The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening from the United Center in Chicago. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, full coverage of the Democratic convention, including a special look at who are the Democrats of 1996, as seen by Housing Secretary Cisneros and other Democrats and by Haynes Johnson, Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Bill Kristol, plus a David Gergen dialogue, and the analysis of Mark Shields & Paul Gigot. We'll have the other non- convention news of this Monday at the end of the program tonight. CONVENTION 96

MR. LEHRER: The Democratic convention opened here today at the United Center in Chicago. More than 4900 delegates and alternates have come to re-nominate President Clinton and Vice President Gore and to do the other business of their every four years convention. On their program this first evening a tribute to the late Ron Brown, who was chairman of the party when it met the last time in 1992, plus speeches by gun control advocate Sarah Brady, actor Christopher Reeve, and then a greeting from President Clinton aboard a train in Toledo, Ohio. That train is called the 21st Century Express. The President is making stops along the way to Chicago, making policy announcements as he goes. Today's issue was crime. He spoke at a police academy in Columbus, Ohio, about gun control. Surrounded by uniformed officers, he proposed expanding the ban on the sale of handguns to those convicted of domestic violence.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I believe strongly in the right of Americans to own guns. I have used them as a hunter with great joy, but make no mistake, those who threaten the safety of others do not deserve our trust. If you're convicted of a felony, you shouldn't have one; if you're a fugitive from the law, you shouldn't have a gun; if you're stalking or harassing women or children, you shouldn't have a gun; and if you commit an act of violence against your spouse or your child, you shouldn't have a gun.

MR. LEHRER: First Lady Hillary Clinton was already in Chicago making the rounds at convention-related events in her home town. This morning, she spoke to the Arkansas delegation, warning the campaign ahead will not be easy and that Republicans will throw everything they can at us. Later she addressed the Democratic Women's Caucus and the Democratic Governors Association National Policy Forum. Mrs. Clinton told them there was nothing more important to America's future than its children.

HILLARY CLINTON: If we are going to put children first, then we all need to take responsibility. We can't just say we love children and they are our future. We have to mean it. We have to put actions behind our words. We have to not just use the rhetoric of family values, but we have to do what values families in every state in the country.

MR. LEHRER: Vice President Gore was also in Chicago today. He attacked the Republican Congress in appearances before the New York, Wisconsin, and Latino delegations. Gore accused Republicans of trying to slash Medicaid, education, and environmental programs.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: No surprises where Bob Dole is concerned, or where Bill Clinton is concerned. Both have records. Both have a vision that has been presented to the American people. What we have seen on the other side with the Dole-Gingrich Congress has been a travesty, ladies and gentlemen. This two-headed monster of Dole and Gingrich with equal portions of audacity and ignorance has launched an all out assault on working families in the United States of America.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the convention news of this day. Now it's on to an extended look at who these Democrats are. FOCUS - CONVENTION 96 - PARTY LINES

MR. LEHRER: We begin with an interview with a key member of President Clinton's cabinet, Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Henry Cisneros. Charlayne Hunter-Gault talked with him a short while ago.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary, thank for joining us.

HENRY CISNEROS, Secretary, Housing & Urban Development: Thank you, Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How has the Democratic Party changed since you entered politics over a decade ago?

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: Well, I think it's changed considerably. I came into politics in the 1970's in the wake of the George McGovern years when the party had a definably liberal tilt. And today I think the Democratic Party is a kind of a mainstream, centrist party. Certainly the main leaders of the party, the President, the Vice President, major congressional figures all have shared a tilt toward people's needs, but at the same time an understanding of how the economy works and business works. It isn't the party of the labor unions exclusively, as it once might have been characterized, because labor has declined in size in the country. And there is a need not just to rely on that tried and true post World War II base but to reach to a broader spectrum of the country. So I think the Democratic Party in the 70's, 80's, and certainly now under President Clinton is the party that holds the center.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, is liberalism as a force dead within the party?

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: No, I don't think that liberal values are dead. In fact, I think they inform a good deal of what we tried to do.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And by that, what do you mean, liberal values?

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: Liberal values of compassion for people, of standing for the little guy, the family in need. But I think that we have transitioned from an era when guarantees of outcomes has given way to creation of opportunity, so that thePresident talks about opportunity, responsibility, and community being our central values today, as opposed to a day when let's say in the early 70's it might have been thought that the Democrats stood for guaranteed incomes, regardless of willingness to work, for example, or guaranteed financial assistance for lifetime, which we found in subsequent years bred independence. And so today these values of, of opportunity put people where the opportunities are, require responsibility, and then recognize that it's not just individuals fighting for themselves but a community effort, put those things together, and I think that defines the Democrats in 1996.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, how does that differ from the Republicans, because that's what they're saying they believe?

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: Well, I think considerably, considerably. Uh, first of all--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is the main difference?

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: The main difference is they stand for sort of rugged individualism and let people sort of sink or swim, and we stand for community values. They stand for always tilt toward a business, when it comes to writing environmental laws let the corporate lobbyists write the environmental laws versus an understanding of a balancing of the environment and jobs, for example, as Vice President Gore has so ably demonstrated. The difference between, for example, leaving the housing markets to house people versus focusing on assistance to families who are homeless or in--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, the classic difference has always been the difference in the perception of the role of government. How do you see that difference now? Is it narrowed?

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: Oh, I--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Because throughout--excuse me--throughout Democratic platform there is constant reference to small government, less government, and that's always been the Republican refrain.

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: I think that what the Democratic Party has gravitated to--and I think this is the absolute core of it--is what President Clinton has called the third way or a middle way--a middle ground between the old New Deal configuration and on the other hand, the Republican individualistic configuration and the middle ground is smaller government but more role for community institutions and churches and families and a greater reliance upon a more entrepreneurial government that is a partner with communities. In other words, Charlayne, instead of top down, we will give you all the money, a partner, a facilitator, we'll provide the glue that helps you put a community strategy together.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But hasn't that led to some new divisions within the party? I mean, not everybody in the party is happy with that move toward the center.

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: Well, that may be true, but I think it is also an--accurate to say that's where the country is going, that the American people have watched where corporate America has gone, and recognize that a lot can be done at the local level. They have gotten tired of the huge bureaucracies and the ways to have little patience for that anymore. And there may be some in our party who haven't understood that, but my guess is that the majority of Democrats understand President Clinton's ideology quite well.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, how do you reassure those, or what's your strategy for dealing with those who feel that the Democratic Party has abandoned the little people, the poor people? They cite the welfare bill and its treatment of, of poor people, of legal immigrants, Hispanics, say they're being made scape goats for all the country's economic problems.

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: Well, I think there's just--there's a lot of evidence of the Democratic Party's willingness to use the powers of government for people. Whether it's the action, for example, that the President announced today to--where domestic violence exists, to deny handguns so that we don't allow domestic violence to spread from a beating to a murder with weapons. I mean, these are the examples of how we use government entrepreneurially and helpfully to help people, and there's lots--I think the trick in these times is to tailor the role of government commensurate with our budget and our pocket book, but keep it active and working for people in constructive ways.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How about minorities and urban poor? Now the Republicans say they're going after those votes and that they shouldn't--blacks and urban people shouldn't be taken for granted. Are you threatened at all about this new outreach of inclusiveness?

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: No. I think their record is so bad from 1994 to 1995 when they got the chance to govern, when they were given the House and the Senate for the first time in a generation, what they did was try to undo the environmental laws and try to cut off housing assistance and try to cut back funding for head start and try to reduce the Department--cut out the Department of Education and all of these key things. I think it's very, very clear.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In a quick word--and this is unfair to you-- but what is the goal of this convention?

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: I think the goal of this convention is to take the differences that exist within the Democratic Party, try to forge a fabric out of that, and then go forward to the country by Labor Day and on through the campaign with the united message that defines who we are and what our President wants to do in the next four years.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary, thank you.

SEC. HENRY CISNEROS: Thank you. FOCUS - CONVENTION 96 - PARTY LINES

MR. LEHRER: Now to three other Democratic perspectives on the Democratic Party and to Margaret Warner.

MS. WARNER: Those perspectives come from three long-time Democratic activists who reflect the different strains within the party. Al From is the president of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats founded in 1985, and at one time chaired by then Governor Bill Clinton; Robert Borosage is a founder and co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, an organization of liberal and progressive Democrats. Ann Lewis is deputy manager of the Clinton-Gore Campaign. Previously, she served as political director of the Democratic National Committee and worked on Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign. Welcome, all of you. Al From, we just heard Secretary Cisneros define the Democratic Party. Do you agree with him? Who do you think the Democrats are today?

AL FROM, Democratic Leadership Council: I think the Democrats today are ordinary hard working citizens who go to work every day, play by the rules, who want a chance to get ahead, people who believe in a new social compact that guarantees opportunity for every American, says that every American is responsible for his or her own life as well, that sees us all in this together to foster a new sense of community in the country.

MS. WARNER: Do you feel that you and people like yourself and the DLC have been able to re-shape the party then?

AL FROM: I think we had some influence on the party, but President Clinton has re-shaped the party. President Clinton has redefined the social compact to be a compact, as Sec. Cisneros said, of opportunity, responsibility, and community.

MS. WARNER: Bob Borosage, how do you see it?

ROBERT BOROSAGE, Campaign for America's Future: Well, I think to think about the Democratic Party look at the delegates on the floor. It's the party of inclusion, as opposed to the Republican Party, which was 98 percent white. It's the party of working people. One fifth of these delegates are union representatives. One fifth of the Republican Party were millionaires. It's the party of people who are representative of the great bulk of working poor and middle class Americans across the country.

MS. WARNER: But do you think--I mean, if you look at polling numbers about these delegates versus Democratic voters in this country, in fact, this group is much more liberal than Democrats as a whole and much more liberal than--they don't like a lot of the policies that Bill Clinton has been promoting in welfare and other things.

ROBERT BOROSAGE: I think the party generally is more liberal. Also, the votes across the country are more liberal. For instance, in the South, we used to have a segregationist party that was a wing of the Democratic Party. Those conservatives really have lost or retired, and the Democratic Party in the South is now a party of, of inclusion and the populist party. And so I think the party in general has been slowly moving in a more progressive fashion.

MS. WARNER: I mean, do you think this is becoming more centrist, or more liberal? We just heard Sec. Cisneros say, in fact, it had moved away from the liberalism that--

ROBERT BOROSAGE: Well, he was talking about the--I mean, everyone likes to define themselves into the center in the middle of a political year. And the Democratic Party wants to be the center of this political debate, and in many ways represents the center against a very extreme ring wing assault by the Gingrich-Dole Congress. And so this election this fall will, in fact, be defined by a choice between a right wing alternative which really went after government, after Medicare, after education, after the environment, and a party that represents both liberals and centrists unified in rejecting that alternative.

MS. WARNER: It sounds like you've brought the liberals and progressives over to your view.

ANN LEWIS, Clinton-Gore Campaign: I think the fact is you've just heard there is so much that we agree on. Al began by talking about responsibility, opportunity, community. Democrats agree on expanding opportunity. That's why for us economic policy includes education because education is the path to high wage jobs and a better future. We talk about rewarding responsibility. That's where we fought so hard to raise the minimum wage. People who work hard every day ought to be able to raise their family in dignity. And we have the party of community, inclusion, diversity, understanding that our strength as a nation is in valuing and respecting our differences. And the last piece I'd say that Democrats agree on is that for us I think government is the sum of the obligations we owe to one another. Government is not the enemy. Government can enable us to give us the tools by which we meet responsibilities in our own lives.

MS. WARNER: I don't want to rain on this show of unity, but Bob Borosage, I have to ask you, you didn't like the President signing the welfare reform bill, did you?

ROBERT BOROSAGE: Oh, no. I think the capitulation to the Gingrich welfare bill is a shameful act and a truly wrongheaded one. But, look, most Democrats, what Newt Gingrich did to this party is what no Democrat could do. He unified it and mobilized it. And our differences, while significant on many different things, are much less than our differences with the threat, the quite clear and present danger posed by Gingrich and Dole. And that's the choice this fall. That's why you see this sort of eerie unity in this convention because people understand the stakes this fall are very high. And I think what you're going to have is an election this fall that rejects an alternative which is against government. It rejects an alternative which is against activist government, and so it is, in fact, not a reassertion of a new conservative Democratic Party. It is rather a defense of activist government and a government that stands for the people.

MS. WARNER: All right. Do you agree, if Bill Clinton were to win, that that is still a vote for activist government?

AL FROM: I think it's a vote for public activism, but it's a different kind of public activism. It's an activism, not big government programs. Bill said rightly that the era of big government is over. It is a vote for--is a for a new kind of public activism that puts people to solve their own problems in their own communities. It's very different than some of the old bureaucratic programs that got this party in trouble. And this party is a centrist party. Rank and file Democrats are centrist. The--and one of the reasons rank and file Democrats are centrist is because we've brought a lot of them back into the party who left the party when the party took a leftward turn.

ROBERT BOROSAGE: I think it's important, though, to distinguish between the sort of frosting or the positioning and the cake, the reality of the policy. I mean, we have a Republican candidate who faced with the electorate has just taken 2/3 to 70 percent of the federal budget and said he's for that. And he wants to increase some parts of it. So all of this talk about the era of big government is over, in fact, we're going through a political period where the largest government programs, Social Security, Medicare, education, environment, are being reaffirmed by both parties because the American people demand them.

MS. WARNER: Do you agree? Do you think that the legacy both of the New Deal and a lot of the social legislation of the 60's then does endure?

ANN LEWIS: Oh, I think it does. And let me give you two examples of policies you will hear a lot about this week because these are the kinds of forward-looking initiatives that excite and energize and unite Democrats. Family Medical Leave Act--we're not saying again that government can help us--can meet our responsibilities, but government can enable us to meet our responsibilities at work and at home. Bill Clinton is for the Family Medical Leave Act. Bob Dole opposed it. That's a real difference. Today when the President announced he would extend the Brady Bill to people convicted of domestic violence, that is for many people today a very exciting day. This President stood up to the National Rifle Association in passing the Brady Bill. Now he's saying if you've been convicted of domestic violence, it's another reason, but that's an example of an approach to crime and public safety, reducing crime, keeping people safe, but I think is a common sense, mainstream approach.

AL FROM: We are honoring the true legacy of the Democratic Party. It's economic growth and opportunity. That's what Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy did for this country. It's civic responsibility, like AmeriCorps. It's John Kennedy, who asked people to give something back to the country. It's limited, innovative government. It was Franklin Roosevelt who called for bold, persistent innovation, and the program should be reviewed every 10 years. What we are doing is getting back to our roots, and those were the roots that planted a Democratic Party that a majority of Americans consistently turned on--turned to for national leadership. That's our challenge again, and that's why the Democratic Party that Henry Cisneros talked about, as it is evolving in the 1990's under Bill Clinton's leadership, is again the party the American people are going to turn to for national leadership.

MS. WARNER: But wasn't part of the roots of the Democratic Party also fighting against economic injustice, and what's happened to that? Is that alive?

ROBERT BOROSAGE: And will continue. I think you will see after November, after the greater threat to economic justice is defeated, which is the task before us and the options before us, after November, you will see a significant debate in both parties because the reality is this economy doesn't work very well for working and poor people, and this welfare reform bill goes the wrong way, and so I think you'll see in both parties a quite extraordinary debate about a much more activist government, a much more aggressive policy. For example, the welfare bill will generate a demand across this country for a jobs program the likes of which you haven't seen since the 30's.

MS. WARNER: Do you agree?

AL FROM: Bob Borosage and I will agree that one of the big challenges is to increase incomes for hard working people. We probably have different points of view of how we get there. But the difference is, unlike the Republicans, we want to get there. The welfare bill I happen to agree with. I think this system is a terrible system. I think it undermines public support for government. I think it really almost enslaves people who are caught in it. And we had to end that system, but we also probably will agree that the next challenge is to do step 2 of welfare reform, which is to create a true opportunity system, a work first system to put people in jobs and really create new avenues to opportunity and to bring people in the economic and social mainstream.

MS. WARNER: But, Ann Lewis, it sounds as if Bill Clinton wins, that he's going to still have two or more wings of the party who expect something different from him.

ANN LEWIS: No. He is going to be the head of a large, inclusive party. And we're going to disagree on some issues, but, no, let me be clear about what you just heard. We have the same goal. The goal is to expand opportunity. The goal is to reward work. If we disagree along the way on which strategies we use to get there, as long as we're still going in the same direction, there's room for disagreement on the strategies. What's most important is we agree on our values, we agree on our goals, we agree on the directions we're going to travel.

AL FROM: And don't forget that during most of the 20th century where the Democratic Party led this country to most of its economic and social progress, the great debates on economic growth and opportunity always took place inside the Democratic Party. Republicans weren't even part of the debate.

MS. WARNER: And so what about the delegates out here that polls show actually don't agree with the welfare reform bill, don't like a balanced budget amendment? I mean, are they just anachronisms?

ROBERT BOROSAGE: No. I think they're the future of the party. They are the expression and future of the party, and you will see their opinions reflected in Democratic arguments and policies over the next period of time. Look, I think what's going to happen is the American people are demanding in election after election after election somebody who will stand up and help them in an economy that doesn't work for them. And this party will either figure out real answers to that problem, or it will be rejected again two years or four years from now. And so the debate that takes place after November, after the greater threat is, is beaten back, I think will be a quite significant one.

MS. WARNER: Our debate ends right now, but thank you all very much.

MR. LEHRER: And still to come on the NewsHour tonight, what some delegates think about their party, Beschloss, Goodwin, Kristol, Johnson, a Gergen dialogue, and Shields & Gigot. FOCUS - DELEGATES VIEWS

MR. LEHRER: That delegate view of matters now; Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: There are 4,320 delegates to the Democratic National Convention here in Chicago, almost twice as many as attended the Republican convention in San Diego. The average age of the delegates is 46; half are men, half are women; 67 percent of the delegates are white, 20 percent are black, 9 percent of Hispanic descent, and 3 percent of Asian descent. So the delegation is gender balanced, racially diverse, and it speaks its mind. All of the delegates we talked with disagree with something President Clinton has done during his nearly four years in office. But being able to voice those differences, they say, is a big part of what makes them Democrats.

ANGEL ORTIZ, Pennsylvania Delegate: We are not going to permit that the Latino become the scape goat for a lot of the problems that the American society is facing today.

MR. HOLMAN: Angel Ortiz is a delegates from Philadelphia. Domingo Garcia is from Texas, two of the hundreds of Hispanic delegates who marched and spoke out during a Sunday unit rally. The President's signing of the welfare reform bill denying some benefits to legal immigrants was a major concern.

ANGEL ORTIZ: I disagree with it. I think it's the type of bill that, that is injurious to many, many children across this country; however, you know, the key situation is that we can work and we are going to fix it, and we're going to tell our President that that's his challenge for the next term, to fix what was broken.

DOMINGO GARCIA, Texas Delegate: The bottom line there is the Democratic Party we have honest differences. I have an honest difference with President Clinton on that. Legal immigrants who have died for this country and pay taxes should not have their rights taken away from them. That's part of the welfare reform product that we probably need to fix, as well as other aspects of it. But with that being said, if we look at the alternatives, President Clinton is the best alternative for America.

TOM HAYDEN, California Delegate: And just as there was a fight over the soul of the party in 1968, I would--I would predict there will be a fight over the soul of the Democratic Party the next four years.

MR. HOLMAN: Tom Hayden arguably has become the most interviewed delegate at this convention. During the 1968 convention, Hayden was one of the infamous Chicago Seven Radicals arrested but later acquitted on a charge of conspiring to incite violence. Twenty-eight years later, Hayden is a California state senator but says his ideals haven't changed.

MR. HOLMAN: Have you in the progressive wing of your party been marginalized at this point?

TOM HAYDEN: No, I wouldn't say--I wouldn't say that. I would say that when youget into a general election of this kind, umm, people with our views would be submerged while we are deciding which party will achieve the presidency and control of the Congress. Then I think the cycle begins again. I support President Clinton. He was, umm, umm, a moderate in the 1960's. He understands many things. His position, for example, on tobacco and the regulation of tobacco is enough alone to set him off from his opponent for me. On the other hand, uh, he's a President in a leviathan kind of political machinery that bends according to all kinds of forces. And eventually, in the next term, if he serves a second term, we've got to bring him back to the cities, to the environment, and away from the special interest pulls that are having such a negative effect on human welfare.

MR. HOLMAN: In 1968, Bobby Rush headed the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party. He's now an Illinois Congressman. He says his ideals haven't changed either, and he's still speaking out.

REP. BOBBY RUSH, Illinois Delegate: I'm sure the President is not looking for a homogenized Democratic Party. He knows that the Democratic Party is a party that's vigorous in its debate, and it should always be vigorous in its debate. We've got to address the needs and the pain that millions of Americans are confronting on a day to day basis, and if we don't do that, then I don't think the Democratic Party is worth a damn, and I don't think that the Republican Party is worth a damn.

MR. HOLMAN: Gay delegates to the Democratic National Convention held a reception last night. And while many are not entirely satisfied with the progress President Clinton has made on gay and lesbian issues, Nancy DeProsse of Massachusetts says he's better than the alternative.

NANCY DePROSSE, Massachusetts Delegate: I feel betrayed, but I feel a whole lot more betrayed by the Republicans. I mean, there's no way that I see that any of these issues that I care about are, are issues that they're dealing with at all.

MR. HOLMAN: And California delegate Eric Bauman says those issues go beyond gay and lesbian concerns.

ERIC BAUMAN, California Delegate: While we may be lesbian and gay activists, we clearly care just as much--care just as much about the environment, education, economy, and health care as any other citizen in the country. And I'm a business owner. All of the things that affect the economy affect me.

KEITH GEIGER, President, NEA: We took Governor Clinton at his word, and he has lived up to that word every day of his presidency.

MR. HOLMAN: One in ten delegates to the Democratic convention is a member of the National Education Association. Their support of Bill Clinton is unqualified particularly after Bob Dole criticized the teachers union during his acceptance speech at San Diego. Eleanor Coleman is an elementary school counselor from Arkansas.

ELEANOR COLEMAN, Delegate: We represent teachers. We represent bus drivers, custodians. We represent maids. We represent the common people of this country, the people, the backbone, the bread of this country, and for him to refer to us as some way out group who he needs to rescue education from, we are the people who have carried education on in this country. We are the ones who believe in education, and they are the group who is trying to cut the program. They are the group who don't want to help our children.

MR. HOLMAN: And Alabama delegate Rex Cheatham, an NEA state official, doesn't apologize for his union's activities.

REX CHATHAM, Alabama Delegate: Well, teachers are definitely very active politically because they have to be. When you start talking about cutting the number of teachers in the classroom, the funding for the federal government that provides teachers in the classroom, if teachers were not involved politically to see that those cuts did not happen, it would be disastrous for teachers. And so teachers are organized. Supporting candidates who are pro- education, who are committed to supporting positive education, they will be giving up a day's personal leave, some of them, to work for those candidates because they realize that right or wrong the political process is how it works.

MR. HOLMAN: This morning, Kentucky Governor Paul Patton spoke to delegates from his state at a breakfast caucus. He reaffirmed his support for the President, despite the tough position the President has taken against tobacco.

GOV. PAUL PATTON, Kentucky: Yes, we have points of disagreement, and we have one, one serious problem in Kentucky. But in the big picture, there can be no doubt that Bill Clinton should be allowed the opportunity to complete his program with another four years.

MR. HOLMAN: In fact, Kentucky Democrats for the most part have had little to complain about at this convention. They represent the more moderate to conservative wing of the party, the center, as it's called, and the direction President Clinton has moved on several important issues. Steve Henry is Kentucky's lieutenant governor.

LT. GOV. STEVE HENRY, Kentucky: The President's message is more that of the governor and mine in our last race in which we were very conservative or moderate in all positions with regard to the Democratic platform. And I think that's where the President is today. When we ran, essentially we were the first major Democrats to win in over two years. And we feel like in Kentucky we stopped the Republican revolution. And we feel like that the President in the White House has looked at Kentucky as a bellwether state to really indicate to them where the Democratic platform should go.

MR. HOLMAN: And even though substantial numbers of delegates here in Chicago disagree with that centrist tilt, most are prepared to put those differences aside and get on with the major business of this convention, uniting behind Bill Clinton. FOCUS - HISTORICAL VIEWS

MR. LEHRER: Now, continuing this discussion from a longer view and to Elizabeth Farnsworth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Our longer view comes from NewsHour regulars Presidential Historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss, Author/Journalist Haynes Johnson, and William Kristol, editor and publisher of the "Weekly Standard." Welcome. Haynes, did you hear any, any rewriting of history in the two interviews--I think particularly of Henry Cisneros, who said that the party was definably liberal and it's now definably centrist, and Al From saying that FDR, in those days, the party was the party of civic responsibility and limited, innovative government.

HAYNES JOHNSON, Author/Journalist: I was listening to that. I don't know whether it's rewriting or redefining, but I think I was thinking about when George Wallace left the Democratic Party, the governor of Alabama, and he said, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. And that was what he was saying, and then 1968, way back, 72, that period, and the same phrases here that we heard tonight, at least on that panel, were exactly echoes of the what the Republicans have been saying for the last generation. Now the question is, is that the majority, is that what the party is, do the people understand it, is it definable? I guess that's why we have conventions.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And we have you here to give us the historical roots of this. Why do you think this is happening?

HAYNES JOHNSON: Well, because the Democrats have been losing election after election. I mean, no single Democratic President has been elected for a second term since Franklin Roosevelt. Five of the last seven elections have been won by Republicans. The party is moving farther and farther away, and so clearly, they want to win. And you can see this--we all talked about that in San Diego. The Republicans are doing the same thing. They almost sound like each other now.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you agree with that?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, Presidential Historian: I think the mistake that they're making in a sense is they're creating almost a false Democratic Party that they can fight against. They talked about a Democratic Party who guaranteed outcomes in the past. The Democratic Party never argued for that. In fact, if you look at what has caused hurt for the Democratic Party over time, it's never that they stood for economic justice and that they stood for the struggling poor. That's what's made them win. I mean, from the 1830's to the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the majority party because it represented the farmers in the West, Andrew Jackson, the big people. It was the Civil War that broke up that Democratic Party because they were on the wrong side of the slavery issue. Then at the turn of the century, the Democratic Party represented the masses against the industrial elite. And then World War I drove that apart. And I think you could argue that in the 60's, the Democratic Party was the majority party precisely because it was dealing with economic justice. Vietnam broke that party apart. But I think now they want to create this old Democratic Party, and we're not that anymore because people have such a memory of a past, and I think it's not fair to undo that economic justice piece. That's the roots of this party, and I think it's a mistake.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Bill Kristol.

WILLIAM KRISTOL, The Weekly Standard: I think on behalf of Doris and Michael, who are actual historians, I should say a word in defense of rewriting history. [laughter among group] If we didn't have to do that every generation, what would you guys do? No, but I mean many political fights are fights about understanding the history of your own party or your own country and defining it in a way that advances your current agenda. We've seen that in the Republican Party, certainly, the party of Lincoln, and the party of Reagan. That was the image the Republicans wanted to convey in San Diego. Al From's understanding of Franklin Roosevelt is different from some liberal's understanding of Franklin Roosevelt. And it'll be interesting to see, I think. I mean, for Clinton, does he really try, especially if he's reelected, to rewrite history, i.e., to really reshape the Democratic Party the way Franklin Roosevelt reshaped the Democratic Party, or does he--is he simply content to be reelected and to float above the party and to get to be triangulating and not to actually change the character of the Democratic Party.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think about that? But first, actually, I want, I want you to comment on Doris's views that the party's always fought for economic justice and that that's why it did well.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, Presidential Historian: That's been a large part of the Democratic Party since the early 1930's. And you've really had a very stable party system since the early 30's. The Democrats have always beenthe party of more activist government, the Republicans of less. That's also true tonight in 1996, despite what we may have heard earlier and from what we'll hear throughout this week. In a way the kind of thing that we heard earlier on the NewsHour reminds me more than anything else of the Republicans in the 1950's. They were in a situation, they were arguing for smaller government in an age where the majority of Americans really wanted a more activist government. So the Republicans in order not to be completely routed, in order to stay somewhat in office, said all right, we're not going to roll back the New Deal, we're not going to roll back big government, but we, Republicans, can run Democratic programs more efficiently. Now in the 1990's, you have Democrats saying, all right, perhaps we're not as small government oriented as the Republicans, but we will run these programs more fairly. And that's what a minority party does during a period in which ideology has turned against us.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: And in the 1950's, a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, was handily reelected with a Democratic Congress that was also reelected, and you could argue that that is Clinton's model, or a possible model for Clinton, an Eisenhower-like personal reelection, no coattails, no attempt to advance his party's agenda, and rather explicitly running as Eisenhower did in 56, you need me as President to sort of prevent this party that controls the Congress from going too far.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Absolutely.

HAYNES JOHNSON: And Bill put his finger on something important earlier when you talked about the President can redefine himself and lead a party, if he chooses to. We don't know what Bill Clinton will do if he's reelected. Franklin Roosevelt, you're the great expert of Roosevelt, and you too, Michael, you know in 1932 ran on balancing the budget and cutting the bureaucracy. I mean, that was so--it became the exponent to a modern era of government.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. We'll be back. Thank you. DIALOGUE

MR. LEHRER: Now, a Gergen dialogue; David Gergen, editor-at-large of "U.S. News & World Report," talks to Edward Burke, a Chicago alderman and former police officer, co-author of "Inside the Wigwam: Chicago Presidential Conventions 1860 to 1996."

DAVID GERGEN, U.S. News & World Report: Thanks, Jim. Ed, you're here to help provide a little folk lore about Chicago. Every history buff knows that Chicago is the city where America's political destiny has been continually reshaped. This is the city where Abe Lincoln was nominated in 1860, where William Jennings Bryan was drafted in 1896, and changed the face of the Democratic Party forever, where Franklin Roosevelt was nominated in 1932, and that, of course, this is the city of 1968. But what I found interesting about your book was how often the people of Chicago, the buses, if you will, shaped that history. Tell us a little bit about that.

EDWARD BURKE, Author, "Inside the Wigwam": Well, Chicago's hosted 25 conventions, 15 Republican and 10 Democrat, and although other cities might host em, the way Chicago used to run conventions was really a part of our American experience. A lot of people don't realize it, but Abraham Lincoln was nominated here in 1860 in the wigwam in a rigged convention. It was Chicago politicians, the publisher of the "Tribune," Joseph Medill, who later went on to become a mayor in Chicago, who had phony credentials printed up so they could stack the wigwam with Lincoln supporters and make all the delegates think that there was a great deal of support for Lincoln. 1940 was a remarkable story.

MR. GERGEN: I love the 1940's story because just as in 1860, the 1940's story changed America's history. Tell us about it.

EDWARD BURKE: I think you could argue that, indeed, Chicago politicians in 1940 under the direction of Mayor Ed Kelly rigged the 1940 convention to draft FDR for the unprecedented third term. And that's known as the voice of the sewer convention, because what happened was Mayor Ed Kelly designated his superintendent of sewers Tom Geary, to get into the basement of the stadium, which was located right across the street from the United Center, and tap into the PA system. And after a letter was read from FDR by Sen. Alvin Barkley saying that FDR wasn't going to ask the delegates to vote for em, his voice boomed out through the entire old stadium, "We want Roosevelt, we want Roosevelt." Well, the voice was neither divine providence nor a groundswell of party loyalty. It was actually the pot-bellied superintendent of sewers, Tom Geary, in the basement working the only microphone in the stadium that was tapped into the loud speakers.

MR. GERGEN: And that created a groundswell for--

EDWARD BURKE: It started the groundswell for FDR. It stampeded the convention, and, in fact, the presiding officer of the convention had an agreement with the organ player. When the convention was starting to get out of control, the organ player was supposed to play "God Bless America," but Mayor Kelly fixed him too, so when the signal came from the podium to play "God Bless America," the organ player played a livelier tune, "Franklin D. Roosevelt Jones," which of course was a signal for all the patronage workers Mayor Kelly had assigned to the seats in the old stadium to pull out their FDR signs, the doors to the stadium burst open, a 250-piece marching band came marching down the aisle, and they stampeded the convention.

MR. GERGEN: And I think Doris Kearns Goodwin says in her book that Jim Farley never forgave Franklin Roosevelt for the voice in the sewer. But, you know, that Chicago then came back again in 1944, another Roosevelt convention and another rig.

EDWARD BURKE: Most Americans, of course, realize that Harry S. Truman ran as FDR's running mate in 1944, but not too many people know that it was a uniquely Chicago story. The party bosses decided to dump Henry Walsh, who was the incumbent vice president. But they hadn't figured on the fact that the delegates weren't of a mind to get rid of Henry Walsh. And the convention was beginning to stampede for Henry Walsh, and the party bosses, Mayor Ed Kelly, and the then chairman of the party, Bob Hannigan, had a quick conference on the stage, just as Sen. Claude Pepper was making his way up to the podium to put the name of Henry Walsh into nomination. If he did, the convention would have stampeded for Henry Walsh. They quickly had an idea. Throw open the doors to the convention. Tens of thousands of people from the outside poured into the convention. You couldn't stand in the aisle. You couldn't have a seat. Nothing was moving. And Mayor Ed Kelly grabbed ahold of his fire marshal, Anthony Malane, and he said, Chief Malane, the stadium's in violation of the fire code, shut it down. And that's exactly what they did. And the next day they were able to get Harry S. Truman the nomination.

MR. GERGEN: It changed the face of the country. Now, 1968, you were a cop here in Chicago. Give us a brief sense of what it was like in 68 and what you think--your thoughts now.

EDWARD BURKE: I think 1968 was a watershed year in American politics. The riots had taken place in cities all around the country. The West side of Chicago was nearly burned to the ground after the assassination of Martin Luther King. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Everyone was very tense, very nervous about the convention. It's easy now to look back and scoff at the fears that existed in Chicago, but they were very real. And I still believe to this very day that Chicago, then and now, had the best municipal police department in the nation. Some cops lost their temper, but it was a as result of unbelievable provocation. But we also should put this into proper perspective. Nobody in Chicago in 1968 was killed. Not a shot was fired, 156 Chicago police officers were injured in those disturbances. But, you know what, the reason we wrote this book was so that the people would know there's something more about Chicago than 1968. And it's wonderful to celebrate the end of Chicago's banishment as a great political convention city.

MR. GERGEN: Well, Ed Burke, thank you very much. We wish you well. We're not quite in the wigwam again here in Chicago, but I think a lot of us feel that there's more political history be written here. Thank you. EDWARD BURKE: Thank you, David.

MR. LEHRER: And speaking of history, let's go back now to Elizabeth and her group. Elizabeth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Thank you, Jim. Haynes, you were here, in fact, several of you were here. How important is Chicago 68 for the Democrats now?

HAYNES JOHNSON, Author/Journalist: Oh, it's tremendous. I mean, this really is the past and the future melded in this night. Looking out on that floor right now, if you were here 28 years ago, it was seething even then as this convention--it was literally 28 years to the day--Monday, August 26, 1968--this party tore apart over civil rights and the Vietnam War. It has not been entirely bridged until this moment. The same issues--not about the war in Vietnam--but they were those divisions, and what we heard earlier were a party trying--the spokesman trying to say everything's wonderful, we agree, and we're community and harmony and so forth. But the fact is that this is their chance to go beyond Chicago 68, but it's taken an entire--more than a generation to do that.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You said that you think that now some of those differences are bridged. Do you think so? It seems like some of those differences, Doris, are still there in a fairly serious way.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, Presidential Historian: Well, I think just like the Republicans in San Diego were reacting against the Houston convention and trying to make everything seem non-Houston, I think that's what the agenda is here, to make everything seem non-Chicago 68. But the important thing to remember is there were real passions alive at that time. The kids who were demonstrating against the war, many people agree now, were right, that that war was a wrong war. Even McNamara said that. I'll never forget being at that convention. I was a White House fellow for Lyndon Johnson at the time, and I was just there on vacation with my friends, who were all in the anti-war movement, and I told them that if he called me and asked me to do anything for the war plank, which was against the peace plank, I would resign on the spot; it would be my moment of emotional vindication. He called me up on the phone, he said, Doris, I have a favor to ask you, and I thought here it comes, they're all surrounding me. He said, last week you were at the ranch and you borrowed my flashlight, and now I can't find it. It was so embarrassing. But then he said to me with a real choked up voice, it's my birthday, I've been with this party for 40 years, and I can't even come to this convention, the first Democratic President who cannot come to his own convention. Those emotions should not be forgotten. It was an important part of our history. We shouldn't just lay it under the cover as if it never happened.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Bill, how important do you think it's been? For the Republicans, it's been an important way to sort of target Democrats, hasn't it?

WILLIAM KRISTOL, The Weekly Standard: Right. Lyndon Johnson was elected in 1964 with 60 percent of the vote. Since then, no Democratic presidential candidate has gotten 50 percent of the vote. Carter got 49.8 percent, the best showing, Clinton, of course, 43 percent in 92. So it was the--it was the beginning of the crack-up of the Democratic coalition, and Nixon began to put together what he hoped and then Ronald Reagan hoped would be a new Republican majority, so it was--it was, you know, it was the beginning of the end of that New Deal coalition that Roosevelt successfully formed in the early 30's, and it started to break up in 68. You could argue that it ended with the Republican sweep of 94, and really, what the Republican convention and this convention is about is who shapes the new political era. Can Clinton build a new majority Democratic Party, or are the Republicans going to be the new majority party?

MS. FARNSWORTH: How do you feel about Chicago being so important, Michael? You're from Chicago.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, Presidential Historian: I am. And one of the things that I'm unhappy about is that this is really where the convention system died. In 1968, the conflict was so great that the party reformed itself by making primaries much more important, so conventions, as we had said throughout the last couple of weeks, have become these very sterile affairs, and the other thing that I think is even more tragic for democracy is people are afraid for conflict to be on television. As terrible as the 1968 convention was in the streets, at least on the convention floor, there was a vigorous debate about Vietnam. That all took place in front of TV. If there was a burning issue like that now, it's much less likely that we would see that on the floor of the United Center.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: You know, that's absolutely right, and when we think about the loss of the Democratic Party since 68, what if Robert Kennedy hadn't died? What if Teddy Kennedy hadn't destroyed his chances at Chappquidick? It might have been possible for leaders who contained and expressed that passion to have stayed alive and the Democratic Party might not have died the way it did.

HAYNES JOHNSON: Bill's right about the two parties are now having to define themselves for the future, but it's also true that they keep playing off the past. The Republicans, Dole was talking in his acceptance speech about the permissiveness and drugs and crime and the dissenters and the big bad America, sort of against the country, and that he was looking back to a good era. That really is, is--you can still see the Republicans playing those cards.

MS. FARNSWORTH: It's interesting that President Clinton embodies both the tensions from 68, since he's a child of that era, and also the attempt to overcome it. Perhaps only somebody who was-- who lived it, even though I don't think he was in Chicago, could be the one to overcome it too. Is that--

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And his life span in politics since 68 has bridged really the time that the Democrats declined from being the majority party. Bill Clinton's political life has really been the matter of trying to storm troop the Democrats during an era very hostile to them. That may be one reason why you've seen in the last year and a half such an enormous effort both to transform and disguise the Democratic Party to make it salable in a much more conservative era than 1968.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all very much. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Now some final words about this convention, the convention of 1996. And it comes from our regular analysis team of Shields & Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. Mark, what do the Democrats have to do at this convention?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Jim, at San Diego, the Republicans made the case repeatedly I think with some effect that the Democrats were the defenders of the status quo and the party of the status quo. Here in Chicago, Bill Clinton, I think, has to do three things, his party has to do three things. First, they must establish and in perspective the administration's record, what they've done, and second, lay down what the stakes are involved in this election, where Bill Clinton wants to lead the country. But third and probably most important I think politically for him, he must recapture that sense of energy and purpose that he left New York with in 1992, and recapture the future, that this is an election about tomorrow, rather than yesterday, and lay out where he wants to lead both his party and his nation.

MR. LEHRER: Paul, what would you add or subtract?

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: I wouldn't, I wouldn't subtract from that, but what strikes me so far just in talking to the delegates and people here is the extent to which this convention is a convention of one. We're in the United Center, which is the home of the Chicago Bulls, and this reminds me a little bit about- -

MR. LEHRER: Which is a professional basketball team.

MR. GIGOT: Basketball team. It reminds me a bit--

MR. LEHRER: On which Michael Jordan plays.

MR. GIGOT: Jordan plays. And I'm going to use some Jordan analogies.

MR. LEHRER: Oh, sorry.

MR. GIGOT: Because he played--when he played with the Bulls several years ago, they used to call him Michael Jordan and the Jordanaires, he was the only guy--you gave him the ball at the end of the game and said, go in.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. GIGOT: The Democrats here kind of say, Bill Clinton, we're going to give you the ball and you go in. This is a party that is submerging all of its problems and all of its differences to get Clinton to win. Their only goal here--

MR. LEHRER: And we've heard that throughout this evening already, the panel that Margaret had, et cetera, in Kwame's piece. Yeah, sure.

MR. GIGOT: The main goal here, forget about the Congress, forget about, you know, fighting out battles, we're going to get Bill Clinton to victory, and that's our main goal.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. You agree with that?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't argue with that. It's not unlike what the Republicans did in 1972 and there was no mention of the Republican congressional ticket. Richard Nixon's reelection was what mattered. Ronald Reagan won a lonely landslide in 1984, winning 49 states, carrying 377 of the 435 congressional districts. That's where the emphasis, that's where the focus was. That's what happens I think when a party is a minority party and concentrates on the presidency. We now have two minority parties.

MR. GIGOT: Two minority parties.

MR. SHIELDS: Neither party--I mean we have a party--one party claims affects of 1/3 of the nation, the other party claims a little less than 1/3, Democrats--it depends on which survey you look at--Democrats a little more than 1/3, Republicans a little less than 1/3. As recently as 1980, Jim, Democrats had a two to one edge in party--people saying I'm a Democrat rather than a Republican--that's changed over the last 16 years.

MR. LEHRER: You know, Paul, there's--as you all have just said, you know, there has to be vision of the future and all that sort of stuff but every Democratic speaker thus far outside the hall the vice president--Newt Gingrich's name comes up about every third sentence. That is actually a key part of this strategy as well, is it not, mentioning Gingrich?

MR. GIGOT: You'd think he was running, not Bob Dole. No, Newt Gingrich--this is a party that's united on defense. Uh, it is united against somebody--Newt Gingrich. He united this party behind Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton really hasn't. And if Bill Clinton is reelected, he owes an awful lot to Newt Gingrich because he's given--he prevented him from, I think, from having a challenge in the primaries. Now he's given him this united convention and going into an election year.

MR. SHIELDS: Ronald Reagan was the Teflon Republican; Newt Gingrich is the Velcro Republican. I mean, everything sticks to him. And I mean, he is. He is the--Democrats were sure, Jim, they had never--maybe not win the White House regularly, and they certainly didn't, but they'd never lose control of the Congress, and in 1994, it was a shock to the entire nervous and physical system of the Democratic body politic when they lost the House of Representatives. And from that point forward, not losing again has rested on Bill Clinton and in part unified the Democratic Party, and they've been unified by Newt Gingrich's rise in Congress.

MR. LEHRER: And once--if in fact Clinton gets reelected, do you think the unity goes away?

MR. SHIELDS: I think--I think--

MR. LEHRER: In the Democratic Party?

MR. SHIELDS: I think the Democratic Party will be a less unified party if they win control of the Congress, and I think you have to understand this, the day--if Bill Clinton is reelected, just as happened to Ronald Reagan before him, because of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, one of the singularly bad ideas of our time, it limits a President to two terms, it means very simply that Bill Clinton is a lame duck the day after the election, he'll never again appear on another ballot, the race to succeed him begins that Wednesday.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. All right. And we have plenty more time to talk about this tonight and this week. Thank you all very much. And finally tonight before we go, the non-- NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Sorry. Now finally tonight, the non-convention news of the day before we go. In South Korea, former President Choo Doo Hwan--Chun Doo Hwan was convicted of mutiny and treason and sentenced to death by hanging. He was convicted of masterminding a 1979 takeover of the government, and the army's massacre of pro- democracy demonstrators. His successor, Noh Tah Woo was sentenced to 22 + years in prison for the same crimes. Back in this country today wild fires were blazing in California, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as Eastern Oregon. The largest fire there has burned about 15,000 acres near the town of Ben. Nineteen houses have been destroyed, several others damaged. Some residents were allowed to return to their homes briefly to survey the wreckage. Two more telecommunications companies merged today. World Com, the nation's fourth largest long distance company, announced the acquisition of MFC Communications for over $14 billion. MFC provides local business and government phone service, as well as Internet access. The point of the merger is to provide a single source for local long distance, and Internet access worldwide. And while Democrats met here in Chicago, the Republican nominee for President took it easy today. Bob Dole was at a resort in Santa Barbara, but his campaign was busy. It released a new TV ad accusing President Clinton of being ineffective in combating teenage drug use. It will begin airing tomorrow. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the NewsHour tonight. Our joint coverage with NBC News of this evening's opening session of the Democratic convention begins at 8 PM Eastern Daylight Time on most public television stations. On-Line NewsHour coverage is also available, and we'll be back here on the NewsHour tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.