable numbers, but there was a perception that he was more trustworthy, a perception that he had better ideas for the future than did George Bush. And I think in that sense you have to say the speech did help -- that our initial reaction may have been too harsh.

JIM LEHRER: Paul, you heard what Kathleen Hall Jamieson just said about -- if the Democrats are going to win, if Gore is going to win, he has to stay where he was last night on the details. I will do this. He will do that. Do you agree with that?

PAUL GIGOT: He does have do some product differentiation. I don't think the voters are going to care about the details frankly. I mean he's got to flesh out George W. Bush somehow a little bit more. But he does have to carve out... reclaim some of the issues that have been traditional Democratic winners that George Bush has made gain on: Education in particular, Social Security in particular, and health care. If he can do that, and make this election about the Democratic approach to these, then he can win. But getting mired in the details per se, I mean, I think Bush can muck around in that, too. Gore has to got to say my plan is more credible and here's why.

JIM LEHRER: But not... But don't go beyond that, you know, don't put a chart up is what you're saying.

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I think people are going to fall asleep.

JIM LEHRER: Where do you come down on the details argument?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think, Jim, you know, one person's details is another person's generalities. I mean, I think you make the case and you can make the case on specific points; for example, on Wednesday night, Senator Lieberman, the Vice President, I disagreed with the panel's description of him as going negative on George Bush. I mean, I thought he didn't lay a glove on George Bush. And he said, it was sort of a vague indictment that Texas has one of the worst air pollution situations in the country. You don't say that. I mean what you say is that, you know, Texas has more children living without medical care than all of the NATO countries. I mean you do it that way and...

JIM LEHRER: That's the way to attack, right?

MARK SHIELDS: That's the way to do it. You say -- give a fact, lay it out, and that's the contrast. This is what Al Gore says, that every child in America will be covered by -- and that's especially true for Texas. I think that's the way it has to be done. I think people do listen to that. I'll tell you last night, the fact that just jumped out at me, there is more computer in a palm pilot than there was in the spaceship that took Neil Armstrong to the moon. I mean, that was kind of a "golly." I mean, it was an interesting fact.

JIM LEHRER: Would that make you want to vote for Al Gore?

MARK SHIELDS: It made me stop and listen to him. I said, gee, I mean, what else is he going to say that I didn't know?

JIM LEHRER: All right. Picking up on another thing that Terry's panel talked about is personal attacks. Both sides have spent a lot of time telling everybody they are not going to do this, and they make the same distinctions, identical distinctions: We will attack the record. We will attack what he is going to do or hasn't done. Should that be taken with a grain of salt here in August?

PAUL GIGOT: Big blocks of salt. Sure they're not going to make personal attacks in the sense that who's your mother? That's not going to happen. But I think you're going to see both sides that are going to attack the specific issues. I mean the Bush campaign is running an ad about Al Gore's zinc mine near his family farm in Carthage, Tennessee, right now.

JIM LEHRER: Is that a personal attack?

PAUL GIGOT: I don't think that is. It's a way to cast doubt on the credibility of him being a great environmentalist and carrying the issue too about Bush's Texas record. It's a public policy issue. He wants to stand for the environment. Well, wait a minute, what about this right here.

JIM LEHRER: Is that a cheap shot or is that fair?

MARK SHIELDS: I think it's certainly getting close to a personal attack. I mean but...

JIM LEHRER: Tad Devine told Margaret they're accusing him of being a polluter and that's a personal attack. You agree with Tad Devine?

MARK SHIELDS: I haven't seen the ad, Jim, I'll be honest with you. But I do think that the Bush people are at a disadvantage if it comes to that for a very simple reason. They stipulated at the Philadelphia convention... we can't forget this... that the economy is terrific. The economy is great. And their indictment on the economy is that Clinton-Gore have squandered this largesse, this blessing, this munificence. And so they can't very well pick at policies that have produced this economy. And so the argument is essentially going to be, I think, on Democratic turf. I think health, I think patients bill of rights and so forth. I those have historically-- Paul is right. George Bush has been brilliant in cutting down the angle and the advantage that Democrats have had historically on these issues. That is the challenge to Al Gore and to Joe Lieberman in this campaign, to reclaim what has historically and traditionally been in the eyes of most voters, Democratic turf, that the Democrats - or the party was better.

JIM LEHRER: Let's go to some overview things now. They were talking about this earlier, too, that one of the Democratic themes for it to work for Al Gore, they have to get over the fact that this election matters. This is an important election. Is that an easy case to make, and are we looking at a campaign, as we sit here-- based on what we know now, only what we know now, the conventions are now over, what kind of campaign is this likely to be? Is it going to make that point, this is really an important election?

PAUL GIGOT: I think the public mood is such that it's going to be hard to really make this a burning election in the public's mind.

JIM LEHRER: Why?

PAUL GIGOT: Because the times are so good and politics seem so distant from most people, particularly in Washington. A lot of voters who aren't connected to the choices... the President will say two more Supreme Court nominees and "Roe V. Wade" is in trouble. And they'll say, boy, that sure seems like a long way off. That's not something that I'm really engaged with. The economy is 4.5% growth. Income growth is good. What are you going to do for me? And Bush and Gore, you know-- that's the challenge for both candidates. And I think that that problem is particularly strong problem for the Democrats because it means that the race is going to be focused more on character and more about Bill Clinton and the legacy of Clinton and a fresh start in Washington after Clinton. It's a style of politics and a style of partisanship versus bipartisanship where Bush is trying to make a big distinction with Gore.

JIM LEHRER: Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: Every election, Jim, is about either change or continuity. 1996 it was continuity - it continued Bill Clinton in office - 1980 Ronald Reagan wins, change; '92 Bill Clinton wins, change. This election, the election of 2000 is about both continuity and change. American people want the economic times to continue. They don't want it tampered with but they do want -- Paul is right -- they want a change, and what has been the climate in Washington - the personal conduct - or even a public embarrassment, however you want to put it. Now, what Al Gore has to do in this campaign is say I represent continuity. I'm your best bet for it. And look, I am different. I mean, it's a tricky, tricky way to walk. And George Bush has to say, look he's obviously represents personal change and party change but he has to say I'm not going to jeopardize the continuity. That will be the fight. Whoever comes to embody both continuity and change will win this election. And it will be Bush's attempt to convince people that Gore is Bill Clinton in earth tones and it will be Gore's attempt to say that George Bush just isn't up to the job. Look at the record in Texas.

JIM LEHRER: Well, the good thing about it over these next 81 days, we will have the opportunity to talk to you all every Friday night and other major opportunities as this campaign continues.

FOCUS- SKIN CANCER

JIM LEHRER: Now, John McCain and melanoma, and back to Ray Suarez in Washington.

RAY SUAREZ: Senator McCain's office confirmed this week that spots detected on his face and arm were a recurrence of the potentially dangerous skin cancer melanoma. After a series of tests, the Senator's doctors today said the cancer does not appear to have spread to other parts of his body. McCain is scheduled to undergo surgery tomorrow to remove the two melanomas as well as surrounding skin and lymph nodes. At a news conference in Arizona, the Senator was upbeat about his surgery and said he expected a full recovery.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I'm confident. The doctors are very confident, and that we'll have this thing done very quickly and in a very short period of time i'll be back on the straight talk express campaigning for our candidates around the country as well as for Governor Bush. We expect it to be relatively short, relatively simple, and as I say, I'm very confident. I've been in a number of fights in my life and this is just another one. I'm sure we'll be able to prevail. I heap had the... I hope that anyone who has any discoloration or any marking on their body that looks unusual would go see a doctor about it. Most Americans should be confident that early detection means a very, very high probability that everything's fine. I've had... I had another malignant melanoma taken off my shoulder and it's been fine. The whole key is early detection. It's like any other cancer: Early detection.

RAY SUAREZ: Nearly 50,000 Americans are expected to be diagnosed with melanoma this year. And while the disease accounts for just 4% of all skin cancer cases, it is responsible for nearly 80% of the deaths. Joining me to explain more about the risks, prevention, and treatment of melanoma is Dr. Darrell Rigel, professor of dermatology at New York University Medical Center.

Dr. Rigel, when a patch has been identified as melanoma, what's going on in that bit of the surface of the body that's different from what's happening in the skin that's covering the rest of your body?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Well, Ray, melanoma is a cancer of the pigment cells in the skin. And what happens as with any cancer, these cells don't know when to stop growing and they grow very rapidly. What's really bad about melanoma compared to most other cancers is that melanoma tends to spread early in its course. And that's what makes it more lethal than the average cancer.

RAY SUAREZ: And when you say spread, that's not only to adjacent areas but to other totally separate parts of the body?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Melanoma spreads through the blood, through the lymph nodes and through other things, through the body. And it actually doesn't kill you by what's on the skin but it kills you as it goes to your internal organs and causes them not to function well.

RAY SUAREZ: Is that ability to spread around the body what makes it different and much more dangerous than carcinoma, the other main type of skin cancer?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Basically that's right. The more common types of skin cancer -- such as basil cell cancer or scrama cell cancer -- tend not to spread, not to metastasize. They have to be removed because they can locally destroy thing on the body but melanoma spreads throughout the body early on. A melanoma the size of a dime on your skin has a 50% chance of already having spread.

RAY SUAREZ: Is this something that is often detected late in the game, been percolating perhaps underneath the surface and makes itself apparent only when it's started to do its deadly work?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Well, as the Senator said, early detection is critical with melanoma. Melanoma is probably the most clear-cut case of a cancer, if you catch it early and you treat it early, it's not that big a deal. But once it has spread, there's really no effective treatment for it. And that's why it has to be caught early.

RAY SUAREZ: How is it recognized?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: The best way to recognize melanoma is to remember the ABCD Rule. And "a" stands for asymmetry. Early melanomas tend to be uneven. You can't draw a line down the center. They tend to have an irregular border. That's the "b." They tend to have uneven colors. That's the "c." We have another picture of that. There we go. Where we can see that the color is uneven. Most moles tend to be light in color. They tend to be dark in color but they tend to be uniform in color. And finally, if you have a mole on your skin that is asymmetric, irregular border or uneven color and the size of a pencil eraser or larger, have it checked by your dermatologist because that's the kind of suspicious thing that should be checked.

RAY SUAREZ: Should people be doing periodic self-exam to their skin and have somebody take a look at the parts of the skin you can't see, your back, shoulder?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: We as dermatologists are seeing more and more of this because melanoma rates are skyrocketing. One of the things we recommend, on your birthday, have your birthday suit examined. If you do that on a regular basis once a year, you'll catch most of these when it's still early and basically treatable.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, you say the rates have been skyrocketing. What could be some of the push factors that are making that rate grow so quickly?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Well, we're not really sure why they're expanding so rapidly. Melanoma is increasing faster than any other cancer in the United States right now. In fact it's one of the few cancers that's still increasing. We do know that the fairer skinned you are, the lighter your eyes, the lighter your hair the more easily you sunburn, the greater your risk for melanoma but anybody with any skin type can get it. The sun you get when you're younger, as a child, teenager, adolescent or adult increases your risk especially if you've been sunburned. There is recently a study that has come out that suggested our servicemen who served in the South Pacific in World W II, if they were POW's had three 1/2 times of chance of getting melanoma later in life compared to if they served there and were not POW's. We wonder if with Senator McCain that might have contributed to some of his risk.

RAY SUAREZ: Let's talk specifically about the treatment of senator McCain. In the diagnostic workup, he had various body scans and x-rays looking for evidence that the melanoma had spread. Are these usually conclusive?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Well, as with any test, having a negative result is better than ape positive result. The problem with these types of scans with melanoma, especially when it's relatively early is the tumor could have spread but not yet been detected. I'm sure we all hope that the test in fact is negative but all we can say at this point is that nothing was detected by the test.

RAY SUAREZ: So what kind of follow-up would be done in a case of this kind?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Well, it appears from the report today that he had two new melanomas. It wasn't the one from his back that had spread. The one on his arm was basically what's called an insitu melanoma in place meaning it has not spread. The one on his temple, they mentioned he has to have his lymph nodes examined nearby on his neck. That is the sign that it is not an early melanoma and has a chance of having spread. So I think we really have to wait to see when the results are in on the lymph nodes as to what his chances will be.

RAY SUAREZ: When you use surgical intervention for melanoma as opposed to carcinoma, do doctors err on the side of caution, take a larger area, go deeper to get further under the growth just to be sure?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Well, I think that's critical with melanoma. You must get the tumor out. In fact, if you don't catch it early enough, what happens is it has spread. The horse is out of the barn, so to speak. So the trick is to take enough around it to try to get it all out hoping it has not spread beyond the area that you're cutting out.

RAY SUAREZ: So when someone like the Senator and perhaps of a similar age in his 60s has had a diagnosis, had the surgical intervention, what kind of follow-up should be done down the road?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Well, the first thing is to make sure that this tumor has not spread. And he needs regular scans and follow-ups to check that out. But even more importantly, once you've had one melanoma, the chance of getting a second one, not the first one spreading but a second one sometime in your life is about 5%, one in 20. So therefore you need to be followed for life roughly every six to 12 months, to make sure that there's not a second one that pops up. Or if it does, it can be caught early enough.

RAY SUAREZ: You're a dermatologist. Do you expect that a highly publicized case like this may send some of your patients heading for your doors for that birthday suit check-up who might not have otherwise come in?

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Senator McCain said it well. He said prevention is important, early detection is important. We as dermatologists are concerned because we are seeing more and more of this problem as melanoma rates rise. The risk of an American getting skin cancer of some sort right now is one in five. One in five Americans will get skin cancer and even worse, one American dies every hour of skin cancer. That's a startling statistic. And since most skin cancers are preventable, we hope that people will change their behaviors.

RAY SUAREZ: So the kind of publicity that companies this case is nothing but help for you.

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: Well, it's certainly unfortunate for senator McCain, but I think if it gets the word out to the public where others will seek treatment for a suspicious mole they have on their body and seek treatment early, hopefully it will be beneficial overall.

RAY SUAREZ: Dr. Darryl Rigel, thanks a lot.

DR. DARRELL RIGEL: My pleasure.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the other major stories of this Friday. Vice President Gore and Senator Lieberman began a riverboat tour, fresh from the Democratic National Convention. And Republican George W. Bush returned to campaigning, traveling to Vice President Gore's home state of Tennessee. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. From Los Angeles, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.