The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight Elizabeth Farnsworth runs a discussion about how to save [Focus - Staying the Course]; Presidential Historians Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Robert Dallek, and Ronald Steel explore how a distracted president conducts foreign policy [Focus - Divided Attention]; Rod Minott reports from Seattle on the morning-after pills [Focus - Morning After Pills]; and poet laureate Robert Pinsky offers some stock market poetry [Finally- Provide, Provide]. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton had encouraging words today for Boris Yeltsin. He told the Russian president the U.S. and other nations would give Russia more financial help if it stays on the path of democracy and economic reform. Yeltsin said Russia needs U.S. political support to attract investors. They spoke at a joint news conference on the second and final day of the summit in Moscow. Before taking questions, they signed agreements to reduce plutonium stockpiles and provide advanced warnings of missile tests, among other things. Mr. Clinton was asked about the volatile U.S. stock markets.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The first thing we have to do is to do our very best to make the right decisions at home. You know, we have to stay with the path of discipline that has brought us this far in the last five and a half years. And we have to make the investments and decisions that we know will produce growth over the long run for the American economy. Now, in addition to that, it is important that more and more Americans, without regard to party, understand that we are in a global economy, and it's been very good to the United States over the last five and a half years, about 30 percent of our growth has come from exports.

JIM LEHRER: The President also said the U.S. needs to support the struggling overseas economies that buy American exports. On a question about the Monica Lewinsky matter, he said he felt he expressed his regret sufficiently, asked to be forgiven, and now wants to get back to focusing on his work. After that news conference, Mr. Clinton spoke to opposition leaders of the lower house of parliament, the duma. He encouraged them to not return to a centralized command economy. The Communist-led duma called on Yeltsin to offer another candidate for prime minister, not Victor Chernomyrdin. Under the Russian constitution, the president's allowed to put forward a nominee three times. The duma is to vote a second time on Chernomyrdin Friday. He was rejected Monday. We'll have more on the Russia story right after this News Summary. On Wall Street today the Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped backwards. It closed now 45 points, at 7782.37. The NASDAQ Index of smaller and high-tech companies ended up nearly 18 points at 1592.85. Both the Dow and the NASDAQ had big drops on Monday, with large rebounds Tuesday. Overseas, major markets in Europe and Asia were basically up today. In the Gulf of Mexico today, tropical storm Earl was upgraded to a hurricane. Its winds were clocked at 100 miles an hour as it moved northeast, toward the Florida Panhandle, some 100 miles southwest of Destin. Governor Lawton Chiles declared a state of emergency and called for mandatory evacuations from barrier islands south of Tampa. Hurricane warnings extended to Mississippi. Forecasters said the storm was likely to hit the Florida coast tonight. The director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency had this warning.

JAMES LEE WITT: It was better to prepare now and do your planning now to get ready for the storm, because you could potentially see a power outage and some debris from the storm. But the seriousness of this is some high wind but flooding, really could be very, very serious.

JIM LEHRER: Air Canada canceled all of its flights today because of a pilots strike. Canada's largest airline carries about 60,000 passengers a day. Twenty-one hundred pilots walked off the job after talks broke down last night over pay and working conditions. On the Northwest Airlines strike today the company laid off 27,500 employees, half of its work force, because of its five-day-old pilots strike. They'll be recalled when flights resume. Operations are shut down at least through Labor Day. The Food & Drug Administration approved morning-after birth control pills for public sale today. Tests showed they will prevent pregnancy 75 percent of the time if taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. The pills are expected to go on sale later this month. We'll have more on the story later in the program. Also today a panel of FDA advisers recommended the drug Tamoxifen be taken by some women to prevent breast cancer. The experts said it would reduce the risk only in the short term and might not protect women most susceptible to the disease. Overseas today a United Nations tribunal convicted a Rwandan on genocide charges, the first such judgment by an international court. The three-judge UN panel in Tanzania convicted the man, a former mayor, for his part in the slaughter of 2,000 refugees who came to him for protection in 1994. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Russia dilemma, a president's divided attention, the morning-after pills, and a stock market poem.% ? FOCUS - STAYING THE COURSE

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton's visit to a troubled Russia. We start with an excerpt from today's news conference with the American and Russian presidents. Mr. Clinton was asked about the psychological atmosphere of the summit.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: From the point of view of America, it was important for me to come here just to say to the president and to his team and to the duma leaders I will see later and the federation council leaders that I know this is a difficult time, but there is no shortcut to developing a system that will have the confidence of investors around the world. These are not American rules, or anybody else's rules. These are-in a global economy you have to be able to get money in from outside your country and keep the money in your country invested in your country. From Russia's point of view I think knowing that the United States and others want to back this process and will do so and at least having someone else say there is a light at the end of this tunnel, there is an end to this process, and it could come quickly if these laws are passed, and in the duma, and the things that the president has asked for already are done, and the decisions are made well, I think that is worth something apart from the specific agreements that we have made.

REPORTER: President Yeltsin, yesterday President Clinton spoke of the painful steps that Russia will have to take and the need to play by the rules of international economics. What difficult steps are you prepared to take? And are you committed to play by these rules of international economics?

PRESIDENT YELTSIN: [speaking through interpreter] Certainly the issues, the problems are mostly, are our own specific problems. We are not saying that we only rely on the aid of others, no. And I'm saying that again, no, and let your media not disseminate that we rely only on the aid of the West for this. So to say we come together here, no, in no way. We need from the United States the political support that the United States are supporting reforms in Russia. That's what we need. Next question, please, from the Russian-please.

REPORTER: [speaking through interpreter] I would like to ask a question to the United States. Mr. Clinton, it looks-we are under the impression that some politicians in the United States now love to sort of intimidate Russia. At the same time, we do know that you have never been afraid of Russia, and you have done everything possible, so the United States is not afraid of Russia, so the result-in terms of the results of these talks, please tell us, what is the basis of your trust, of your belief, our country shall rise, that the U.S.-Russian relationships shall have a good future.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I don't think there are many people in America who are afraid of Russiaanymore. I think there are some people in America who question whether I should come. But I don't think it's because they want something bad to happen to Russia. I believe whether you succeed and how longit takes you to succeed in restoring real growth to the Russian economy depends upon President Yeltsin's ability to persuade the Duma to support his formation of a government which will pursue a path of reform with a genuine sensitivity to the personal dislocation of the people who have been hurt. And here's where I think the World Bank and other institutions can come in and perhaps help deal with some of the fallout, if you will, of the reform process. But I think if other political forces in Russia try to force the President to abandon reform in midstream or even reverse it, what I think will happen is even less money will come intoRussia, and even more economic hardship will result. I believe that because that is, it seems to me, the unwavering experience of every other country. That does not mean you should not have a social safety net. It does not mean you have to make the same domestic decisions that the United States or Great Britain or France or Sweden or any other country has made. You have to form your own relationship with this new economic reality. But I still believe that unless there is a manifest commitment to reform, the economy will not get better. So I support President Yeltsin's commitment in that regard. And I think -- my convictionthat it will get better is based on my reading of your history. How long it will take to get better depends a lot more on you and what happens here than anything else we outsiders can do, although if there is a clear movement toward reform, I'll do everything I can to accelerate outside support of all kinds.

JIM LEHRER: And to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And here with me to analyze events in Russia is Michael McFaul of Stanford University, author of a forthcoming book on Russian democracy. Also joining us are Stephen Cohen of New York University, author of "Rethinking the Soviet Experience," Melor Sturua, of the University of Minnesota, a longtime columnist for the Russian newspaper "Izvestia." He was a speech writer for Soviet leaders Kruschev; and Leon Aron of the American Enterprise Institute, who's writing a biography of Boris Yeltsin. Thank you all for being with us. Michael McFaul, did this summit help Russia in this time of crisis?

MICHAEL McFAUL, Stanford University: Well, it didn't do anything positive, that's for sure. I don't think it did anything negative either. President Yeltsin and President Clinton had agreed to have the summit well before the crisis, and Clinton had to go as a result of that. But he didn't provide anything to help them out. It's going to be a long road down before they do better.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Melor Sturua, do you agree with that, that nothing positive came out of this?

MELOR STURUA, University of Minnesota: Well, something positive came, of course, but it's not substantial enough to say that it helps Russia.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What positive do you think came of it?

MELOR STURUA: Well, the point is that Mr. Clinton came to Moscow, shook hands with President Yeltsin. They exchange some pleasantries, and this is fine, but I don't think that this is decisive. Let me abandon some sophisticated vocabulary and give you an example. Somebody's dying from massive coronary heart attack. And the doctor tells him, I will treat you, but you have to abandon smoking, drinking, meeting with Monica Lewinsky; you must jog, you must run, et cetera. That's fine, but the man is dying. You must treat him now. You must apply some intensive cardiovascular therapy. Afterwards, yes, it's okay. But all the conditions are iffy conditions. Health is very iffy. And if it's late, it doesn't matter for Russia.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So, Mr. Sturua, you're saying that the advice that the President gave is long-term advice-

MELOR STURUA: Yes, yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And what Russia really needs is immediate aid?

MELOR STURUA: Of course. In the long run it's good advice and we have to follow it. We know ourselves about it. But now, of course, it's too late to speak about this-conditions. You know, we need your helping hand. And you are giving just a finger. And finger is good for no speaking, and that's it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Stephen Cohen, what do you think about the advice that the President gave to Yeltsin?

STEPHEN COHEN, New York University: I think it was not only bad, but it's impossible. He essentially said to Russia stay the course. And Russia cannot stay the course. And it can't stay the course, and by the course, I mean, these monitored economic policies that we have politically and economically underwritten in Russia for seven years. It can't stay the course because in the last seven years an unprecedented peacetime economic devastation has occurred in Russia. The economy today is barely 20 percent what it was seven years ago. 75 percent of the population lives below or at the subsistence level. Children don't have vitamins. They suffer from malnutrition. Men live less than 60 years. Yeltsinism as a set of policies has no legitimacy. It's completely discredited. Russia is changing course as we talk. What Mr. Clinton said simply associated the United States with Russia's pain. I think it feeds the anti-Americanism in the country. And I think it hurts our friends in Russia, particularly the way during his press conference-and I've never seen an American President do this before--he actually lobbied on behalf of specific Yeltsin appointees and laws. I've never seen another American president do that in another country.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Leon Aron, do you agree that this is-that President Clinton's advice is actually counterproductive?LEON ARON, American Enterprise Institute: Well, I think that obviously the summit-summits in general are largely symbolic affairs, and this particular summit happened to be a sort of a visit on the Titanic, where one person, unfortunately for him, will be able to lift off. But I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with my friend, Stephen Cohen. I think what the President stressed-at least this was my understanding-is trying to find a way out of this economic collapse, part of which is due to severe structural problems, part of it due to human blunders and corruption, to find it-a way out of it within the democratic framework--I think this is extremely important. I think we will see in a few days, maybe in a week and a half at the duma, I think, does not confirm Chernomyrdin. We will see a deadlock with both powers, executive and legislature, claiming legitimacy, and both of which, you know, obviously, were elected. Then it will be a real test of Russian democracy, of how to get out of it. Finally, you know,for all the faults that this regime had and for all the blunders that were made, this is by far the freest, most open, most tolerant regime that Russia had in a thousand years. It's a regime under which opposition could organize, publish newspapers, when nobody was arrested for their political convictions, when the freedom of press was complete, when everybody could publish and travel everywhere they wanted. So to that extent, prodding this same regime to do something in the economy and come to an understanding with the duma, within the economic-within the framework of democracy I think is at least sort of a useful reminder.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mike McFaul, you just heard Leon Aron mention the Titanic and Alexander Lebed, the general, who's also a political leader, now said that the current crisis is more dangerous than before the Bolshevik Resolution in 1917. How serious do you think this crisis is?

MICHAEL McFAUL: Well, the crisis is very serious. I don't believe it's like 1917 for the simple fact that there is not a Bolshevik Party out there waiting to take advantage of riots on the streets. Having said that, this is akin to the greatest crisis that Russia's had since becoming an independent state. It's a total economic meltdown, and here I agree with Steve Cohen, we rarely agree, but I agree here that the course that they'd been on is over and done, and to speak of staying the course, you know, we're beyond that. History has moved beyond that. And the real threat now is the political crisis, does this bleed over to cause authoritarian regimes? So far they've played by the democratic rules of the game, and I'm encouraged by that. But I'm also very worried that people would be tempted to say this crisis is too serious, we need to dissolve the duma, and not bring back the elections. And if Yeltsin attempts to do that, and there are rumors that they are thinking about doing that, rule by decree, martial law, I think that's very serious, because he's not strong enough to pull it off. I agree-I disagree with it in principle, but even in practice, it's not going to work, and that could lead to real bloodshed in Russia.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Melor Sturua, you've seen a lot of hard times in your lifetime in Russia. How does this one compare?

MELOR STURUA: Well, of course, I don't think that there is a real danger of civil war, because the Communist Party can't come to power at the ballot box. The situation is very dangerous. Our financial system is falling apart. Banks are falling apart. Goods are disappearing. The ruble is disappearing. Dollar is disappearing. What's next? Hope disappears, and then patience. And when the patience of the people disappears, this is the most dangerous thing in Russia. But it seem to me that despite everything, despite everything, I agree with my colleagues that today's Communists are not Bolsheviks in 1917, and Mr. Zyuganov is not Lenin, fortunately enough. But Lenin said that Russia always suffered-not from capitalism but from the under-developed capitalism. And today we have this underdeveloped capitalism in Russia. May I show you two credit cards? One is an ordinary Mastercard; another is Most Card issued by the Most Bank, which is the fifth largest bank in Russia. So when you insert in money machine Mastercard, you get dollars; when you insert Most Card, you get just a flash on the screen, "All the transactions temporarily suspended." So now based in Russia we have temporarily suspended free market, and temporarily suspended democracy. I hope temporarily but suspended.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Stephen Cohen, we saw President Yeltsin in the press conference just now. How capable is he of dealing with this crisis?

STEPHEN COHEN: You mean physically, Elizabeth?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I mean physically.

STEPHEN COHEN: It's hard to speculate about a man's health, but visibly-and that's the beauty of television-we get a close look-and this is the first time he was subjected live to television, to live television in a while--he did not look good. But I would draw your attention to a more fundamental matter. I believe that Yeltsin and Yeltsinism-by that, I mean the general policies he's pursued in economic and social policy for the last seven years--have lost all support in the country, both in the political elite and among the ordinary people. And that means that Yeltsin personally no longer has any legitimacy. The legitimacy that he was given by becoming an elected president he has squandered, and therein lies the danger. We've seen what the people are prepared to do. In May, June, and July we saw in the far North, in the maritime provinces, the capacity of not only the working class but middle class people, who have not been paid in months and months, who cannot feed their children, who in a few weeks won't have electricity to generate heat, to protect him against the cold. We've seen them close down the railway lines. They can cut down Moscow, cut Moscow off from the rest of the country. And I believe that if the political elite and Moscow doesn't get its act together, in the next say ten days, two weeks, that will happen. There is one thing driving these politicians in Moscow that might make him compromise and agree on a coalition government, and that is that all of them, from Yeltsin to the Communists, are afraid of the Russian people. And I think they have good reason to be.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Leon Aron, given all of this, what should the United States do next?LEON ARON: It's very difficult for the United States to do anything at this point. This is a country in the midst of either post revolutionary or pre-Revolutionary crisis, depending on whether we'll see movement forward or retrenchments and perhaps reaction. Outsiders in these situations are extremely limited in their options. I think the West has done its last bit when it provided Moscow with over $22 billion in loans and because of the domestic political situations, because the parliament would not approve the emergency measures because the government did not do the right things at the right time. That was at least the first trench of it--was essentially evaporated. So I think after that we could only, as Dickens would say, behold with throbbing bosoms--

MELOR STURUA: May I interject?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Yes.

MELOR STURUA: May I interject. Well, you say that the West has already given $22 billion to Russia and let's see if we can do anything more. We are talking about sea changes not in Russia but in the whole world, especially we live in the state of globalization. And you are talking about $22 billion. The United States in a couple of weeks lost in the market more than $2 trillion, and you could save this money if you were more generous toward Russia. Do you remember in '94 how you bailed out of Mexican peso? You gave them 50 or 54 billion dollars. And Mexico has no nuclear weapons, no missiles. Mexico doesn't support Saddam Hussein, Mexico doesn't supply Iran with nuclear know-how I don't think that $22 billion settles everything.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you think about that?

MICHAEL McFAUL: No. There's a big difference between Mexico and Russia, and-

MELOR STURUA: Yes, there is a big difference. I agree with you.

MICHAEL McFAUL: And the big difference is not just in their economies but that Mexico had a plan to bail them out, to get them out of a crisis, and it worked. Russia today has no such plan. Throwing money at Russia today is just throwing money down the tubes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So what should be done?

MICHAEL McFAUL: Well, I agree with Leon. At this point there's very little that can be done in the short-term. I think the one thing we want to make clear is we do not want to see authoritarian rule of Russia because it's going to fail, and number 2, I think over time we need to resurrect the idea of the market. The failures of the reforms of the last seven years are not because they tried market reform and it failed but because they tried Soviet-style muddling through, partial reform, oligarchic capitalism. That's the real enemy in Russia today, and we can help to undermine that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay Steve Cohen. Yes. We have a very short amount of time, but what do you think?

STEPHEN COHEN: I think we're in danger of losing our soul in Russia. I think we have to drop this dogma about the notion that there's only one way to reform the country. Russia's changing course. They are going to be new policies. They are not going back to the Soviet system, that the state is coming back to try to save the nation. I think we ought to open our minds, our hearts, restructure their debt, and help them change course. If not-if not, Russia will become the cemetery of America's moral reputation.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all very much for being with us.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a president's divided attention, the morning after pills, and a stock market poem.% ? FOCUS - DIVIDED ATTENTION

JIM LEHRER: Conducting foreign policy in the middle of domestic problems. Kwame Holman begins.

KWAME HOLMAN: For the last seven and a half months President Clinton's foreign agenda has been overshadowed by a domestic scandal: Inquiries into his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. On the day news of the allegations broke, the President went ahead with two previously scheduled interviews, one with this program, another with National Public Radio. In the months that followed, however, he became virtually inaccessible to the press. Instead, reporters used the occasions of presidential meetings with foreign dignitaries to query the President on the Lewinsky matter. Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's meeting with Mr. Clinton in January produced one of the earliest opportunities for the press corps to question the President. Mr. Clinton was forced to defend his reputation, rather than address progress toward peace in the Middle East.

REPORTER: Could you clarify for us, sir, exactly what your relationship was with Ms. Lewinsky and whether the two of you talked about by phone, including any messages you may have had?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let's get to the big issue here. About the nature of the relationship and whether I suggested anybody not tell the truth. That is false.

KWAME HOLMAN: A month later the scandal dominated questioning during a White House press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The two leaders struggled to focus on Northern Ireland, not Monica Lewinsky.

HELEN THOMAS, UPI: Despite the ongoing investigation, you felt no constraint in saying what your relationship with Monica Lewinsky is not-was not. So it seems by logic that you ought to be able to say here and now what was your relationship. Her lawyer says-called it "colleagues." Is that an apt description?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, let me first of all say once again I never ask anybody to do anything but tell the truth. It's better to let the investigation go on and have me do my job and focus on my public responsibilities and let this thing play out its course. That's what I think I should do, and that's what I intend to do.

KWAME HOLMAN: Reporters from foreign news organizations asked Prime Minister Blair about the scandal facing his friend, Bill Clinton.

REPORTER: Is it not time, though, to drop the pretense that this is simply business as usual? Should you not both be saying that the public have the right to expect the very highest standard in the private lives of public politicians?

TONY BLAIR: Well, Michael, I hope we do that, but what I would say to you is that what is essential is that we focus on the issues that we were elected to focus upon.

KWAME HOLMAN: And it was the first of several times reporters would ask the President if he would resign.

REPORTER: Mr. President, all these questions about your personal life have to be painful to you and your family. At what point do you consider that it's just not worth it and you consider resigning from office?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Never.

KWAME HOLMAN: Finally in April, the President held a formal news conference. Since then, however, reporters had almost no opportunity to question the President until this morning in Moscow. At a joint press conference with Boris Yeltsin two of three questions posed by American reporters were about the Lewinsky matter.

REPORTER: Sir, you were just speaking of the challenges that we face as a nation. And one is the reaction since your admission of a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky -- given you any cause for concern that you may not be as effective as you should be in leading the country?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You know, I have acknowledged that I made a mistake, said that I regretted it, asked to be forgiven, spent a lot of very valuable time with my family in the last couple of weeks and said I was going back to work. I believe that's what the American people want me to do, and based on my conversations with leaders around the world, I think that's what they want me to do, and that is what I intend to do.

REPORTER: Mr. President, another Lewinsky question. You know, there have been some who have expressed disappointment that you didn't offer a formal apology the other night when you spoke to the American people. Are you -- do you feel you need to offer an apology? And, in retrospect now, with some distance, do you have any feeling that perhaps the tone of your speech was something that didn't quite convey the feelings that you have -- particularly your comments in regard to Mr. Starr?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think I could almost reiterate what I said in response to the first question. I think the question of the tone of the speech and people's reaction to it is really a function of - you know, I can't comment on that. I read it the other day again, and I thought it was clear that I was expressing my profound regret to all who were hurt and to all who were involved, and my desire not to see anymore people hurt by this process and caught up in it. And I was commenting that it seemed to be something that most reasonable people would think had consumed a disproportionate amount of America's time, money, and resources, and attention, and was now -- continued to involve more and more people. And that's what I tried to say.

JIM LEHRER: Now the perspectives of four presidential historians: NewsHour regulars Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss; and Robert Dallek of Boston University and Ronald Steel of the University of Southern California.Michael, are there precedents for this, for what President Clinton is trying to do now, conduct foreign policy in the middle of such a domestic storm?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, Presidential Historian: Probably the gold standard, Jim, would be Richard Nixon in 1973 and 1974, during Watergate. You know, we remember Nixon as this commanding foreign policy president, one of the most of the century. But that really ended in the summer of 1973, when Watergate really kicked into high gear and went on for another year. Nixon, during that period of time, was trying to get Americans and Congress to support his approach to better relations with the Soviet Union. That was very hard for him to do, because he didn't have the kind of voice that he had before. Americans began to turn against that policy, and I think it's probably fair to say that if Nixon had been stronger politically, he would have been able to persuade Americans that they should stay with d tente. One of the toughest things for a president with this kind of trouble to do is to ask Americans to make sacrifices. Think if George Bush had been obsessed with a domestic crisis like this at the time that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. Bush would have found it very difficult to get the American people and Congress to support 1/2 million men going around the world to retrieve Kuwait from the clutch of the Iraqis. The other thing that's very important for a president to do is to explain a crisis or explain a failure. And that is the problem that Richard Nixon had, because in the heat of Watergate in the fall of 1973, as we all remember, most of us, there was a serious war in the Middle East. There was an American nuclear alert in response to a Soviet threat to intervene. When that happened, Americans said, ah, ha, Nixon is just trumping up a crisis to save his own skin; he had to defend himself against that. That shows how weak he really was.

JIM LEHRER: But in this case, Ron Steel, the crisis that President Clinton is addressing or has been addressing in Moscow, is real, the financial crisis, et cetera. How would you make the connection?>

RON STEEL, University of Southern California: Well, it's a real crisis, but I think presidents have to operate under the cloud of whatever their domestic situation is, as Michael has said. But foreign policy can also be a way of emerging from under that cloud, if we consider Ronald Reagan's presidency, for example, Iran Contra, and the tremendous controversy that that entailed, and I think the loss of credibility, because Reagan's defense was he really didn't know what was going on. But Reagan had this enormous resource of public affection to draw on, despite the fact that people even believe that he didn't know what he was going on; they liked him. That's the problem that Nixon had was-aside from all the other problems of Watergate-that he didn't have affection. And that's Bill Clinton's problem as well, that he doesn't have this reservoir to draw on.

JIM LEHRER: But when he sits there, as he did today, in the great setting in Moscow, where these two presidents have come together to talk about global problems and trying to solve a particular problem in Russia that Elizabeth Farnsworth was just talking about with her guests, and boom, he suddenly has to discuss Monica Lewinsky.

RON STEEL: You know, I think it's so striking, the disparity of the events involved. Here we have the virtual collapse of the economy in Russia and perhaps the collapse of democracy. We see the most important country in terms of its potential power, its nuclear power, dissolving from under us as a stable factor in international relations. And, on the other hand, we have Bill Clinton's personal problems with one of the interns who worked in his office. And I think this is extremely difficult for foreigners to understand. They look upon the Lewinsky thing as simply a personal foible, they say all leaders do this, that, of course, you tell your girlfriend not to pass on the affair that you've had; that's normal. But what is the relationship of this to foreign policy? Now, even Watergate was hard for foreigners, particularly for Russians to understand, when Nixon was under such assault for Watergate, if you will recall, that the Soviets looked upon this not as a real crisis-how could the Americans take something this seriously?

JIM LEHRER: A few wiretaps or something like that.

RON STEEL: But as an attempt to undermine d tente. You see, this was a plot --

JIM LEHRER: I see.

RON STEEL: -- by Nixon's opponents to scuttle his policy of rapprochement with the Soviet Union. So, again, I think that this particular analysis wouldn't work in this case. But they see the American president, who has had a very successful run in foreign policy and in economic policy, who does have the support of the vast majority of the American public for his role as president, not for his personal behavior, and, in effect, his hands seem to be tied. He's very reluctant to take any initiative. We heard him say, well, we can't really provide any more money for you until you undertake the reforms. But they can't undertake the reforms very easily unless they're promised more aid. And so he has been-I think-handicapped enormously in his foreign policy by this.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, Doris, he's been handicapped by this?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, Presidential Historian: Oh, I think there's no question, you have to understand that. I mean, ideally a president in facing a foreign policy crisis would want to have a united Congress behind him, popular support, the will of the country, and his own moral authority. And that doesn't happen very often. It certainly happened with FDR in the middle of World War II, but in this case had he not had the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he would have had popular support behind him. He might have been able to mobilize the country in the last year toward more action, knowing this was happening in Russia. And you have to believe that somehow it's lessened the risk on the part of the Republicans to oppose him. One of the things Truman had going for him during the Cold War period was that even though he didn't have great public support, he wasn't that popular for a president at the time, even though historians later have loved him, he had Bandenburg in the Congress, the Republican leader, who was willing to go along and say politics should stop at the water's edge. Now you have Republicans and Democrats alike who are still talking sexual politics, as well as politics, and you have that embarrassing specter of people asking about Monica Lewinsky in front of the Russian leader, which means that there's nothing stopping at the water's edge. And some of that moral authority is obviously lost as a result of it. So obviously it's not quite as bad. The only thing that should give Clinton some solace is when I think about Abraham Lincoln having to conduct diplomacy with England and France during the Civil War, when our country was totally split apart, they were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy; he wasn't the best known figure in America, and yet, somehow he and Seward managed to conduct brilliant diplomacy. So there's hope.

JIM LEHRER: There's hope. There's hope, Robert Dallek?

ROBERT DALLEK, Presidential Historian: Well, there's always hope. But, you know, Jim, there's an old saying in American history that war kills reform, and we-World War I killed off progressivism and World War II killed off the New Deal. Korea stopped the Fair Deal in its tracks, and Vietnam killed off Johnson's Great Society. I think it's also true of a domestic crisis. It makes it almost impossible for a president to conduct an effective foreign policy. Lyndon Johnson - terrible domestic crisis over the Vietnam War. He went and met with the Soviet leadership, Kosegin at Glassboro, and couldn't get anywhere. I mean, a lot of rhetoric, much the same as we heard today, about advancing arms control and advancing agreements to make peace in the Middle East, but nothing really could come of it, because you had only a weakened president at home but a president's credibility with foreign leaders was, more or less, destroyed.

JIM LEHRER: What about the argument that foreign policy issues give a president an opportunity to rise above his domestic problems, to show that, hey, I'm really in charge, after all, forget all that other stuff, I'm running this country and I'm going to do the right thing, et cetera?

ROBERT DALLEK: Well, it's a matter of the gray, Jim. You see, here I think crisis at home has now become so pronounced - the president's credibility is so much in question - that it makes it almost impossible for him to achieve some kind of significant success abroad, so yes, there's hope, but I really see the next two years as a time of great difficulty for this country in conducting its foreign affairs and for this president in leading the country.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Jim, if I could get back--

JIM LEHRER: Yes, Doris. Go ahead.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: -- for a moment to what Ronald Steel was saying earlier, you know, Ronald Reagan was at one of the worst moments of his presidency in '87, when there were the revelations about Iran-Contra. He did then somehow manage to go on television twice, first to give a limited apology, that people didn't think was good enough, just like Clinton's wasn't good enough, and then he went on and gave a second, deeper apology, and, more importantly, he said he would change the structure of decision-making in the White House. He brought in Baker; he brought in Carlucci; he brought in Colin Powell, the hard-liners went out; and he made that extraordinary advance toward the Soviet Union, Gorbachev and his meeting, the treaty missiles, treaties that were signed, and all of that left his presidency far better off than anyone thought it could have been in '87, so that's one historical parallel that shows what your suggesting, that foreign policy sometimes can help a leader out of a domestic crisis.

JIM LEHRER: Michael.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: But the other thing that benefited Reagan was that dealing with the Soviet Union in a very serious way was "the" big theme of that presidency from the very beginning. Every American knew that, so that when Iran-Contra receded and Reagan went back to diplomacy with the Soviets to end the Cold War, people said here is an area in which Reagan is wonderful, he's indispensable, let's give him our support. And that's the big problem with Bill Clinton, because since the beginning of '93, he's made the choice to be more quiet about foreign policy than any president since Hoover. There has not been that voice talking to us about how to understand the world, and the result is that if there is a collapse in Russia and a venomous debate in this country about who lost Russia, he is going to be very weak in a way that goes way beyond even the Lewinsky scandal, because he'll be subject to charges by some people who will say, why did you not give this issue the attention it deserved.

JIM LEHRER: Sounds awfully grim, Ron Steel.

RON STEEL: I think - I would not write off Clinton's chances for a recuperation from all of this, because I think again the disparity between the particular offense we're talking about and the crisis in international and economic policy is very great, and foreign policy, as Doris Goodwin pointed out, a foreign policy crisis can save a presidency. It saved the Reagan presidency, and I think it saved the Roosevelt presidency as well. The New Deal was mired down by the time - by 1940. World War II made Franklin Roosevelt the great world historical figure that he is today. It saved his presidency.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And ended the Depression.

RON STEEL: And ended the Depression. And he was a great wartime leader. By the same token we have a problem with Russia. But we do have what appears to be a growing world economic crisis, and I think in times of great confusion and concern there is a natural tendency, an understandable one, to turn to leadership. I think we need its leadership that a president can offer and I think that's Bill Clinton's hope, to rise to it.

ROBERT DALLEK: But, I think, get back to Ron's point that Clinton is not well liked. The press has been after him, has been on his case from Day one of his presidency, and I think if you see an international crisis, one could imagine a call for his resignation, rather than sustaining him in office. He's so disliked at this point. I think also Woodrow Wilson - there's an interesting parallel there. Wilson was in some ways a crippled president when he went to Versailles in December of 1918, because he had called on the country to vote in a Democratic Congress. They had repudiated his political appeal, and he was terribly weakened, and the last two years of his presidency were a terrible trial by fire. Large issues were at stake. Wilson had been very popular, and he could not work his will in foreign affairs.

JIM LEHRER: Well, as they say in journalism, time will tell. Doris, gentlemen, thank you very much.% ? FOCUS - MORNING AFTER PILLS

JIM LEHRER: The FDA's approval of morning-after birth control pills. Rod Minott of KCETS-Seattle reports.

SPOKESPERSON: You can read through here and fill out this information.

ROD MINOTT: Stephanie Abbot is a Seattle pharmacist who's had permission to dispense morning-after pills in a pilot project. Before prescribing them, she counsels patients and gets their consent.

STEPHANIE ABBOT, Pharmacist: First, we need to determine if you're eligible for this service, so has it been within 72 hours since the unprotected intercourse occurred?

ROD MINOTT: Today the Food & Drug Administration approved the marketing and sale of emergency contraceptive pills. To be effective, emergency birth control pills must be taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse. It can take six to nine days for a fertilized egg to implant in a woman's uterus. The emergency contraception consists of certain combinations of ordinary birth control pills. It works by inhibiting or delaying fertilization and ovulation. Medical experts say the dose is 75 percent effective. And they claim it will not harm or terminate a pregnancy that's already established.

STEPHANIE ABBOT: The primary modes of action that it works by are not any different than the birth control pills that women take every day. It just-basically what it's doing is it's-you're taking a higher dose, so you take two pills, and then a 12-hour break and then two pills again, so you take four pills in one day. And what that's doing is it's bringing the levels up high enough to inhibit or delay ovulation.

ROD MINOTT: So far, Abbot has helped a dozen women.

STEPHANIE ABBOT: In a lot of cases it is a contraception failure, and, you know, the women are anywhere from, you know, teenagers to 45 has been the oldest woman that we've had in here.

ROD MINOTT: The Food & Drug Administration announced that certain combinations of birth control pills were safe and effective for use as emergency contraception. So-called "morning-after pills" have been common knowledge among medical experts for at least two decades. But many women in the United States remained unaware and misinformed about their use.

JANE HUTCHINGS, Emergency Contraception Pilot Project: I think probably one of the reasons is that there has not been a dedicated product; there has not been a set of pills packaged and labeled as emergency contraception, so it really was off-label prescribing of oral contraceptives. But it really took the FDA, I think, who a year ago on February 25th, put a notice in the Federal Register encouraging the use of emergency contraception to reduce unintended pregnancy that further stimulated awareness of this.

ROD MINOTT: In fact, the FDA's move was intended to encourage drug companies to start specifically marketing emergency contraceptive pills, but so far, only one drug company has reportedly sought FDA approval to do that. TV ads like this airing in the Seattle area are helping to raise awareness of emergency contraception among both men and women.

MALE IN AD: Oh-oh.

AD SPOKESPERSON: Sometimes even the best protection can fail. That's when you need emergency contraception. Call 1-888-NOT-2-LATE, or ask your health care provider for information.

FEMALE IN AD: Tell me you just didn't say oh-oh.

ROD MINOTT: A recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found awareness of emergency contraceptive pills remains low. 41 percent of men and women said they'd never heard of it. 90 percent of doctors said they do not talk to their patients about it during routine contraceptive counseling. As a result, only 1 percent of women report ever having used it. Family planning experts like Jane Hutchings say emergency contraception would also reduce abortions.

JANE HUTCHINGS: Well, in 1994, there were 2.65 million unintended pregnancies, and that was about 49 percent of all pregnancies. And of those unintended pregnancies, 54 percent ended in abortion. So there is a high level of unintended pregnancy.

ROD MINOTT: Maxine Hayes of the Washington State Health Department calls unintended pregnancies a public health problem.

MAXINE HAYES, Washington State Health Department: The data reveals that those mothers who have unintended pregnancy for one are more than likely not to access prenatal care early in their pregnancies and we know that when that happens, we fail to have the opportunities to change certain types of behaviors, nutrition, smoking, alcohol, exposures to the fetus that are harmful. We miss that opportunity.

ROD MINOTT: But pro-life groups say the emergency contraceptive method is equivalent to abortion. Camille DeBlasi heads Human Life of Washington State.

CAMILLE DeBLASI, Human Life of Washington State: There is a unique human being newly formed the moment fertilization occurs. Scientifically, biologically, medically, philosophically, we can arrive at that conclusion and see that there is a child that's being denied implantation, and he dies. So whether or not you're going to consider the woman pregnant, or how you're defining pregnancy, there was a child there, it was a live one, and then possibly by using this pill has died.

ROD MINOTT: Many medical experts, like family physician John Leversee, dispute allegations that the morning-after pill causes abortion.

DR. JOHN LEVERSEE, Family Physician: It slows down the transport time of the egg in the fallopian tube, so that it may not meet up with a sperm at a place and a time where fertilization can take place. So we feel that it's a contraceptive, and that it's not interfering with a fertilized egg.

ROD MINOTT: Reproductive health experts also raise another issue. The emergency contraception pills are not RU-486, also known as the abortion pill.

STEPHANIE ABBOT: The difference between the RU-486 and the emergency contraception is first of all, RU-486 is capable of terminating a pregnancy. The emergency contraception is not. It is only effective prior to implantation of the fertilized egg, or-and in a lot of cases it's not even fertilized-it's only preventative, and if a woman were to take it and she was pregnant, there would be no harm and no termination.

ROD MINOTT: Anti-abortion groups criticized today's FDA rulings, saying emergency birth control pills were unconscionable, but the New Jersey-based company that manufactures them said they'll be on the market later this month.% ? FINALLY - PROVIDE, PROVIDE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, NewsHour contributor and poet laureate of the United States, Robert Pinsky, contemplates the stock market.

ROBERT PINSKY, Poet Laureate: The recent dips and slides in the stock market remind us all, even if we're not affected directly, how scary money and our need for money can be. You might not think of the words "stock exchange" as likely to show in a poem. But here they are in a good one, Robert Frost's "Provide, Provide." "Provide, Provide, the witch that came, the withered hag, to wash the steps with pail and rag, was once the duty at the shag, the picture pride of Hollywood. Too many fall from great and good for you to doubt the likelihood. Die early and avoid the fate, or if predestined to die late, make up your mind to die in state. Make the whole stock exchange your own. If need be, occupy a throne, where nobody can call you crone. Some have relied on what they knew, others on simply being true. What worked for them might work for you. No memory of having starred atones for later disregard, or keeps the end from being hard. Better to go down dignified, with boughten friendship at your side, than none at all, provide, provide.% ? RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, President Clinton told Russian President Yeltsin the U.S. and other nations would give Russia more financial help but only if it stays on the path of democracy and economic reform. The two presidents wrapped up their summit in Moscow. And tropical storm Earl was upgraded to a hurricane as it moved Northeast toward the Florida Panhandle. A follow-up on Major League Baseball's homerun race, Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs hit number 56 this afternoon. He's now one behind Mark McGwire of the St. Louis Cardinals, who hit his 56th and 57th last night. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.