The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, some perspective on the growing anti-Milosevic movement among his own people in Yugoslavia; a Spencer Michels look at the World Cup and the growing enthusiasm for women's soccer; political analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot; a report on the E-mail generated by our special emphasis on what the 2000 presidential election should be about; and the tape of the Apollo 12 Moon walk by astronaut Pete Conrad, who died last night. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Serbia's third largest city officially called for the resignation for Yugoslav President Milosevic today. The City of Nis had been a target of NATO bombing during the war. It joined a number of other localities whose councils have passed declarations demanding Milosevic step down. Defense Secretary Cohen said the US objected to granting Milosevic safe haven because of his war crimes indictment. That idea has been floated as a way to get rid of him quickly. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. In Kosovo today, new mass graves were found in the Italian- patrolled sector near the City of Pec. We have more from Jo Andrews of Independent Television News.

JO ANDREWS: This is not one mass grave, but a series of sites in the hills of Western Kosovo surrounding the village of Lubanic. Local people claim that up to 350 villagers from the area were killed by Serb police and paramilitaries in a number of sweeps throughout the district during the NATO bombing campaign. The man in blue tells a story of Serb police surrounding the village early one morning. He says, at the time, Lubanic was packed with refugees fleeing towards Albania and families hiding in the hills. The Serb police separated out the men and shot them. He says at least 80 died that day. The War Crimes Tribunal decided within the last 24 hours to investigate the claims. The sites have been sealed off until forensic experts have finished their work. Until the investigators have finished, the War Crimes Tribunal won't know exactly how many people died at Lubanic. But although it's clear something terrible happened in the village, there are also some grounds for caution. The entire area was heavily fought over by the KLA and the Serbs before NATO's bombing campaign began. And it may be that not all of the sites are new.

JIM LEHRER: There was flooding in the American desert today. Las Vegas, Nevada was under a flash flood watch after a deluge. Three inches of rain fell in a few hours. That's three-fourths of its entire annual rainfall. Two people were killed, hundreds of cars and mobile homes were damaged, roadways submerged. The National Weather Service said it was the worst flooding there in 15 years. Israel's new prime minister pledged to reach peace with his Arab neighbors, but said he'd need some time to jump-start the stalled peace process. Ehud Barak spoke at a news conference in Egypt after a two- hour meeting with President Mubarak. Mubarak called Barak a man of his word. Barak said this.

EHRUD BARAK: It takes two to tango; I cannot predict what will happen in the future, but I'm determined to do what needs to be done in order to resume the negotiation and go together and check whether we can make a peace in the Middle East that will put an end to the conflict.

JIM LEHRER: Barak plans to meet Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat Sunday, the new king of Jordan on Tuesday, and President Clinton here in Washington on Thursday. Former astronaut Charles Pete Conrad is dead. He died from injuries received in a motorcycle accident yesterday in Southern California. He lost control on a turn and ran into a ditch. Conrad was commander of the second lunar landing in 1969 and the third man to walk on the Moon. He was 69 years old. We'll have more on Pete Conrad at the end of our program tonight. Between now and then, opponents of Milosevic, women's soccer, Shields and Gigot, and agenda 2000 E-mail.

FOCUS - OPPOSING MILOSEVIC

JIM LEHRER: The demonstrations against Yugoslav President Milosevic. Charles Krause begins our coverage.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Slobodan Milosevic came to power more than a decade ago promising to restore Serb power in the province of Kosovo. Now, that dream has failed. And after a devastating war that turned Kosovo into a NATO protectorate, there appears to be growing anger and outright opposition to Milosevic's continued rule. The first anti-government demonstrations began in the Town of Cacak, on June 29. Then, by the end of that week, there were two more demonstrations in the northern city of Novi Sad, which was heavily damaged by NATO bombing. This week, anti-government protests spread to the southern town of Leskovac, where a television technician interrupted coverage of a basketball game to urge his countrymen to take to the streets. Thousands heeded the call every day this week. But on Wednesday, the demonstrations turned violent as demonstrators clashed with pro- Milosevic police. Still, the protests spread to the town of Uzice, and it was there that a major Serbian opposition leader -- Zoran Djindjic -- emerged from hiding to try to rally opposition to the Milosevic government. But Djindjic is only one of several Yugoslav politicians trying to claim the mantle of leadership. And so far there's been little unity or even cooperation among the various rival opposition figures. Despite the lack of coordination, yesterday the demonstrations spread to another town, Prokuplje, which has the reputation of being a pro-Milosevic stronghold. There, the anti-Milosevic demonstrators were greeted with taunts and objects thrown by Milosevic supporters. And so far, there have been no demonstrations in Belgrade, Yugoslavia's capital and largest city. That's in sharp contrast with the situation three years ago, when it was the capital that was the center of anti-Milosevic demonstrations. Those protests went on for weeks, yet ultimately did nothing to weaken Milosevic's grip on power. But ever since the NATO air campaign began in March, and Milosevic was indicted as a war criminal by the international tribunal in The Hague, there's been a drumbeat of speculation as to whether he could survive Kosovo's loss and a Serbian defeat. Some opposition politicians had suggested that in order to get rid of Milosevic, the charges might have to be dropped, or Milosevic might have to be given asylum by another country. But today, Defense Secretary William Cohen rejected any notion of a deal along those lines. "He is an indicted war criminal," the Secretary of Defense said. "If there is any place to which he seeks sanctuary, perhaps I would recommend The Hague where he could face a trial on the merits of the case." Meanwhile, in Yugoslavia today, opposition leaders promised to continue daily anti-government protests for the next several weeks culminating in what they said will be a massive anti- Milosevic protest in Belgrade by the middle of next month.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes the story from there.

MARGARET WARNER: For perspective on the demonstrations in Serbia and what they may mean, we turn to Dusko Doder, a former Washington Post correspondent who has reported extensively from Yugoslavia. His biography of Milosevic will be released in October. He was born in Bosnia to an Albanian mother and Serbian father, but raised and educated in the U.S.; James Hooper, executive director of the Balkan Action council-- he was deputy director of Eastern and Yugoslav affairs at the State Department during the Bush Administration; and Stacy Sullivan, who reported from the Balkans for "NewsWeek International," the "Times of London," and the Associated Press. She's now a consultant at Harvard University's Human Rights Initiative. She recently returned from Serbia and Kosovo. Welcome all. Jim Hooper, how serious, how significant are these demonstrations?

JAMES HOOPER, Balkan Action Council: Oh, I think these are very significant, Margaret. These are like political calisthenics by the opposition. They're warming up, they're building up their strength. We're seeing it all over the country, not just in Belgrade, as the setup piece pointed out, where three years ago these demonstrations took place there, but we're seeing it in the North, in the center of Serbia, and in the South, in cities which have democratically-elected city councils and mayors and in cities where there are - where the Milosevic regime supporters are in power. At the same time, army reservists in parts of the South have been supporting some of these demonstrations. They've been blocking roads. This has been going on off and on for the past several weeks. The Serbian Orthodox Church has also come out and called for Mr. Milosevic to sign. So I think what we're seeing is a growing coalition between these towns, the democratic parties, some elements of the military and others who are working to build up their strength so they can move against Mr. Milosevic or replace him with a democratic government if those in the military or the security services move themselves.

MARGARET WARNER: Dusko Doder, do you see a serious groundswell here, a major groundswell?

DUSKO DODER, Author/Journalist: Oh, I think this is the most serious challenge to Milosevic since he came to power. And I think that he is -- my guess is he probably will not be able to survive for very long. But the question is that -

MARGARET WARNER: That's a bold prediction.

DUSKO DODER: The opposition is not organized and it's fractured. Mr. Milosevic's technique has been to fracture the opposition. I mean, the first free elections he had 104 parties running, and more than 50 percent of those parties were created by his own party to fragment the vote and so forth. I think that -- but this time I think the combination of force is such that it's very difficult to see how he can survive for very long.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree, Stacy Sullivan, a serious threat to him?

STACY SULLIVAN, Journalist: I agree that it's a serious threat it him, but I don't think that we can underestimate Milosevic's savviness. I mean, back in the winter of 1996 and the spring of 1997, tens of thousands of people marched through the streets, not just for weeks, but for three months. 103 days they did it, through the snow, through the sleet, every single day without exception. And Milosevic withstood it. So we've seen pretty impressive displays of civic resolve on the part of the Serbs in the past, and, you know, then it looked like Milosevic's end might be near as well. So I think we should predict his downfall with caution.

MARGARET WARNER: Milosevic did ride out '96 pretty well. What makes this different, Jim Hooper?

JAMES HOOPER: Well, a couple of things. First of all, he's just lost the war in Kosovo. Unlike the earlier wars, against Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia, these were losses for Serbia - Serbia didn't lose any territory. Yugoslavia lost territory. In this case, while Kosovo is still technically under Serbian sovereignty, Kosovo is in effect lost to Serbia. The Serbs understand that, the Serbian people I believe understand that. This is a loss of territorial heartland. Secondly, there is now -- it is very unlikely that the international community, led by the United States, will play footsy with Milosevic, will play political footsy with him. Remember, after the Dayton Peace Agreement we regarded him as the peacemaker in the Balkans. We treated him that way, and he took advantage of that. We weren't working with the democratic opposition. Now what we have is an indicted Slobodan Milosevic, we're unwilling to work with him, in fact, the administration has a destabilization program with the CIA working against him. So I think this is going to give confidence and hope to the democratic opposition within Serbia that this time Milosevic will not receive the backing of the international community.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you see -- do you agree those two factors, Dusko Doder, weaken Milosevic as compared to '96? Do you see others?

DUSKO DODER: Absolutely, I think what Jim said was absolutely true, because in 1996, '97, if you follow what the State Department was saying was we deplore this, but we took no action to support the opposition at that time, actively. And I think this really makes a difference that he cannot use the foreigners as props to show that he is a big enchilada, that he's still playing - and you know, that he cannot go anywhere. He's trapped in Yugoslavia. But that also makes him more difficult and dangerous, because I think he's fighting for his life.

MARGARET WARNER: Stacy Sullivan, what's your sense of the opposition? Is this at all organized? Do they have an agenda, or is it a lot of spontaneous frustration coming out?

STACY SULLIVAN: Well, I think there is a lot of spontaneous frustration coming out. I also think that we have to look at the nature of the complaints that emerge from the spontaneous frustration on the demonstrations on the streets. We don't have Serbs demonstrating saying we are appalled by the actions that were committed in our name in Kosovo, we are finally taking a stand against the ethnic cleansing, the burning down of houses and the murder of 10,000 people. What we hear the demonstrators saying is I fought in Kosovo and I haven't been paid for it, I want my money. I want my pension. My life is now miserable because I live in an impoverished country that's been made a pariah state. So I don't think - you know -- getting rid of Milosevic is going to be the answer to all of our problems. I think we have a real problem inherent within Serbian society and within, that includes all of the opposition politicians, some of which are far more nationalistic than Slobodan Milosevic himself. So I think we should be very cautious in just attributing the problem that we see in Serbia to one man.

MARGARET WARNER: What about that point, Dusko Doder, I mean, she's right, they aren't out there saying this was an outrage.

DUSKO DODER: I think that this nation has been battered for about 12 years, psychologically, emotionally and physically, that's one thing. Two, Milosevic was brought to power against a class. He has destroyed all the institution. I think the demonization of the Serbs not going to talk about something else but their immediate problems is kind of unfair in a sense because you're talking about people in the villages and small towns. I think that intellectual opposition to Milosevic has been very strong; from the very beginning all the best and brightest people have left. And I think the way now is to kind of help politically organize this. And I think the United States can play a role, but not a direct role in this.

MARGARET WARNER: What's your view of the opposition? In other words, address Stacy Sullivan's point, if you would. Would it mean a change in policy or mentality?

JAMES HOOPER: We have to take into account that in Serbia it's very different than most countries, in virtually all other European countries. This ultra nationalist ideas of a greater Serbia have been very deeply implanted in the country by Mr. Milosevic but also by Serbian culture. And the political spectrum is skewed toward the ultra nationalist side. You have a politician, for example, one of the major opposition parties, who would be regarded as an extreme nationalist if he were politicking in a West European country. In Serbia, he's a centrist. That's just the way it is. But I think what we are going to see is probably not Jeffersonian democracy established first, it's going to come through stages, and I think it's important -- the most important thing is to work with them, for us to work with them for the international community to work with him, for the political party institutes here in the United States and in Europe to work with them.

MARGARET WARNER: Would you - let me just interrupt you here - would you - you know, President Clinton has said no aid for reconstruction as long as Milosevic is in power. Does that policy strengthen the opposition, or undermine it?

JAMES HOOPER: Well, in principle, as long as the assistance would go to Mr. Milosevic I think that's the right idea. In principle, I support Mr. Milosevic. But I think we need to have --

MARGARET WARNER: You don't mean that.

JAMES HOOPER: With Mr. Clinton, excuse me, I'm sorry, Margaret. I support the President's policy, but I think we need to have some flexibility on that. For example, it would be helpful if the United States provided some assistance for reconstruction to maybe three or four or five of these cities on small pilot projects, to show that we're prepared to work with them when they do the right thing. If Mr. Milosevic blocks that assistance or tries to control it, they can then use that against him.

MARGARET WARNER: What's your view of that, Stacy Sullivan?

STACY SULLIVAN: I agree that it's going to be financial assistance that is going to be the -- those are the purse strings here. I think that all financial is assistance should be made contingent upon the rhetoric that we hear coming from these parties. You know, one of the biggest parties, one of the biggest opposition parties is far more nationalistic than Milosevic. I don't think we should be giving any money to them and to the other right-wing politicians in Serbia. If they're willing to tone down their rhetoric and say the right things, then I think we can support that, use the purse strings to do that, to get a more moderate political base.

MARGARET WARNER: Dusko Doder, we can't get inside the head of Milosevic, but lay out for us, what do you think are his options here. One, if he wants to ride it out as he did in '96 and '97, or two if he wants to bail out?

DUSKO DODER: Well, he cannot bail - you know - in 1991, huge demonstration against Milosevic and the people used to say Slobodan -- which means Slobodan by the by, Ceaucescu is waiting for you.

MARGARET WARNER: Meaning the Romanian dictator.

DUSKO DODER: Yes. I think you have a sense of Milosevic sort of losing touch with reality. I mean, his son is opening a theme park now after a war.

MARGARET WARNER: Bambi Land.

DUSKO DODER: Bambi Land. And, you know, he's engaging in reconstruction. How is this going to be done without funds? I think that, you know, he's fighting for his life, this a time when he's dangerous, and he's at his best in terms of maneuvering, and it's going to be difficult to dislodge him. But I think winter is coming, when people realize that there's no food, that there's no fuel, so forth, I'm personally very skeptical about giving money to anybody. I think what we have to do is we have to help the Serb nation to find its own way and face up to the crimes that have been committed in its name. And I think the only reasonable solution so far that has come up in the press was this alliance for change, which involves the American businessman Milan Panic and Montenegrin President and a couple of other politicians. I think they have to face up to this. It cannot be done without that. And I think the present leaders there are not really capable of uniting the opposition.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think Milosevic's options are here?

JAMES HOOPER: Well, he might try to move against Montenegro. Montenegro is providing crucial support for the democratic opposition within Serbia. They've been very courageous. They did not oppose the NATO bombing. It is -- they're part of the federation with Serbia. They make -- Montenegro and Serbia together make up the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So he could move against Montenegro. It's very important,I think, that we give the Montenegrins a security guarantee.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Stacy Sullivan, what do you see as Milosevic's options here?

STACY SULLIVAN: He could move against Montenegro, but he could move against Voinivodino, which has a significant Hungarian community.

MARGARET WARNER: It's the area to the North.

STACY SULLIVAN: That's right. Or he could just step down quietly and go to his villa and go the way of Radovan Karadzic, the indicted Serb leader in the Serb half of Bosnia. And I think he'd probably be best off to do that, to just step aside and watch the opposition do what they can.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. We have to leave it there. Thank you all three very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, women's soccer, Shields and Gigot, the E-mail response to our campaign 2000 special emphasis, and Pete Conrad on the Moon.

FOCUS - HAVING A BALL

JIM LEHRER: The Women's World Cup Soccer Final is tomorrow, with the United States playing China. Spencer Michels reports on a game and a growing sport.

[SPORTS ANNOUNCER IN BACKGROUND]

SPENCER MICHELS: The American women's soccer team -- Olympic champions from three years ago --are on a roll: in the last three weeks, the women have powered their way past Denmark, Nigeria, North Korea, Germany, and Brazil. They've played before bigger crowds than any women's soccer teams ever -- in fact any women's teams in any sport. And they have captured the imagination of the nation. The American women are generally regarded as the best in the world -- a reputation China is also vying for. Yet, until the Women's World Cup finals began in this country three weeks ago, hardly anybody was paying attention to the competitive women's version of a sport that -- in its male configuration -- entrances most of the world except the USA. Americans -- girls and women included -- play a lot of soccer -- and just not professionally. An estimated 7.2 million females take part in America -- most of them learning the game early in school, in public leagues and in private camps like this one in San Jose, California. Camp director Dave Gold, a former player and professional coach, says the women's game is catching up with the men's.

DAVE GOLD: It's the number one participation sport for children. Our camps were 80-20 boys; now it's 50-50, and in some cases we'll have 60-40 percent girls.

SPENCER MICHELS: The youngsters' parents are paying $195 for a week of intense, morning-till-night soccer. The kids often choose this over other sports.

CHILD: You get to like be aggressive and you get to run a lot, and you can score goals and it just feels so good if your whole team, you're like in a championship and you get to score a goal and you win the game and you get a trophy and it just feels so good and everybody's cheering and screaming and taking pictures. And so, it should feel ten times better when you get older, and you're playing for like, like the World Cup.

SPENCER MICHELS: The Women's World Cup has inspired --and instructed --the youngsters, according to camp director Gold. He tells them what to look for while watching the games.

DAVE GOLD: Individual skills. There's some of the players, even defenders, have wonderful ball control, trapping the ball, turning with it, dribbling past people. Shooting is always exciting, and the tremendous goal keeping that's going on in the World Cup right now.

SPENCER MICHELS: Gold is a particular fan of America's star forward Mia Hamm, who has scored an amazing 111 goals in international play, more than any other player of either gender.

DAVE GOLD: She's got tremendous acceleration. She can turn on a dime, and then blow past people with her power. She's grace and motion and power all in one. She's just a fabulous athlete.

SPENCER MICHELS: Mia Hamm is one of seven U.S. women players who have been together since America won the first women's World Cup 1991 in Beijing. The American team is a high-spirited, talented, coordinated group, whose dominance in the sport has helped bring out the fans this year. Among the other stars is mid-fielder and 11-year-veteran Julie Foudy -- who chided the American press for only lately discovering women's soccer.

JULIE FOUDY: We've always said that this is the best-kept secret, this team, and so we welcomed all the hoopla and thought that, you know, it's about time. Where have you guys been?

SPENCER MICHELS: Crowds of up to 80,000 have been turning out for some of this year's Women's World Cup games-- and 90,000 are expected at the finals. Advertising executives figured there was enough attention generated to put some of the American stars into commercials -- like this one for NIKE shoes that touts the togetherness of the US team -- even at the dentist.

SPOKESMAN: How'd it go?

PLAYER: He had to drill; I got two fillings.

PLAYER 2: Then I will have two fillings.

DENTIST: But, Mia, I just examined your teeth; they're perfect.

SONG: Anything you can do I can do getter. I can do anything better than you. no you can't. yes I can.

SPENCER MICHELS: This ad, for Gatorade, -- with Mia Hamm and basketball great Michael

Jordan -- stresses athletic ability:

[COMMERCIAL]

SPENCER MICHELS: The endorsements have brought extra money to some players, on top of the $30,000 to $40,000 they earn, for their six months with the U.S. team. The Chinese team that faces the U.S. tomorrow is a tough opponent. This team failed to win the first World Cup eight years ago and was disbanded by the government. But it has been reorganized and now the pressure is on again -- so much so that at a news conference in San Jose last week, when the Chinese coach was asked what was fun about the tournament in the U.S., he said dourly, "Only winning." Tracy Lu is the interpreter for China's team.

SPENCER MICHELS: I just heard the coach of the Chinese team say this trip wasn't fun, it was just work.

TRACY LU: Being a soccer player -- the most exciting achievement will be that you get a championship at the World Cup. So that is really, you know, pressure at first.

SPENCER MICHELS: The Chinese team apparently disbanded after it lost in 1991 in China, is that true?

TRACY LU: Yeah, yeah. yeah, that is the fact because of the biggest disappointment about that result of China team at the first World Cup.

SPENCER MICHELS: Norway, the defending champion, had a completely different

attitude toward World Cup play, according to mid-fielder Hege Riise, She spoke before her team played the Chinese in the semifinals.

SPENCER MICHELS: The Chinese coach was asked whether he was having any fun here, and he said no.

HEGE RIISE: No?

SPENCER MICHELS: He said no.

HEGE RIISE: Wow!

SPENCER MICHELS: Are you having fun?

HEGE RIISE: We're having fun all the time. So, wow! That's amazing. How can they not

have fun?

SPENCER MICHELS: I guess because the pressure is on, because they need to win. Do you

feel that kind of pressure?

HEGE RIISE: No. We won in '95, and that's our championship. We don't defend a championship. We go on and we will try to win this time, but we take one game at a time, and hopefully we'll be in the finals.

SPENCER MICHELS: Norway waseliminated by the Chinese, five to nothing, last weekend in a game that showed the strength and teamwork of the Chinese women. Meanwhile, the U.S. beat Germany in the quarter finals, despite Brandy Chastain inadvertently scoring a goal for the Germans early in the first half. And last Sunday, the American women beat Brazil at Stanford Stadium -- before 73,000 flag-waving fans, with the goal keeper Briana Scurry making several spectacular saves to propel the U.S. into the finals. Does all this excitement translate into what the American women's soccer establishment would like: a professional league of their own? Women's basketball --the WNBA --is doing well, but only after a rival league --the American Basketball League, or ABL -- went bankrupt. Gary Cavalli was CEO of the ABL He says women's soccer is still unproven.

GARY CAVALLI: I think they have to first of all get a good TV deal. I mean, nobody knows better than the ABL how important television is, and that was our big problem. And secondly they have to get sponsorship. Will the corporate sponsors support women's soccer, on an ongoing level, not just on a one time women's World Cup championship level, but on an ongoing basis?

SPENCER MICHELS: Even men's professional soccer is just holding its own in the U.S. So it may not be a question of women's sports: soccer in America is at issue.

GARY CAVALLI: The big issue of soccer is, is there enough scoring? you know,

Americans like fast-paced, high scoring games, and in soccer you have a lot of these one-nothing games.

SPENCER MICHELS: But soccer professionals like Dave Gold say Americans are now learning to love both men's and women's soccer.

DAVE GOLD: It's a great television sport, if you're educated in the game. A zero-zero game can be a wonderful game. It's not all about scoring goals. So as the American public gets educated, so

will the fan base grow.

SPENCER MICHELS: That's long been the cry from soccer enthusiasts. Tomorrow's US-China championship at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena is already a sell-out, and will be shown on ABC TV. The games have made the sports pages and local TV highlights for three weeks now. Soccer fans say a U.S. win -- even a good game -- would go a long ways toward advancing women's soccer as a major American sport.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: And now some Friday night political analysis by Shields and Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. Paul, Hillary Clinton got serious this week about being a Senate candidate from New York. How did she do?

PAUL GIGOT: As a raw political talent, she's got some possibilities, Jim. She's obviously -- knows what she's doing, she's out and did some very smart thing for New York; she wrapped herself around Patrick - Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the outgoing Senator from New York, esteemed Democrat, savvy pol, and he kind of anointed her as his successor. There's some irony here. And this is one of the things she has to do. We're watching - I think it's fascinating - watching how she's remaking herself and her image from the liberal conscience she's been in some ways of the Clinton administration and with Pat Moynihan doing it, it's interesting, because he was the most vigorous Democratic appointment-- opponent rather of her health care plan and the administration's welfare reform bill. Yet she knows she needs him and she knows she needs his Democratic support. So, she's off to a good start, but I think she's got some headway to go when it comes to remaking her image that has been built up in Washington.

JIM LEHRER: Good start, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I'd say exceptionally good start, Jim. I mean, we a couple of weeks ago we were waxing euphoric about George W. Bush's performance in New Hampshire and Iowa and legitimately so. But I think this is somebody who's never been a candidate before, never had her name on a ballot, comes out with 250 reporters, including the New York press, who basically eat four subjects for breakfast, and handled herself very well. I mean, all the charges about her being thin skinned and everything else were not there. I think in addition to that, I mean, the very fact that we're calling it a listening tour is a testimony to the fact that she's prevailed. She's defined what it is; she's out there with the pad and pencil, and every time you see her she's in a listening mode. So, I'd have to give her good marks out of the gate.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Now she's out of the gate. As a candidate between now and the time people actually vote, which is still so far - it's 16 months away -- what are the downsides, what are the problems she has as a candidate?

MARK SHIELDS: She has I think two basic problems. One is she has to first establish why she's running. I think she started off very well.

JIM LEHRER: Other than just I want to be a U.S. Senator.

MARK SHIELDS: I want to be a U.S. Senator. In other words, the old aphorism in politics, about the juveniles run for high office to be something, the grown-ups run for high office to do something. She'll lay out the case of her commitment on education on children, on women's issues, and health care. The problem she is - it's still with her -- is that of residency.

JIM LEHRER: Carpet bagger.

MARK SHIELDS: The carpet bagger issue. Robert Kennedy was elected to the Senate in 1964 from New York. But Robert Kennedy was not identified with any other state. He had been attorney general of the United States, he lived here in Washington, and he moved his whole family to New York. She doesn't have that option. She's still got a husband in the White House -

JIM LEHRER: Otherwise occupied.

MARK SHIELDS: -- otherwise occupied.

JIM LEHRER: Right.

MARK SHIELDS: And so she -- I think that remains a problem and she's got to have a case as to why New York, I mean, because she was the First Lady of Arkansas, and she did throw out the opening day baseball at Wrigley Field when the Cubs were her favorite team. So I think she's got to make a case that, you know, New York is where I want to live, and I come to New York like so many people have.

JIM LEHRER: What do you see as her major problem?

PAUL GIGOT: I think it's the last eight years. I think it's the fact that she's trying to extend or will be perceived as trying to extend what's been going on the last eight years. She has a track record with the health care plan that was not popular, that went down, that was opposed by a lot of Democrats. She's got to walk away from that and explain why that was not a real benefit. The difference I'd say with Mark and Bobby Kennedy is when Bobby Kennedy was running in 1964, the Democrats had a real sense of unfulfilled possibility. John Kennedy cut down too early. And that helped L.B.J. There aren't a lot of Democrats who right now are saying do we really need another eight years of the Clintons. I don't think if Bill Clinton ran again he would necessarily easily win a third term, if at all.

JIM LEHRER: And you think that she will be seen as trying to extend the Clinton deal, the Clinton administration or the Clinton line?

PAUL GIGOT: Yes, I think so. A lot of people sense that we'vehad enough - I mean, the houseguest that won't leave, you know, and they're trying to extend and they're not giving a justification for it.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Let's turn the coin over. What are her strengths going into this, Paul?

PAUL GIGOT: Got political talent, riles up the Democratic base, a lot of support of the Democratic base. She's an icon for a lot of people. She's a celebrity. And in American politics now, the celebrification of our politics, that's a real asset.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. What would you put on the list, the positive list?

MARK SHIELDS: In a presidential ticket that will be headed by either Bill Bradley or Al Gore, neither one of whom electrifies the activist in the base of the Democratic Party, she does. She energizes the base of the party, especially the women voters. Frank Lansus, Rudy Giuliani's pollster, said that it's a polarizing race, Giuliani against Hillary. And the fact is even though the spread with the margin of error between the two of them, among men over the age of 60, Giuliani leads by 30 points. Among woman under the age of 40, Hillary Clinton leads by 17 points. So, I mean, you can see the energy that she has among a very important constituency and a problem, as Paul laid out, that she has. I think that, and I think part of her electricity is a problem for the Democrats, because it is going to be a race that if the presidential race is not that interesting or not that engaging, it's going to get an awful lot of attention, especially if she runs after Rudy Giuliani. And I think Rudy Giuliani is a prosecutor, and prosecutors prosecute. And you can be sure he'll be bringing up billing records and White House firings of the Travel Office, and so forth, and it may very well lead to making her a sympathetic candidate in New York, but to fatigue among voters of that whole saga and that whole episode.

JIM LEHRER: How do you see Giuliani as a potential opponent of hers?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I'm not so sure he's going to be the opponent, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: Explain. He's got to get the Republican nomination. Rick Lazio, the Republican congressman, may also be running.

PAUL GIGOT: That's right. But it's more interesting than that because you think that Hillary Clinton, who is disliked by so many Republicans, would unite the Republican Party. But in New York, it's the Hatfields and McCoys out there. And there are a lot of people who don't like Rudy Giuliani, most prominently, the governor, George Pataki, the former Senator Al D'Amato.

JIM LEHRER: Both of whom are also Republican.

PAUL GIGOT: Who are also Republican, who are very eager to have Rick Lazio, a Long Island Republican Congressman, run in the primary. Now, in New York it's a late primary. That means it's September of the year 2000, own a couple of months before the election. And that means the Republicans will be firing at each other, instead of united, going after Hillary Clinton. And that is a dream scenario for her, because it means that she's going to get a lot of help between now and -- from the Republicans killing each other -- between now and the election.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Mark, you said Giuliani was a prosecutor. One of the things also that you hear about him all the time is that he's mean. As a candidate, he's mean. Is that fair?

MARK SHIELDS: I think it's fair to say that there are striking parallels between the two candidates in the sense that they're both thin skinned. They both insist upon and attract great loyalty. They both are more than skeptical -- downright unfriendly toward the press -- and openly suspicious toward the press. And Rudy Giuliani has a mean streak in him. I think even his admirers, who I had one liberal Democrat say to me he didn't know whom he would vote for in New York, a New York voter. I said why? He said, well, Rudy Giuliani saved civilization in New York City, in my hometown. He says, I can't ignore that. But the down side of that is Rudy has been the tough cop. And that could be a problem.

JIM LEHRER: I was fascinated, Paul, by -- speaking of the top cop -- a former - Brackman, who was a former police commissioner -- said this week that Giuliani was an awful man but a great mayor.

PAUL GIGOT: And he has been a great mayor. He's done an awful lot for that city. But that doesn't necessarily translate statewide if they don't know you very well and your transmitting your image through television. Rick Lazio is a kind of a smiling fellow and true in politics. All other things being equal, the smiling candidate usually wins.

JIM LEHRER: Well, there's one thing we know for sure, this is going to be a very unique situation. Everybody is going to have plenty of time to talk about it between now and the time it's over. Another quick subject, while Mrs. Clinton has been on her exploratory tour, the President has been on a poverty tour of the United States. Does that just kind of to make work to have something for him to do while she was otherwise occupied, or what?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I prefer to think it's the good Bill Clinton. I mean, we've listened to the line about a rising tide lifts all boats and in a period of unprecedented prosperity, we find places in people in America untouched by that prosperity, and Appalachia remains one of them; the first President to visit Appalachia Hazard County, Kentucky since Lyndon Johnson; the Delta of Mississippi, where Robert Kennedy visited in 1967, and his solution -

JIM LEHRER: And went to the Sioux Reservation.

MARK SHIELDS: The Sioux Reservation. First President since FDR -- in 63 years. What's interesting to me is what he's prescribing is not a great society solution, but is prescribing Republican conservative remedies, whether it's tax incentives, enterprise zones, I mean, it's bring in business - it's going to be your advantage. It's pitching a different message, but still with the objective of helping people who haven't been helped.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think?

PAUL GIGOT: Some might call it compassionate conservatism. There's no question about it. I mean, for six years, Bill Clinton was the tribune of the forgotten middle class. And the Democrats were almost afraid, a lot of the new Democrats were almost afraid to speak up on be half of the poor, because they could be accused of the old redistributionist politics. I think it's interesting because this proposal - because it suggests that even within the Democratic Party there's no longer a great deal of confidence in the old Great Society, big government solutions, that they know the voters don't buy it, even the recipients don't really buy it. So they're willing to try something new. And I thought it was an interesting political expedition by the President, and give him credit for trying it.

JIM LEHRER: Finally, just quickly, the Senate holds that where a Senator can secretly stop a nomination without anybody knowing why or who's doing it, now he's done it -- somebody's done it on Richard Holbrooke. How can the greatest deliberative body and the greatest democracy get away with that sort of thing?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, this is something that's outlived its usefulness, it's discredited, it's abused. Some could even compare it to the Independent Counsel Statute. I mean -- it's just something whose time has passed. This time, at least the three Senators have gone public with it. Mitch McConnell -

JIM LEHRER: Three of the four.

MARK SHIELDS: Three of the four. George Voinovich of Ohio.

JIM LEHRER: They didn't at first.

MARK SHIELDS: Grassley did and Voinovich, but then McConnell's come out, and Milosevic. And Trent Lott, the Majority Leader, stayed in the closet on it, I mean, even though he's the fourth one.

JIM LEHRER: Quickly. Is this thing going to end ever?

PAUL GIGOT: I think so. This is about political leverage, Jim. They want something for it; they want - in one case nominees to go through -- in another case, a whistle blower to be treated better -

JIM LEHRER: But it has nothing to do with Richard Holbrooke.

PAUL GIGOT: No. Well, certainly that nomination does, but they're using the powers of the Senate, which advise and consent power to use against the administration, to use every bit of power they can.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you both.

EMPHASIA - CAMPAIGN 2000 - VIEWERS' VIEWS

JIM LEHRER: Now our special emphasis on what the 2000 presidential campaign should be about. We started asking individuals and groups that question two weeks ago. We also invited our viewers to participate via the Online NewsHour. Tom Bearden has our first report on that response thus far.

TOM BEARDEN: We've received more than 2200 messages from all around the country suggesting every conceivable issue to be addressed during the 2000 presidential campaign. Some of you simply listed issues you'd like the candidates to address with little comment. June Fine of Boston suggested: Campaign reform; renewable energy and regulating sport utility vehicles; and health Care reform for real. Charles Reed of Radnor, Pennsylvania also suggested campaign finance reform and added income disparity, UN obligations, environment preservation, and health care for the uninsured.

TOM BEARDEN: And Rudy Werlink of Yorktown, Virginia said he wanted - "Specific answers on how to protect the environment, including clean energy, improve education for all, provide universal health care, fund medical research, reform politics including 100 percent fair public financing for all elections, limit corporate power and protect all children." But most of you however chose to focus on one issue in particular. We asked Scott Slocum of White Bear Lake, Minnesota to read what he wrote.

SCOTT SLOCUM: I'd like to hear about the future of public information systems. As corporate information systems develop, they will provide corporate engineers, physicians, financiers, marketers and so on with strategic information, specially processed and presented to help them compete with other corporations and to help them market their products and services to the American people. I'd like to see the American people provided with public information systems of this quality, geared toward helping us evaluate products and services, to direct public policy, to access public works of art and educational resources and so on. I don't believe that high quality systems of this kind will be funded by corporations--where would the profit factor be?

TOM BEARDEN: Patrick Clark of Palm Harbor, Florida said he would ask the candidates -- "What happened to tax reform? Now that there's a surplus, should we forget all about it?" Joshua Parris from Atlanta wrote - "I think the candidates should be focused on the future Supreme Court appointments. With the current court often dividing 5-4, it is important tome what litmus tests the candidates will be using when determining their appointees." And David Fadness of San Jose, California wrote -- "A major emphasis needs to be placed on domestic infrastructure. We must restore crumbling facilities and begin building new ones that will accommodate continuing economic development and improved quality of life in our urban areas." And we received an E-mail from 14-year old Susan Rankin from Bogue

Chitto, Mississippi.

SUSAN RANKIN: I am a freshman at Bogue Chitto Public High School. I think a major topic in this upcoming presidential race is education. Bogue Chitto is a school in a rural area. The curriculum is not at all what you would call extended. Our languages consist of French and Spanish. I am considered "forward" because I took French last year in the eighth grade. The government should set up a plan or system that would provide for rural schools. We should have just as much an opportunity at higher education as those that to schools that have money."

TOM BEARDEN: Many of the E-mails we received questioned what America would look like in the 21st century -- and urged the candidates deal directly with the issues of race, overpopulation, immigration, and

the environment. We heard from Michael Jennings in Moscow, Idaho.

MICHAEL J. JENNINGS: I would like to see the candidates debate long-term solutions for managing our biological resources in the face of urban, suburban and exurban growth, as well as habitat losses from forest, range and agricultural practices. While they have mostly been under the purview of states, the now

extensive manifestation of human development is clearly a multistate and regional issue with a legitimate need for federal involvement.

TOM BEARDEN: Steven Kolins of Pittsboro, North Carolina suggested -- "If we were to rid ourselves of racism, the leap of civilization forward would be as if we had cleared water from the gas tank."

TOM BEARDEN: And Bernie Anderson of Middletown, Maryland wrote -- "I believe this election should address the deep tribalization of our society. A sense of common goals and purpose needs to be established. There are too many people who don't believe they are part of the solution. This is the alienation that isolates us from each other."

TOM BEARDEN: And we asked Jack Foss from San Francisco to read the E-mail he sent.

JACK FOSS: The rapid demographic changes in the population and what this means for the future is an issue that must be addressed by visionary political leadership. Can a pluralistic society in which former majorities are becoming minorities achieve a sense of unity and common purpose? Can new citizens from

societies in which there is no history of democratic freedom identify with and preserve the ideals on which this nation was founded?

TOM BEARDEN: Most of the E-mails dealing with immigration policy came from one of the states most affected. Ian Roberts of San Francisco wrote -- "I hope the candidates would discuss immigration. It has become the issue that dare not speak its name. The present U.S. immigration policy is run for the benefit of cheap labor interests, who donate large amounts to buy both sides." And Girish Sajja of Concord, California wrote -- "I am not sure how long the population can go on swelling before the standard of living is going to drop-off or other problems begin to rise."

TOM BEARDEN: From Pompano Beach, Florida, Joyce Tarnow wrote -- "I think the very most important issue for the 2000 election is the horrendous population growth in the United States. Problem after problem inthe news has a connection to too many people here consuming way beyond our resources." Here's what Russ Agreen of Denton, Maryland added to the debate --

RUSS AGREEN: Overpopulation! One of your sponsors, Archer Daniels Midland, casually advertises how they are going to help feed the 2 billion more people expected in the next 20 years! All of the problems you will talk about and many more are fueled by overpopulation, which is not just a human phenomenon, but rather is as old as life itself. There is no other solution to species perseverance, and problems for individuals falls directly out of it; not just big ones, like warfare over territory, but little ones, like aggressive driving or some of the feelings behind youth violence. Look at the foundations of capitalism and free markets, namely growth and competition. Growth is overpopulation and competition is territory. Humans did not invent it! Until and unless we drink from this cup of humility, we are doomed to putting band aids on problems that have their roots deeply in the story of life on Earth, that of overpopulation.

TOM BEARDEN: We received dozens of E-mails suggesting the most important responsibility for the President was establishing a clear direction for the country in world affairs. From Jim Talman of Bay Village, Ohio - "Should the U.S. be the international policeman? Exactly where do we draw "line?" And we received an E-mail from Toni Dewey of Boulder, Colorado -

TONI DEWEY: What is the real place of the U.S. in the world? How can we pick and choose where to put our resources, energy and clout?

TOM BEARDEN: Here's what Bill McDonald of Stillwater, Minnesota had to say --

BILL McDONALD: America is obsessed with itself, a tiny island of luxury in a very troubled world. Are we going to try to run the world, as we seem more and more inclined to do, and if so, how are we going to go about it? If we are not, how are we going to keep it from running us. What is our role to be?

TOM BEARDEN: Roger Bourke from La Cananda, California wrote -- "Our relations with emerging nations must be normalized, particularly China whose long-term economic potential is awesome. We cannot isolate or demonize China successfully. We must engage and deal with her. How do the candidates propose to do that?" Charles Daud of Salt Lake City suggested -- "The most important issue is 'How to deal with Russia?' I think there is a power struggle between the party leaders and the military. The future President must prepare to deal with the future Russia." Issues of value and responsibility were a common theme among many of the E-mails we received. Ignatius Giorgio from Brooklyn, New York wrote -- "The heart of America's problem is that we have turned over too much responsibility to the government. It

is time for a candidate to step forward and tell us we are accountable. This will take a person with guts but that is the person who gets my vote. We have all lacked the fortitude to stand by the principles that are called for to be truly great." And Craig Schwenke of Herndon, Virginia added -- "Parents especially have to be told to accept responsibility for their children, that it isn't up to the schools to baby it them or to teach them morality or religion." But this is what Albert Briggs, Jr., from Chestertown, Maryland had to say.

ALBERT BRIGGS, JR.: I'm not interested in hearing any sermons on "values" until the speaker has first told me who paid for his microphone and why. I want to know what the donors expect to get and the candidates expect to give in return for the large amounts of money changing hands, because I know the candidates are as beholden to their contributors as they are to the electorate.

TOM BEARDEN: In fact, campaign finance reform was one of the most popular issues listed in many of the E-mails we received. Joan Bennett of St. Paul, Minnesota wrote -- "This is a key issue because the current campaign finance system has a profound impact on the ability of our elected officials to vote according to the wishes of their constituents." And Dwain Lowther from Riverside, California said --

"Campaign finance reform, hands down. Money drives all policy decisions - foreign, domestic, et cetera. Will this subject be addressed in any sort of meaningful way? The smart money is betting no."

JIM LEHRER: Our special emphasis and our questions will continue for several more months, and you can participate by visiting our website at pbs.org/newshour.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, Serbia's third largest city officially called for Yugoslav President Milosevic to resign. The city of Nis joined other localities whose councils have made the same demand. Defense Secretary Cohen said if Milosevic did step down, no nation should grant him asylum because of his war crimes indictment. And NATO forces checked out a new mass grave in Kosovo where 350 ethnic Albanians may be buried. And Astronaut Charles Pete Conrad died yesterday from injuries suffered in a motorcycle accident. Conrad commanded the second Lunar landing in 1969 and became the third man to walk on the Moon. He brought a boyish enthusiasm to that "Apollo 12" mission, captured on this NASA videotape.

PETE CONRAD: I bet you when I get down to the bottom of the ladder, I can see the Surveyor. Okay. Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me. You'll never believe it. Guess what I see sitting on the side of the crater? The old Surveyor, yes, sir. [Laughter] Does that look neat? It can't be any further than 600 feet from here. I have the decided impression I don't want to move too rapidly but I can walk quite well.

ASTRONAUT: It seems a little weird. I'll tell you, I don't think you're going to steam around here quite as fast as you thought you were.

PETE CONRAD: Hey, Al, you could work out here all day. Take your time. Dum-dum-dum.

JIM LEHRER: Pete Conrad was 69 years old. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.