The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer from the Fleet Center in Boston, site of the Democratic National Convention. On the NewsHour tonight: We'll hear what issues are on the minds of delegates; then, pollster Andrew Kohut adds profile data about the Democrats; Dennis Kucinich, Jamie Rubin and Norm Dicks examine the Democratic approach to Iraq; Paul Solman goes on a Kerry economics walk with Laura Tyson; Michael Beschloss, Richard Norton Smith and Ellen Fitzpatrick offer some convention history; and Mark Shields and David Brooks do some first-night previewing. The non-convention news of this day will be at the end of the program tonight.

JIM LEHRER: The 2004 Democratic National Convention officially opened today in Boston. More than 4,300 delegates are here to nominate John Kerry for president and John Edwards for vice president. Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe gaveled the gathering into order this afternoon. Later, the presentation of the platform began. Former Defense Secretary William Perry called for more international involvement in Iraq.

WILLIAM PERRY: Without the strong support of our allies and partners, we simply cannot protect our security. We cannot rebuild Iraq alone. We cannot prevent nuclear proliferation alone. We cannot stop terrorism alone. We must isolate the terrorists, not isolate the United States.

JIM LEHRER: The platform also lays out the party's position on other issues. It calls for reforming the nation's intelligence system and rolling back the Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans. It also opposes amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. Tonight, the convention hears from Former Presidents Carter and Clinton, and Former Vice President Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000.

There have been scattered protests in Boston against the Iraq war and abortion. Activists are also suing in federal court over rules that limit them to a fenced-in zone; it's part of overall tight security to prevent attacks. The convention will not face picketing by police or firefighters. Both unions now have new labor agreements. Sen. Kerry officially arrives in Boston on Wednesday, but he made a surprise stop in the city last night. He threw out the first pitch at a Red Sox/Yankees game at Fenway Park.

Today, Kerry campaigned in Cape Canaveral, Florida. He appealed to Republicans and independents to stop and think about their choice in November. The chairman of the Republican Party charged today the Democratic Convention will attempt an "extreme makeover" of Sen. Kerry. Ed Gillespie said, "supporters want to disguise Kerry's liberal record, and paint him as a moderate instead."

FOCUS THE DELEGATES MISSION

JIM LEHRER: Now, what some of the delegates have on their minds as they gather here to nominate John Kerry and John Edwards. Gwen Ifill has our report.

Gwen.

GWEN IFILL: Good evening, Jim. The delegates who came to this convention here in Boston may once have supported Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt. But tonight they say they're united. They're all here to talk about health care and jobs and John Kerry.

GWEN IFILL: David McDonald how many conventions have you been to?

DAVID McDONALD: Everyone since 1980.

GWEN IFILL: How does this one seem different to you?

DAVID McDONALD: The hall is smaller. The delegates by and large are for the same candidate. I mean the factions are smaller. The enthusiasm level is really high. Bush has turned out, in fact, to be a great unifier in the country. He's unified just about everybody against him. And we're ready to getrid of him.

GWEN IFILL: So what are your big concerns as far as issues go?

DAVID McDONALD: I think making sure that we get a positive message out that John Kerry will be a great president. I mean the country has pretty much decided Bush is a bad one as far as I can tell. But they need to know that John Kerry will be a great one and he will be.

BEUNIA BROWN, New York: I think the convention is different because we live in a very, very taxing and trying times in America at the moment. I feel that health care, a good quality education for our youth, the environment are all important issues. And that's only to list a few of the very important issues that we as America must be concerned about. I believe John Kerry is the one to bring about the change that must come for all of America.

GWEN IFILL: You didn't mention the war or terrorism.

BEUNIA BROWN: Oh, my God. That is so painful. When I think about Iraq and the war and all the soldiers, young men and women dying for our country, it saddens me. I believe that in this global society that we live in, I think that it's much wiser, it's safer to negotiate. We need not be in a war.

GWEN IFILL: What are the issues that really drive you?

LARRY MULLINS: Two major ones. One of them is... major ones. One of them is personal. Kerry made a statement that he was going to stop so many jobs from going overseas and try to keep more jobs here in the United States. We need a lot more jobs. Example: If I may give an example is my own personal company went from 110 employees to 30 under this administration. To me, we need a change. So that's one driver. The other driver is I don't like the feeling of so many other countries hating our country. And right now there's a lot of hatred against the United States. And I'm hoping that Kerry and Edwards can change and have respect for the United States again.

GWEN IFILL: Has the debate changed within the Democratic Party?

DALE McCORMICK: I believe that Bush shifted the discussion from health care and domestic security and job security to fear and security from al-Qaida, which I don't think people think he provided. I do not think he provided. I think we are more insecure because of the way he has treated our allies, because of the way he has... pre-emptive policy for other nations. And we are less secure in terms of defense and definitely less secure in terms of health insurance and jobs. That's what I think has united the Democratic Party.

GWEN IFILL: Why are you involved in politics?

ERIN PARSON WRIGHT: I want to make a difference. I know it sounds sort of young and idealistic but I think that if I don't get involved who will. A professor I had in college said that to me once. I really do believe it and I really do feel like young people can change the world through politics.

GWEN IFILL: Those are some of the voices from the convention floor. Jim will be talking to delegates all week long.

FOCUS WHO ARE THE DEMOCRATS?

JIM LEHRER: More on the delegates and their party now, and to Terence Smith.

TERENCE SMITH: Just who are these Democrats? Andy Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center, has been looking into that. He joins me now. Andy, welcome.

We've just heard a few of the delegates in their own words talking about their attitudes, but profile the party for us a little more broadly than that as the Democrats come into this convention.

ANDREW KOHUT: They come in emotional. They come in angry. They come in unified. They come in expecting that they're going to defeat President Bush in November. Only two months ago 50 percent of them said we're... Kerry is going to win. That's now up to 66 percent. We see a lot of the Democrats' emotions and attitudes being driven by their opposition to George Bush.

TERENCE SMITH: You said they're unified. What do your surveys show you on that?

ANDREW KOHUT: Our surveys find that more Democrats name the Democratic Party as the best to deal with the economy, deal with foreign policy, deal with a whole range of issues compared to back in the elections of 2002. In fact, the country at large is feeling better about the Democratic Party. Democrats have made great gains relative to the Republicans as being seen as best able to deal with the economy and now even break-even with the Republicans on the issue of foreign policy. And a lot of that are Democrats themselves saying our party is in pretty good shape.

TERENCE SMITH: How do the delegates in the hall, generally speaking, compare to the Democrats in the party at large?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, no surprise and like most conventions, these Democrats are more liberal than Democrats around the country. But on the big issues-- on the economy, on Iraq, and on trade-- they're very much like Democrats around the country. If you look at abortion, if you look at the death penalty and civil liberties and those issues, the Democrats here in the hall are more liberal, more concerned about, for example, excesses in anti-terrorism efforts, sacrificing civil liberties.

TERENCE SMITH: When you ask them questions in your surveys about Iraq, about whether, for example, the United States should get out very quickly or stay in long enough as Sen. Kerry says to complete the job, what answers do you get?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, overwhelmingly 58 percent majority of Democrat Democrats say we should get out now and 40 percent say we should stay the course. That's just the reverse of public opinion at large where most Americans even though they're down on the decision to go to war still think we should stay the course.

TERENCE SMITH: Does that suggest that the party rank-and-file are a little ahead of John Kerry on this issue?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, there's a schism in the party among better educated Democrats, among men. There's more support for staying the course. In fact, majority support for staying the course. Among non-whites, among women, among less well educated Democrats they want out; they want out now. There is this split in the party.

TERENCE SMITH: What's their view, the Democrats, of the 9/11 Commission and its report which has caused such a stir in the country?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, it's strongly positive. 60 percent of Democrats approve of the 9/11 Commission. Oddly enough, for this season, that's exactly what the Republicans say. This commission really did get bipartisan support. The Democrats also have a pretty favorable view of the way the government is protecting the country against terrorist attacks. They don't have a favorable view of President Bush, however, mostly on the civil liberties issue -- very strong.

TERENCE SMITH: That's go to the first word you used, anger.

ANDREW KOHUT: Lots of anger. Lots of anger at Bush more so than we've seen in past elections for sure.

TERENCE SMITH: Final bottom line then. How does this affect what's often derisively called the horse race? Kerry vis- -vis Bush?

ANDREW KOHUT: All of these Democratic... positive Democratic signs notwithstanding, optimism, unity, bush approval rating is at 46 percent. The race is still tied.

TERENCE SMITH: It really hasn't moved.

ANDREW KOHUT: It hasn't moved.

TERENCE SMITH: Andy Kohut, thanks very much.

ANDREW KOHUT: You're welcome.

FOCUS KERRY FOREIGN POLICY

JIM LEHRER: Iraq and jobs, jobs and Iraq: Whatever the order, the pundits and the polls agree those, in shorthand, are the overriding issues of the 2004 presidential election. What do Kerry and the Democrats offer in each?

Well, Margaret Warner looks first at Iraq and the terrorism and national security issues that go with it.

MARGARET WARNER: And to explore that, I'm joined by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the war and based his losing bid for the Democratic nomination largely on that issue; Washington State Congressman Norm Dicks, a Democratic member of the Defense Appropriations Committee -- he supported the Iraq War; and Jamie Rubin, former assistant secretary of state for public affairs in the Clinton administration, hes now a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry.

And welcome to you all.

All right. Dennis Kucinich, there are many Democrats who did oppose the war. John Kerry voted for it. How does John Kerry now satisfy those Democrats, like yourself, people who supported you, and prevent them from going essentially to Ralph Nader?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, first of all as someone who led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the war in Iraq, there's one thing that I agree with, those such as Congressman Dicks who voted for the war, and that is this is George Bush's war. It's not John Kerry's war. George Bush has to bear the responsibility for the decision-making. Whether someone is for the war or against the war it's George Bush that has to take the responsibility for the war. And so this is George Bush's war; its not John Kerry's war.

MARGARET WARNER: And you think that will be progressive with very liberal progressive Democrats.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: No, were going to go beyond that. Were going to say that we understand that there are differences in our party. We're going to unite our party; were going to unite our party to elect John Kerry and then we're going to continue the debate within the Democratic Party.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. But Norm Dicks, talk about talking to voters like yourself from more conservative districts, military districts who supported the war and still aren't very comfortable with really, you know, hot anti-war rhetoric. How does John Kerry do both?

REP. NORMAN DICKS: I think John Kerry is doing a great job of talking about the fact that once the war was over -- we did very well the first three weeks -- but then once that part of the war was over and we got into dealing with this insurgency, it was obvious that we didn't have enough troops there. Gen. Shinseki said we should have had 200,000 troops there. We have nothing close to that. And we're struggling now to get the right number of forces there. John Kerry has pointed out that we don't have a true international coalition and that as president he would work harder to build that coalition. So those are two things that we can talk about.

MARGARET WARNER: Jamie Rubin, how hard is it and how does John Kerry essentially straddle these two factions or groups within the Democratic Party and at the same time appeal to independents on this issue?

JAMES RUBIN: Look, throughout the nominating process, this was a primary issue for the voters. And John Kerry ended up as the nominee because the voters concluded that all of us can agree that the way we went to war was wrong. The way George Bush took the country to war was wrong. He didn't exhaust diplomacy. He didn't build an international coalition. He didn't, as Congressman Dicks said, have enough forces to win the peace. I think everybody can agree on that. And when Kerry becomes President Kerry, I think the party understands that a failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the world, for the people of Iraq, and for the region. And he wants to succeed there.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. So what is the essential difference between John Kerry's approach going forward in Iraq and President Bush's that you're going to present to the voters?

JAMES RUBIN: Well, President Bush has forgotten that we can't do this alone. He's grudgingly at the last minute only after exhausting all the other alternatives asked for help. But having alienated the world, having broken treaty after treaty, having lost the respect of the United States it's very hard for George Bush to get help. If John Kerry were elected president, our allies are going to help us. He'll win back respect for the United States.

MARGARET WARNER: What assurances did you get, Dennis Kucinich, about what John Kerry wants to do going forward in return for or when you agreed to endorse him?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: There was no deal made. Look, I understand very clearly what Sen. Kerry's position is. I maintain that there are those of us inside the Democratic Party who will continue to oppose the war in Iraq, who will continue to call for the end of the occupation. But where we agree is that we need to get international involvement as a way of bringing our troops home. So there are some areas where we fit. But the bottom line here is --

MARGARET WARNER: But your supporters would like to get out theyre part of the group that Andy Kohut --

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: The New York Times said nine out of ten Democratic delegates, you know, oppose the war in Iraq. Now, I believe that we can keep that debate going inside the party but we're all going to unite on one question. And that is electing...you knowwho should be the next president of the United States. No question about that. It should be John Kerry.

REP. NORMAN DICKS: We've got troops in the field from all over this country who deserve our support, in my judgment. We should continue to support them. George Bush has burned his opportunity with all these other countries. What we need is a fresh start. And that's what Kerry can give us. He can go to NATO, he can go to the EU, he can ask these countries to rejoin this effort and help Iraq become a democracy.

MARGARET WARNER: So the bottom line, in other words, the Kerry message is I will be the new person, I will be the new president, I will be able to do what President Bush cannot because as you know he went to NATO and totally, not totally failed but failed to get help with other troops in Iraq.

REP. NORMAN DICKS: Yeah. And I think the reason he failed is because he has the same people opposing him that have opposed him all the way. Kerry would be... would give a new fresh start to this diplomatic effort. And these people are going to want to have a better relationship with the United States and so a new president can do something that the old president can't.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's broaden this out now to the whole issue of making America more secure and combating terror. And, Jamie Rubin, as you know in the polls even people who no longer give President Bush a very high approval rating still give him much higher marks on keeping America safe from terror than they do to John Kerry. How does John Kerry overcome that and persuade voters that he can keep them as safe or safer?

JAMES RUBIN: Well, that conversation begins this week. This is really the first time most voters are going to focus on the fact that John Kerry will fight a better and more effective war on terrorism. He'll use intelligence; he'll use law enforcement. And he'll use force as necessary. He'll use force first if necessary, but John Kerry will be able to get support from the rest of the world. There's no issue where it's clearer than this. You cannot win the war on terrorism without help from the rest of the world. John Kerry will get that help and win a more effective war on terror.

MARGARET WARNER: What would you say are the differences between President Bush and John Kerry on how they would fight the war on terror?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, let's first ask ourselves and Americans will ask themselves are we any safer today than we were four years ago? And I think whatever your political persuasion your answer to that is going to be no, we're not. Not only that, but there are those of us who feel very strongly that the positions that this administration has taken in not only the Patriot Act but this movement into creating a national security state -- even here at this convention you see the evidence of it -- is the wrong direction for a free society. But we are going to keep those debates within the Democratic Party and create a basis of support for John Kerry if he wants to change directions. So the important thing to remember about this election is the wisdom of Democrats who can still maintain our differences on policy but unite to elect John Kerry.

MARGARET WARNER: Let's take the 9/11 Commission report because John Kerry moved very quickly, in fact he suggested a national intelligence director, what, a week before the report came out. And he basically endorsed the recommendations. But just today the Bush administration is sending signals that they too are ready to move. Could President Bush essentially out flank John Kerry on that issue?

REP. NORMAN DICKS: Well, he's the president. He can always do an executive order. We need to make these changes. And the Commission has made we may need to make them now. Now I'm on the Homeland Security Committee and Im on the Defense Subcommittee.

This administration has failed in homeland security. I'm amazed that the American people don't get it. The Council on Foreign Relations laid it out -- that we haven't got any safer. The Commission said we're a little bit safer than we were three years ago but we're not safe. And we look at all the areas-- container security, border security, dealing with all these issues of how do you fund the firefighters and take care of these problems? How do you get better communications? In every area we're still extremely vulnerable. And it's shocking to me that somehow this administration has fooled the American people into thinking that therefore they're for homeland security. They have not done a good job, period.

MARGARET WARNER: The last question to you, and this has to do with Sen. Kerry's own record. As you know, the Republicans are saying he's weak on defense. Vice President Cheney's attacked him for voting against weapons systems. The president has for voting against intelligence. Is his long and, of course, mixed voting record an Achilles Heel now when he's trying to present himself as a credible commander in chief?

JAMES RUBIN: I think after this convention's over, the American people will see a man who served his country in war, who won awards and ribbons and medals for war, who served in that way, in ways that perhaps other people didn't. They'll see someone who understands national security. John Kerry understands the world we live in. He's been following it for 20 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he looks out at the world now and he has a better way to make America safe through intelligence, through homeland security plans, through use of force, if necessary, through getting the world to support us. He will convince the American people of that.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I think it should be said that if President Bush wants to make the charge that somehow John Kerry is weak on defense I think it's very easy to have the rejoinder that this administration isn't very smart about defense.

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

FOCUS KERRY ECONOMICS

JIM LEHRER: Now, the Kerry Democratic position on jobs and health care, more formally known as "the economy issue." Our economics correspondent Paul Solman of WGBH-Boston has that story.

PAUL SOLMAN: On Boston's ritziest shopping street, Laura Tyson, economic advisor to President Clinton, now speaking for the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

LAURA TYSON, Kerry-Edwards Economic Advisor: The focus is on Two Americas. We're walking down Newbury Street. Newbury Street captures the small number of Americans who have done very, very well.

PAUL SOLMAN: The Democrats are talking about the Bush-Cheney years as a new gilded age that's benefited the wealthy few at the expense of the many.

LAURA TYSON: Most Americans are struggling. They feel squeezed. They feel pressed. Their wages have not been rising; they've been falling. Their health care costs have been soaring. Their sense that they can provide opportunities to their children is diminishing.

PAUL SOLMAN: The Democrats' economic program is designed for what Tyson calls the "average" American.

PAUL SOLMAN: And by average American you mean?

LAURA TYSON: I mean most Americans. I want to say

PAUL SOLMAN: Most? 50 percent 60 percent --

LAURA TYSON: I would say that, look, 80 percent of Americans make $100,000 or less. This is an important thing to begin with.

PAUL SOLMAN: And so on convention eve, Tyson began the Democrats' guided tour of the Boston area in the working class suburb of Everettfilled with average-income Americans like John Ragucci, who spent 26 years at Fleet Bank, working his way up from messenger to communications specialist. He was laid off 13 months ago.

JOHN RAGUCCI: Probably put about 300 letters out. And no one responds, which is amazing. And I know technically I can go into a job and kick butt, but I'm not getting any bites.

PAUL SOLMAN: As we were talking, along came the daily mail.

JOHN RAGUCCI: Thank you. More bills. Bills that I can't pay. Thank you.

PAUL SOLMAN: Bills and, as it happens, one of John Ragucci's last unemployment checks. His benefits run out August 7.

JOHN RAGUCCI: I have, uh, Mass Electric. Oh I got my check from DET so thank you, I can pay for it. Thank you.

PAUL SOLMAN: What's it like now?

JOHN RAGUCCI: I feel inferior because I'm not working. I'm watching my wife go to work. I'm watching her work two jobs. And so what I do now is--I try to--is earn my keep. Ill do the domestic part. And there's a joke between, my wife calls me "Mrs. Ragucci" now. But she's trying to keep me up. And every day we just, okay, "something good's going to happen," and it doesn't. And you just kind of mope around.

PAUL SOLMAN: So what do the Democrats propose for dealing with people like him?

LAURA TYSON: Look, society, our society is looked at as a society which has -- the flexibility of the labor market is one of its great strengths. We can move people around -- that's flexibility. From the point of view of the average worker dislocated, it's pain and suffering. Society is better off because of the flexibility. But we've got to take those net benefits and share them with the individuals who go through the pain and suffering to give us a more flexible labor market.

PAUL SOLMAN: In theory a flexible, free labor market creates more for everyoneso there should be enough to compensate those who lose out in the process. The Democrats would target such people directly.

LAURA TYSON: First of all, we need to get employers creating jobs at a more rapid rate. So we've proposed a new jobs tax credit so that employers sitting in the United States saying, hmm, "I want to bring on a new worker, I have to pay a certain payroll tax for that worker," we would come along and say, "No, we'll actually pay the payroll tax, we'll give you a credit against that if you bring on a new worker" so that we can have more jobs.

The second thing is to think about what you do to help the worker in transition. So we are in favor of longer unemployment compensation terms, we are in favor of much more generous training assistance, much more generous relocation assistance.

PAUL SOLMAN: People get very scared, I think, when they hear Democrats use the term, you have to be "very generous."

LAURA TYSON: I dont see -- if you believe the benefits of flexibility are as great as our economic models suggest, I think most Americans would feel quite generous to helping workers who are dislocated in this particular way get training. That's actually to create their greater productivity for the future. To move to a better job -- that helps everybody.

PAUL SOLMAN: But the creation of better jobs, the Democrats say, is being stymied by yet another factor, especially when it comes to small businesses.

LAURA TYSON: America generates most of its jobs in small businesses

PAUL SOLMAN: And this is one of the city's most buoyant small business successes, Boston Duck Tours.

SPOKESPERSON: Captain Courageous.

PAUL SOLMAN: Cap'n Courageous?

PAUL SOLMAN: Tyson had arranged to take us aboard to explain the problem: that America's small businesses face rising health insurance bills, thus putting a damper on job creation.

CINDY BROWN, General Manager, Boston Duck Tours: Our insurance costs have gone up 30 percent a year for the last three years.

PAUL SOLMAN: 30 percent a year?

CINDY BROWN: 30 percent. That's a huge increase that, you know, we can only raise our ticket price so much, we can only sell so many Duck Tour t-shirts.

PAUL SOLMAN: One problem for a small business like this - 125 employees in peak season - is if a few of them get very ill, like 67-year-old Captain Courageous himself.

RICHARD CLERMONT: I had cancer of my kidneys, in both my kidneys; one of the kidneys was removed, the other one was partially removed. Also, I had a stent put into one of the arteries that went to my heart, you know. So those are all pretty serious items that I had done. So I'm sure it cost the insurance companies a lot of money and I was glad to have that insurance.

PAUL SOLMAN: Supplementing Medicare, Duck Tours' private insurance has kept the Captain at the helm. But cases like his drive up insurance premiums so that they become too heavy a load for a small company to carry.

LAURA TYSON: What Sen. Kerry has proposed is taking the insurance risk of those catastrophic cases and having that risk be taken on by the government. So any employer would see their premiums go down by as much as $1000 per employee covered as a result of having the insurance of these catastrophic cases being taken on by the government itself.

PAUL SOLMAN: But a federal system reeks of bureaucracy, at least in my imagination.

LAURA TYSON: In this particular case, a national pool is actually more efficient than having each firm do it themselves.

PAUL SOLMAN: Back on dry land, Tyson had one last thing to say about the Kerry health care plan, and produced one last case in point: Jackie West who, after losing her full-time job and now working 20 hours a week at $8 an hour, is about to become one of 40-some-odd million Americans with no health insurance at all.

JACKIE WEST: I just had to end my coverage as of July 31. I just can't keep going with it.

PAUL SOLMAN: How much was the coverage?

JACKIE WEST: $661.81 per month, which included prescription coverage.

PAUL SOLMAN: But wait, you making $8 an hour, 20 hrs a week -- $160, $320 - that's barely $660 a month in total income! Literally every penny would go to cover your health insurance.

JACKIE WEST: It's been, it's been crazy, especially, that $661 is after-tax money. And the amount you're calculating per hour

LAURA TYSON: Youre right.

JACKIE WEST: -- is before the taxes are taken out.

LAURA TYSON: Good point.

PAUL SOLMAN: So Sen. Kerry is proposing relief for the working poor: for one thing, a 36 percent rise in the minimum wage, which should lift all lower-income Americans, says Laura Tyson. Plus

LAURA TYSON: A variety of programs - tax credits - thru which a minimum wage worker or someone close to the minimum wage can get health insurance, and generous earned income tax credit relief.

PAUL SOLMAN: And the net effect would be?

LAURA TYSON: Under Sen. Kerry's proposals, 95 percent of Americans would be insured. The 5 percent who would end up not insured would almost all be people who chose not to be insured - young workers don't expect to be sick, don't want to pay the money. 99 percent of America's children would be insured.

PAUL SOLMAN: So who's going to pay for that? It must be a huge tab to make that possible.

LAURA TYSON: Sen. Kerry has been very clear. He would get the resources by rolling back the tax cuts that President Bush has introduced for families with $200,000 or more income a year.

By the way, just to point out how generous those tax cuts have been to the well-off, this year, families that earned a million dollars or more will get a tax cut of $135,000. That's more than almost all Americans make in a single year.

PAUL SOLMAN: And so Laura Tyson ended her tour as she began: with the theme of the Two Americas and the Democrats' ambition to narrow the gap between them. But, we reminded her, we've been doing pre-convention economics pieces on the NewsHour for the past 12 years now - several of them with Tyson herself as tour guide - Chicago in '96, LA in 2000 -- and not everything we've been told actually came to pass.

LAURA TYSON: Go back to 1992. What President Clinton was saying as a candidate, he was saying if you work hard and play by the rules, you should have an income which is adequate to get your family out of poverty. He put in place earned income tax credit expansion, increase in the minimum wage, increase in support for child-care, he helped Americans bring their families out of poverty. That was part of his commitment. It was done.

Fast forward to 2000: 2000, President Bush says essentially, regardless of what happens, my first priority is to cut the marginal tax cut, particularly for the upper income group. That is my priority. That is what he did.

PAUL SOLMAN: The point is, says Tyson: promises have been kept.

LAURA TYSON: So listen to what John Kerry says. His priorities are jobs; his priorities are health care; his priorities are education; his priorities are helping American families make it and deliver opportunities to their children.

PAUL SOLMAN: So that's the economic platform the Democrats will showcase when they open their convention here in Boston. It's a platform that promises to create 10 million jobs in the next four years, extend health care benefits and cut the federal deficit in half. The Democrats say they'll pay for it all with tax hikes on the wealthy. Republicans contest the numbers. But the basics of the platform are pretty clear, as the party begins its push to recapture the White House in 2004.

FOCUS CONVENTION HISTORY

JIM LEHRER: Now some history, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: And I'm joined by NewsHour regulars and presidential historians Michael Beschloss and Richard Norton Smith. Also with us tonight: Ellen Fitzpatrick, professor of history at the University of New Hampshire.

Well, panel, tonight we'll hear from the party's 2000 nominee, two previous Democratic presidents, Clinton and Carter, but we won't hear from, interestingly, Michael Dukakis who after all is a favorite son, former governor of Massachusetts. Have parties all been selective about what parts of their past they want to embrace and what parts they want to remember, Michael?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: They have been. I mean, the people who are here tonight are here for a reason. Al Gore reminds Democrats of an election that a lot of them think was stolen from them, 2000. Jimmy Carter, although defeated in 1980, a very popular ex-president and since the last convention a Nobel Laureate, and of course, Bill Clinton who won two terms, the first Democratic president to do so in decades, So these are people who can bring people behind John Kerry. They can do something for him. Others like Michael Dukakis does not have very many lingering followers. That's why someone like Dukakis is absent tonight.

RAY SUAREZ: And when we look at the past, do we see patterns like this in both parties?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Sure we do. You know, the theme of this evening is America remembers. And apparently the first thing America is going to remember is the Florida recount but America's memory is going to be somewhat selective at the same time. That's bipartisan. It's a tradition. Tom Dewey is a symbol of political futility for Republicans. He lost the '48 election, famously snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Four years later he was back leading the Eisenhower forces. There was a very dramatic moment of confrontation when Ev Dirksen, the leader of the anti-Dewey, the Taft forces, stood at the podium, pointed his finger melodramatically and said we followed you twice and you took us down the path of defeat. The place went wild, booing, hissing, cheering. Dewey was imperturbable because he knew he had the votes and Eisenhower wins the nomination. Dewey every four years later showed up to give an increasingly nostalgic sentimental appearance before the convention. In some ways I say the Democrats are more ruthless than the republicans. Dewey got to come back every four years which is more than you can say for George McGovern, Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis.

RAY SUAREZ: President Carter, Ellen Fitzpatrick, he is someone who might not have been invited to previous get- togethers but he's playing a big role at this one.

ELLEN FITZPATRICK: He is. The timing of all of this is very interesting. These are the ghosts of conventions past. Having these ex-presidents on the -- or candidates on the first night of the convention is deliberate, I think. It's meant to put some distance between them and John Kerry. This way they will neither overshadow nor burden the new candidate.

In 1968, LBJ, who was a sitting president, was asked not to attend the convention. He had great interest in the convention even though he had already decided that he had withdrawn from the race. But there were suggestions that he was harboring ideas that he might come on a flying carpet into the convention and be drafted at the final moment despite the enormous division in the party. So attempts are made to honor and to represent these candidates and ex-presidents but to do so from a safe distance, I think.

RAY SUAREZ: But there are people who grow in stature over time and get a second look, Michael?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Carter is an example. Because in 1984 Carter spoke to the Democrats in San Francisco but they didn't give him a great time slot. They had Mo Udall, the congressman from Arizona who had been defeated by him in 1976 almost get up in his introductory speech before Carter and plead with the delegates to give Carter a warm welcome saying, please, join me in honoring this good man, almost as if he was coaxing them not just to look at Carter as a loser. Nowadays Carter is a huge asset for John Kerry.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Fitzpatrick, as we look back at a century-and-a-half of these things since they they've become an institutionalized part of our politics, apart from the jumbo tron screens and the nationwide satellite audience, how have they changed?

ELLEN FITZPATRICK: They've changed enormously in that the conventions are no longer a place where we can expect to see the unexpected. They've become highly scripted, highly ritualized affairs. It's a kind of theater that we watch tonight. And Americans will tune in to their television and this will be the show of the evening. In the old days before the primary system assumed the role that it has assumed today, there were possibilities for surprises to occur -- in both candidates, for president and for vice president. The primary system which was intended to open up the process has in many ways drained the conventions of their drama and significance.

RAY SUAREZ: And when were those changes made in the formula?

ELLEN FITZPATRICK: Really after 1968, and the challenges to the rules. But really as early as the early 20th century in 1903 when Wisconsin instituted a presidential primary, this was an attempt to take the process out of the smoke- filled rooms and give it to the people and allow them to pick the candidates. And as soon as that process began, over the course of the last 100 years, we've seen gradually the shift occur.

RAY SUAREZ: So now Richard we know who the nominee is going to be long before the convention. But if we look at that party purpose, have there been examples where a fractured and somewhat confused parties have come together to meet and marched out the door at the other end of the event ready to run a national campaign?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: It's much more likely the other way around. I mean, the reason why these are, quote, scripted infomercials to use a popular phrase and I think a trivializing phrase really is because of the power of television. Forty years ago in 1964 the Republicans tore themselves apart on national TV between the Goldwater and Rockefeller wings in San Francisco. In 1968, it was the Democrats' turn in Chicago with riots inside and outside the hall. In 1972, the McGovern convention wasso chaotic that the nominee didn't get on the air to make his acceptance speech until 3:00 in the morning. Americans were watching at home and they said if you can't run a convention, how can you run a country? Parties exist to win elections. It's not surprising given the power of television and the pictures to affect the electoral equation that they would decide to change the rules. And that's why these are increasingly televised, made for television productions. The other thing is you know what? There's a lot of misplaced nostalgia about the old conventions. Remember the two-thirds rule in the Democratic Party in 1936? There were very few women delegates, very few African-American delegates. There were smoke-filled rooms. There were bosses. H. L. Mencken had a great time; he said they combined the better features of a camp revival and a hanging but that was then. Now is now. This is important.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, there's that misplaced nostalgia and also along with that you see the obituary written for the major party convention every four years or so. How do you explain their persistent necessity and their persistent strength?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: It has a different role. Nowadays campaigns are run largely on television. One way that Americans find out about candidates are the presidential debates in the fall. The other is the party conventions so what you're watching is not conflict like 1968; Democrats in Chicago. What you're watching is the party as it wishes to be seen. We'll see that tonight. You begin to ask the question, why is it that they want to put out Clinton and Gore and Jimmy Carter? What does that tell you about the way the Democrats would like to be seen in 2004? One thing that's an obvious cue to the mystery, they want to seem this week a center party. They don't want people to think of this as the party of George McGovern and other of niece these nominees that will not be there tonight.

RAY SUAREZ: Thanks all and let's have a great convention.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Look forward to it.

ELLEN FITZPATRICK: Thank you.

FOCUS SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, how it all looks to Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks. Mark, what do you think tonight is all about, the two former presidents and the former vice president Al Gore?

MARK SHIELDS: Well I think the historians put it well, Jim. There is a certain obligation to the party's history and tradition. First of all, only two Democrats have won the White House in the past 40 years. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- they're both speaking here tonight. A third some Democrats still licking their wounds in this hall and in the country won more votes in 2000 but did not win the White House. That's Al Gore. So....

JIM LEHRER: He won more popular votes but not more electoral votes.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right. He lost 5-4 as Democrats are fond to say in the Supreme Court.

JIM LEHRER: That's another vote.

MARK SHIELDS: But I really think that it is again as was said well, it's an attempt to put the party forward as a mature, harmonious, responsible group. Good conventions make great coverage. They don't make for terrific results in November, whether it's the '68 Democrats.

JIM LEHRER: You mean great conventions in terms of conflict disorder.

MARK SHIELDS: Republicans in '76 in Kansas City with Reagan and Ford. '64 at the palace. I think that's what it's about. In a strange way, the people who are speaking here tonight play a lot better in the hall than they do in the country. I mean, Bill Clinton is more popular in this room and among Democrats than he is in the country at large and probably not nearly as much help as John Edwards will be in reaching independent and undecided voters.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think tonight is about, David?

DAVID BROOKS: First of all it is about building tribal identity. Party identity is incredibly powerful. People are more connected to the party than the ideas or the convictions political scientists show. They have to show what kind of party this is and you have to go back through history. I wish they would go back to FDR, LBJ and civil rights than they seem more likely to.

JIM LEHRER: When you say I'm a Democrat they want the folks to have something to say.

DAVID BROOKS: How do people choose their party or their opinions? They don't say what do I believe? Which party is most like me? That's how people form party affiliation. That's about establishing the personality of the party. To me the fun about tonight is how unpredictable it might be. I think this is the most unpredictable night because Al Gore is going to come on. The last couple months he's been walking on the edge of a wall. You don't know what he'll say. And then Bill Clinton operates by his own rules. You don't know what he'll say. To me these two little events are sort of the most fun we're going to have.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of fun or lack of, whatever, what is your thought about why they decided to open, literally open the convention, prime time, with Al Gore?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think, you know, they're under the illusion that he's the martyr. He won the election and it was stolen away. I do think that's the wound that's still to be healed. I think the other thing with Clinton and Gore is they're going to have a little battle of the decades here: The '90s, peace, prosperity, safer. 2000 is not so great. So I think we're going to see that theme played up. The 1990s were just a much better time than we've had under George Bush.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read the Gore selection to lead off as a lead-off batter?

MARK SHIELDS: It is central to Democrats especially to the most partisan Democrats who still believe that Al Gore was deprived of the... and there's a certain poignancy. The Gore people really believe that this would be his re-nomination convention. So there is that personal poignancy about this. I think the idea that the sense of impressing upon people and what Andy Kohut and others have told us is an intensely close election that every vote truly does count. There's no more human and really emotional reminder of that to Democrats and Democrat- leaning voters than Al Gore.

JIM LEHRER: David, do you see the Democratic Party as unified as Kucinich and Norm Dicks demonstrated as Andy Kohut said?

DAVID BROOKS: When you see those two it's like the North and the South embracing in the middle of Gettysburg. It's emotionally unified. Theres no bad blood I've detected. People on various wings of the party feel united against Bush and for Kerry. Intellectually it's a little more complicated. The party is united but often against the positions that John Kerry stands for. There have been a series of polls of the delegates. 90 percent oppose the war. A large majority support gay marriage. 90 percent are in favor of rolling back the entire Bush tax cuts. The delegates are far more liberal than what John Kerry is. Non-less the he's been able to finesse that. They're will to go say you adopt the positions you need to adopt to get elected, then we'll worry about ourselves.

JIM LEHRER: This is unique time in Democratic Party history if that's true.

MARK SHIELDS: You could say it's Howard Dean's convention and John Kerry's candidacy.

JIM LEHRER: What do you mean?

MARK SHIELDS: I think that the delegates do reflect what Howard Dean stood for. Howard Dean was the catalyst who defined the year of 2004 for the Democrats. I mean, the Democrats really were, I think, terrified of being accused of being soft on terror. The president stood astride the planet and Howard Dean was the voice who stood up and was heard and millions of Democrats got behind him, sent dollars and dimes in. Oh, my God this candidacy took off like a rocket. I think it sort of paved the way for others to say, well, maybe I disagree.

DAVID BROOKS: That's a weakness because the core values of the people in this room are not being represented by the candidate; the core passions. So this is a part of the candidacy really run by a professionalized elite that is taking certain positions to go towards the center and be elected but it's not the passion of the party. So the party is has hired Kerry in a prudential way. Win this for us. Then we'll worry about what you really believe.

MARK SHIELDS: I don't think it's quite that cynical, Jim. Let me just say one thing. I think the Democratic voters in 2004 made a decision like I had never seen Democratic primary voters make in my experience. And that was they made a calculated decision that they wanted somebody who could beat George W. Bush, who could compete with him on commander in chief credentials. John Kerry because of his own biography and because of his own personal heroism met that test. I mean, they made a decision not based on emotion and not based on sentiment. They said, look, this guy has the best chance of beating the fellow who is in there which is of paramount concern to them.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, thats what I really meant; I used the word prudential; you said calculated. But it's just a mood, a mood of thinking of thoughtfulness rather than pure crusade let's go out there.

MARK SHIELDS: Okay.

JIM LEHRER: Were as struck as I was about Kucinich really would not criticize John Kerry. He said what we want to do is get John Kerry elected and then we'll worry about our differences.

MARK SHIELDS: George W. Bush deserves enormous credit. Norm Dicks, Washington state, one of the strongest, most hawkish Democrats in the House and Dennis Kucinich one of the most dovish joining arm in arm with Margaret Warner, in front of Margaret Warner on the NewsHour tonight proves that George W. Bush is a uniter. I mean, if he can unite Dicks and Kucinich he's doing a hell of a job.

DAVID BROOKS: I agree with that but I think it's Margarets influence. The other thing is that this... people are different in parties now. They get a message from the... this is the message of the day. And they're much more likely to think as media players than people who I think delegates were before. You go to any delegate and they'll tell you the same thing. It doesn't matter whether... where they're from. You don't know if it's their heart or the message they were told to tell you.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with what Jamie Rubin said in that same discussion that much of what this week is about is telling the American people what John Kerry can do to make this country more secure, from terrorism, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera --

DAVID BROOKS: This is what I want to know. Do they understand the nature of al-Qaida and the attack? I think what they want to show is there will be no Dukakis guy in a tank moments in this campaign. This is a strong candidate, strong party, manly macho men. They're going to be quite tough, much tougher than the audience would like to hear but this isn't the audience. The audience is through the camera.

JIM LEHRER: So theyre introducing him as well.

MARK SHIELDS: Making the case for John Kerry and the Democratic party. Slight stumble at Fenway Park. John Kerry should not have thrown out the ball. I mean it's a cardinal rule of politics, no politician ever gets introduced at any athletic event. Guaranteed boos. He got them in his hometown and then didn't even reach home plate with his throw. Of course that will be contrasted with George W. Bush in the third game of the 2001 World Series in Yankee Stadium after 9/11 standing there on the mound and firing a strike.

JIM LEHRER: Right down the middle.

MARK SHIELDS: Absolutely.

JIM LEHRER: Gosh, Mark, that's really profound.

DAVID BROOKS: Now we're getting to the core of politics.

JIM LEHRER: Don't go away. Thank you for now.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: In the non-convention news of this day, a suicide car bomber killed at least three civilians in Iraq. It happened outside a U.S. Military base in Mosul. Three U.S. soldiers were wounded. In Basra, two Iraqi women working for British forces were shot to death on their way to work. And in Baghdad, gunmen killed a senior official from the interior ministry in a drive-by attack. Kidnappers in Iraq released an Egyptian diplomat today. He was abducted Friday. But other militants warned they would kill two Jordanian men. In a video, the hostages asked their company to cut ties with the U.S. Military; otherwise, they'll be killed within 72 hours. In a separate video, kidnappers extended the deadline for seven other hostages seized last week. They work for a Kuwaiti company.

President Bush may move quickly on some of the recommendations in the 9/11 Commission's report. The Washington Post reported that today. It said Mr. Bush is considering executive orders to improve sharing of intelligence, and to impose stricter controls at airports and border crossings.

In Indonesia today, officials announced the country's first direct presidential election has

ended in a runoff. Incumbent President Megawati placed second in the first round of balloting. She won just over a quarter of the votes. Her one-time security minister-- a former general-- was first, with over one-third of the votes. Their runoff election will be in September.

In U.S. economic news, the initial public offering of Google stock will be worth up to $3.3 billion. The Internet search company filed papers today with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It plans to sell more than 24 million shares, about 9 percent of its total stock. The estimated price range is $108 to $135 per share. The sale is expected in August.

On Wall Street today: The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost a fraction of a point to close below 9962; the NASDAQ fell ten points to close at 1839.

American cyclist Lance Armstrong is now the only man to win the Tour de France six times. The 32-year-old Texan won Sunday for the sixth year in a row. He crossed the Paris finish line more than six minutes ahead of the second-place rider. The race covered 2,000 miles and lasted three weeks.

RECAP

MARK SHIELDS: We'll see you online, and again at 8:00 P.M. Eastern time with our live coverage of opening night of the Democratic national convention here in Boston, then again here at our regular NewsHour time tomorrow evening. For now, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.