The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. MUDD: And I'm Roger Mudd in Washington. After the News Summary, we'll have extended excerpts from the press conference of former Clinton civil rights nominee Lani Guinier, a Newsmaker interview with new White House adviser David Gergen, our Friday night political analysis with Mark Shields, joined tonight by Linda Chavez and Eddie Williams, and a preview of tomorrow's Texas Senate election. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Lani Guinier said today President Clinton was wrong to drop her nomination for the Justice Department's top civil rights post. She disputed the President's contention that her Senate confirmation hearings would produce a bloody and divisive fight. She said her views were in the mainstream tradition of vigorously enforcing civil rights laws. Conservatives have labeled her academic writings as radical. Last night, President Clinton said opponents had distorted some of her ideas, but at the same time, he could not defend all she had written. Guinier said she believed the President misinterpreted her articles. She spoke at a news conference held at the Justice Department.

LANI GUINIER, Former Justice Department Nominee: I deeply regret that I shall not have the opportunity for public service in the civil rights division. I am greatly disappointed that I have been denied the opportunity to go forward, to be confirmed, and to work closely to move this country away from the polarization of the last 12 years, to lower the decibel level of the rhetoric that surrounds race, and to build bridges among people of good will to enforce the civil rights laws on behalf of all Americans.

MR. MacNeil: President Clinton had no public comment on the matter today, but White House Spokesman George Stephanopoulos said the President and other administration officials were speaking with members of the Congressional Black Caucus and civil rights leaders to minimize the political damage. Jesse Jackson and Black Caucus Chairman Kweisi Mfume were among those who publicly attacked the President today.

REP. KWEISI MFUME, [D] Maryland: Some people who worked to put Bill Clinton in office are angry. Those who took to heart his pledge to bring about change to some extent do feel betrayed. The part of our great nation that was told that we had forced the spring saw us go back to the same old chill of winter.

REV. JESSE JACKSON: Reagan stood with Bork, and Bush stood for Clarence Thomas, and Mr. Clinton did not stand with Lani Guinier, and that is unfortunate, and that is unfair. We simply want him to return to the covenant, to do what he said he was going to do in his campaign.

MR. MacNeil: There was also criticism of the President from groups which had opposed the Guinier nomination. Among them was a group known as Coalition for America. It includes a number of conservative political and religious organizations. Their legal adviser spoke at a Capitol Hill news conference.

THOMAS JIPPING, Coalitions for America: It is absolutely incomprehensible at a President of the United States would nominate someone without knowing what they think. This is absolutely incomprehensible. And when you consider the fact that President Clinton already has had the Zoe Baird situation, which should have raised the need to double check, to make sure, to go back and look at it again, we still have the situation.

MR. MacNeil: We'll have more of Lani Guinier's news conference and talk about it with White House Counselor David Gergen after the News Summary. Roger.

MR. MUDD: The nation's unemployment rate, which had been stalled at 7 percent for three straight months, dropped .1 percent in April. At 6.9 percent, unemployment is now at its lowest level since November, 1991. In another report, the Commerce Department said today factory orders were down 3 percent in April. It was the second consecutive monthly decline.

MR. MacNeil: The U.N. Security Council today voted to establish six Muslim safe havens in Bosnia protected by heavily armed troops. The vote was thirteen to zero. Pakistan and Venezuela abstained. U.S. Amb. Madeleine Albright said the U.S. considered the plan only a stop gap measure, not a solution to the civil war. The plans critics have said it will legitimize Serb territorial gains. European Community negotiator Lord Owen was in Bosnia today continuing an effort to stop the fighting. We have a report narrated by Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News.

RICHARD VAUGHAN: Weeks of wrangling have shattered the international consensus on what to do about Bosnia's war and left peace envoy Lord Owen somewhat pessimistic about the new proposals.

LORD DAVID OWEN, European Community Envoy: I said this in New York, changing a mandate without giving them the resources, it's all too easy to will the end and fail to provide the means. And this is the real problem of the United Nations, and it's got to be faced up to by the member states. They ask of the United Nations the impossible. They pass these resolutions in the Security Council, safe in the Security Council, and they mean nothing unless they are matched by resources. They haven't got the resources. They stretch from right across the country here. They cannot deliver some of these fine sentiments. And I think the resolutions of the Security Council had better start bearing a little bit more relationship to reality.

MR. VAUGHAN: These women were waiting for Owen when he arrived to talk with President Izetbegovic. All of them have men fighting on the front line. They told Owen that if his peace plan wasn't to be implemented, then the arms embargo had to be lifted so that they could at least defend themselves.

MR. MacNeil: Owen reported no progress in his talks with the Muslim president. He also met with the Bosnian Serb leader, but said he clearly was not ready for serious negotiations. The U.S. today signed a key environmental treaty rejected by the Bush administration. Madeleine Albright signed the Biodiversity Convention in a ceremony at the United Nations in New York. More than 150 other nations signed it at last year's Earth Summit in Brazil. The pact is intended to protect disappearing plant and animal species.

MR. MUDD: President Clinton ordered new sanctions against Haiti today. In a written statement, he said he was taking the action because Haiti's military leaders were unwilling to follow through on commitments to restore democracy. The sanctions are targeted at about 100 Haitians who support the military. Their personal assets in the United States will be frozen, and they will be banned from entering the U.S. at all. The military overthrew the democratically elected President Jean Bertrande Aristide a year and a half ago. Cambodian Prince Nordom Sihanouk today abruptly dissolved the new government he formed only yesterday. Sihanouk said he was unable to sustain a coalition of the current ruling party and the main opposition party which is run by his son. The son, apparently, was unhappy with the arrangement, believing that his party which won last week's election should have had more power. That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead on the NewsHour, Lani Guinier's self- defense, White House adviser David Gergen, Mark Shields and company, and a race in the lone star state. FOCUS - SELF-DEFENSE

MR. MacNeil: First tonight, Lani Guinier in her own words. Fourteen hours after President Clinton had withdrawn her nomination for the top federal civil rights position, Ms. Guinier faced reporters at the Justice Department. The University of Pennsylvania law professor and longtime Clinton friend maintained she could have won Senate confirmation, despite the controversy that had engulfed her nomination. We have extended excerpts from today's press conference.

LANI GUINIER, Former Justice Department Nominee: I would like to thank the President and the attorney general for the confidence they have expressed publicly and privately in my character and fitness to be assistant attorney general for civil rights. Had I been allowed to testify in a public forum before the United States Senate, I believe that the Senate would also have agreed that I am the right person for this job, a job some people have said I have trained for all my life. I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to pursue my ideals as a civil rights lawyer, first as a civil rights division attorney and special assistant to Drew Days when he was head of the division in the Carter administration and later as counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund where I litigated many cases and lost only two. I have always believed in democracy, and nothing I have ever written is inconsistent with that. I have always believed in one person, one vote, and nothing I have ever written is inconsistent with that. I have always believed in fundamental fairness, and nothing I have ever written is inconsistent with that. I am a democratic idealist who believes that politics need not be forever seen as "I win, you lose," a dynamic in which some people are permanent monopoly winners and are permanent, excluded losers. Everything I have written is consistent with that. I hope that what has happened to my nomination does not mean that future nominees will not be allowed to explain their views as soon as any controversy arises. I hope that we are not witnessing the dawning of a new intellectual orthodoxy in which thoughtful people can no longer debate provocative ideas without denying the country their talents as public servants. I also hope that we can learn some positive lessons from this experience, lessons about the importance of public dialogue on race in which all perspectives are represented and which no one viewpoint monopolizes, distorts, caricatures, or shapes the outcome. Although the President and I disagree about his decision to withdraw my nomination, I continue to respect the President. We disagree about this, but we agree about many things. He believes in racial healing, and so do I. There are real problems affecting real people in this country, people who are still the victims of unlawful discrimination on the basis on their race, their ethnicity, their gender, their sexual orientation, or their disability. I hope that despite the unfairness of the way that I have been treated by the political process that people will, nevertheless, work within that system to resolve the more important unfairnesses that others continue to suffer in their daily lives. We have made real progress toward Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of a society in which we are judged by the content of our character, not by the color of our skins. But we are not there yet. And we need real presidential leadership, action, not just words, to heal the racial hemorrhaging and to realize Dr. King's dream which is my dream too. Thank you.

RITA BRAVER, CBS News: Ms. Guinier, a lot of people believe that the other side in this, your opponents, were able to define you, because you didn't really get the support from the administration in helping to explain the real Lani Guinier. Do you think that the administration did a good job? How would you rate their job of helping you as a nominee?

LANI GUINIER: I think that the administration has been supportive of my nomination, at least until yesterday, and that maybe they will have learned some lessons for future nominees who will benefit from some of the mistakes that were made with regard to my nomination.

RITA BRAVER: What do you think the mistakes were?

LANI GUINIER: I think that you're right that my opponents were successful in defining me in a way that even my own mother does not recognize.

KENAN BLOCK, MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour: Ms. Guinier, what does the President backing down on your nomination say to you about his political courage, his loyalty, his toughness?

LANI GUINIER: I respect the President. I disagree with his decision to withdraw my nomination. I think he has the opportunity to be a great President, and I hope he takes advantage of that opportunity. I hope he shows the important leadership that I believe he's capable of and that he's committed to exercising on behalf of civil rights enforcement in this country. And I certainly think that working together with Attorney General Janet Reno that this administration can make a huge difference in the lives of many people.

PETE WILLIAMS, NBC News: Did the President misread your writings?

LANI GUINIER: I think that the President and many others have misinterpreted my writings which were written in an academic context which are very nuanced, which are very ponderous. I'm certainly flattered that the President sent down and read a Law Review article that I have written. Most law professors don't have that privilege. I can assure you that it's even difficult to get my own mother to read my Law Review articles, and to say that the President of the United States has read one of them is a real honor.

JULIE JOHNSON, Time Magazine: The President said yesterday that had the nomination proceeded, it would be on grounds upon which, and he pounded his fists from the podium, he could not defend. Now you said that he stands for racial equality, and you also said that in your conversation with him, he understood where you were coming from and he agreed with it. Now, upon what did he come to the conclusion that a battle over you would be something he could not defend, and what do you think about that statement?

LANI GUINIER: I think that what he has said about the divisiveness of proceeding with my confirmation hearings is something that I disagree with but I understand. He has suggested that to pursue my confirmation might have inappropriately reopened and polarized the condition of racial relations or reopened old wounds and polarized the condition of racial relations in this country. And I certainly agree that we need to have a debate and a conversation and a dialogue about race, and I agree that we need to do that in a forum in which we can hear each other without shouting at each other.

JULIE JOHNSON: When you said, "I need a hearing to defend myself," what did he say back, particularly with regard to the question of fundamental fairness?

LANI GUINIER: He said he understood my position. NEWSMAKER

MR. MacNeil: Next, a David Gergen newsmaker. The President's about face on Lani Guinier is the latest in a string of what he, himself, has called glitches in the White House. In an attempt to correct the course of his embattled administration, the President last Saturday reached out to David Gergen, a Nixon/Ford/Reagan veteran, more recently editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, and a weekly analyst here on the NewsHour to serve as a counselor. David Gergen is here tonight in his new role. Mr. Gergen, thank you for joining us.

MR. GERGEN: Robin, thank you very much. See how complicated you've made my life.

MR. MacNeil: Well, if you were sitting here two weeks ago, I suspect you would not have called the Lani Guinier episode a political triumph for President Clinton. Wearing your new hat, what do you call it?

MR. GERGEN: I would not call it a political triumph tonight either. I think reality says, and you know, mistakes were made, and the President made it very clear last night that had he read materials that Lani Guinier had written prior to the nomination, he would not have nominated her.

MR. MacNeil: Is this one he can blame on the staff?

MR. GERGEN: Well, I was impressed that he took the responsibility, himself. He didn't point the finger of blame at anyone on the staff, and I think that was the right way to go. The buck does stop in the Oval Office and I think it was appropriate. I, I trust and hope that in the months ahead we can improve the staff and staff operations, and I must tell you that I'm not officially on the staff yet. I have had the opportunity to spend the last couple of days in the White House, and my impression is that Mack McLarty, the chief of staff, is already pretty far along the way, Robin, in trying to strengthen, reorganize the staff, and I think the operations will get better.

MR. MacNeil: Many are saying today it's not what this says about Lani Guinier and her views, but what it says about Bill Clinton. What do you think this episode says about Bill Clinton?

MR. GERGEN: Well, I think he needs better staff help, and I think he's working on that. That's one thing that I think is obvious. On the question of principle, there's been a lot of criticism of him that somehow he'd bend or compromise. And in my judgment, that's one thing he did not do on this nomination. I, I had no role in deciding this issue. I thought it was very inappropriate for me to weigh in on the merits of this nomination. I have not read her writings. I was coming in very late. I was asked to attend some meetings yesterday with him, and I only weighed in on the notion that this needed to come to closure, and that he needed to look within, it needed to be settled one way or the other. Did he wish to go forward, or did he wish, did he wish to pull it, and he, a couple of things about him which I found quite striking, one was that she had asked for a hearing, and that's fair enough. He felt it was important that he conduct an internal hearing before going to an external hearing, that he had to be satisfied in his own mind that he was comfortable with her ideas, and, therefore, he sat down and read this Law Review article, read some other things, and sat down with her for I think maybe an hour and a half or so last night, a very painful meeting obviously, and after that was concluded, what he really went back to was his core principles, what he believes about civil rights, and how to progress in this country on civil rights. And as you know, I think -- one of the reasons I was attracted to Bill Clinton is that he and I both grew up in the south as white, southern boys, and I think we both went through the transformation of the 1960s, the civil rights revolution, and it was, it was a transforming event in his life. It was certainly a transforming event in my life. And his notion of civil rights involves racial progress but also harmony and, and healing. And he did feel that this would be a very divisive, polarizing fight based on ideas within her writings. It would be a fight over ideas that he did not support. And I think that revealed a lot about what his core principles are.

MR. MacNeil: William Coleman, who is a thoroughly mainstream figure, himself a black and whose credentials in the civil rights movement are obvious, wrote today in the New York Times, and this is a quote, "Caving into shrill, unsubstantiated attacks was not only unfair but some would say political cowardice."

MR. GERGEN: Well, Robin, I just -- I can only tell you what I saw yesterday, and at the staff level, of course, there was a lot of conversation about the politics of it, and the various forces that were going to and fro on it. What I saw in the President was someone who said, I don't want to talk about the politics of it, I really want to talk about her writings, and he said, look, there's some of this in the writings I can agree with. The writings concern remedies that ought to be applied and when there are civil rights violations, and a narrow reading of the writings is certainly consistent, as Lani Guinier has argued, certainly consistent with the, with the remedies applied by the Bush administration and by the Reagan administration. But the writings also lent themselves to an interpretation which was much broader, went far beyond what has been the traditional understanding of how we ought to organize ourselves politically, and it was that with which the President disagreed. He said, I cannot support those ideas. They are not where I am, it's not what I campaigned on, it's not who I am. And I think he was quite honest about the fact that he simply didn't agree with the ideas under those interpretations.

MR. MacNeil: He wasn't simply looking at the votes in the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and concluded, no way, and let's get out of it?

MR. GERGEN: That's not what I heard yesterday. Now, at the staff level I will tell you, of course, there were people who were taking into account the votes and that sort of thing, because, you know, they've been buffeted by a lot of forces, but, but that's not what I heard from him. His argument last night after he talked to her was, you know, if this was about her character, if this was about Lani Guinier, the individual, for whom he has enormous respect and has been a longtime friend, he would fight and he would go down, he'd be willing to take it if it were down to two votes and he took the heat, and he said, look, I've lost my share of battles and I'm going to lose some more, I'd be willing to lose this one. But this is going to be a battle, it'll be very divisive and over ideas that I don't support, and under those circumstances, it's inappropriate to go forward. I think that's what he thought. He was an extremely wrenching decision for him. But it was one I think that he honestly made based on the writings, and I think that's what, it was a decision made really on the basis of political philosophy more than anything else.

MR. MacNeil: Let's talk about your moving over to the White House --

MR. GERGEN: Sure.

MR. MacNeil: -- a bit, David. In your last column in U.S. News before the President hired you, you wrote, "Where will Bill Clinton draw the line, what are his inner convictions?" Have you answers to those questions now.

MR. GERGEN: No. And I think that's something we'll learn about more over time. I, I did talk to him, Robin, so this was a complete bolt out of the blue, and when these conversations started, I had no idea this might be coming. And I, I felt, well, a couple of things. One, I wanted to talk through with him where he was and where he was going, because, as you know, I have a fairly moderate, centrist view of life. I'm somewhat, I'm moderately right of center. And I would not feel comfortable in an administration frankly that was way off to the, to the other end of the spectrum. I think everybody knows that, and I wanted to explore with him, and I did feel comfortable in that context talking with him, and that I think that a lot of the ideas that have been espoused by Bill Clinton when he ran as a new Democrat, a lot of the ideas that have been espoused by the Democratic Leadership Council, DLC as it's called, are ideas with which I feel quite comfortable. In fact, I would argue that many of those ideas are shared by Republicans. And some of those ideas you will find Jack Kemp is firmly on board with some of those ideas as Bill Clinton was during the campaign. I have written in U.S. News and said on this program that I thought there had been lurches to the left in some of the early months of the administration. And what I found from BillClinton as I talked to him was the sense that, that this was where -- this was not where he wanted to be, that he wanted to be the new Democrat that he campaigned as, and I think that's where he's moving now. As he said last night with regard to Lani Guinier, the decision over Lani Guinier was not about the political center. It was about his center, had much more to do with his political philosophy.

MR. MacNeil: Jesse Jackson said today that you had said more as a Reagan spokesman years ago diametrically opposed to Mr. Clinton's positions than Lani Guinier had said.

MR. GERGEN: Well, I can understand how Jesse Jackson can say that, and I, you know, that's a fair point. I can only say that, look, I didn't apply for the job. They came to me and asked me if I would do it. I, I feel very strongly that this country cannot afford to drift or cannot afford to be paralyzed in the next four years. Over the last several years when you've given me the privilege to be here on this program, on many occasions I was critical of the Bush administration because I thought it was not attending to the nation's domestic needs. I think we've had too long a period pass when this country has not had answers to the declining wages of the middle class, to the deterioration of families in this country, to the deterioration of our cities, to growing gaps in the income and class, and that we must get on with that job. And after the last few years, we need to get on with it, and we cannot afford paralysis. And if I can be modestly helpful in that regard and help will be, indeed, modest, then I think that's worth it. It's not, it's not something I sought out, but I'm, I, you know, I think when the President asks you for help and you feel you can do it consistent with your own philosophy that you should be willing to sign up.

MR. MacNeil: The, the sharpest criticism of your move to the White House in the New York Times addresses some of those points. Let me just read a quote from an editorial, which I'm sure you're very familiar, on Monday. It says you were an artful promoter of politics that coarsened the quality of social compassion, spread suffering among the most undefended citizens, and pulled back the Justice Department from its mission of civil rights. You were an ardent defender of approaches Mr. Clinton has condemned. Now, have you come a long way? Have you changed a great deal in your views since the early '80s, or, or what is the case in this?

MR. GERGEN: Well, there are several different responses, I suppose. Let me just say one thing about the civil rights thing, and that's the one thing I most deeply resented about the New York Times editorial. It said that I was essentially the architect of a Bob Jones decision. That was, that was a mistake we made in the Reagan White House. We blew that decision. It went, came through us on a Thursday, Friday. I looked at it, didn't understand what I was looking at, signed off on it. A journalist called me up the following morning, Marty Schramm called me the following morning and said, Gergen, do you understand what the hell you've done? I said, tell me about it, and he explained it. I was shocked that we agreed to it. I went back in Monday a morning and said, and along with Mike Deaver and along with some others, said we have got to reverse this, and we did. You know, as President Reagan sometimes said, you know, the right hand did not know what the far right hand was doing. So we have, you know, we corrected that. Now, I happen to, to be proud of serving in the Reagan administration. I think Ronald Reagandid many good things for this country. He broke the back of inflation, which was wrecking the lives of many poor people in this country. I think he accelerated the end of the Cold War. I think the defense build up is worthwhile. I think, I think there were a lot of jobs created in the '80s. I do believe that there are social problems in this country that preceded the Reagan administration, that went through the '80s, got worse, and were not attended to, and need to be addressed now. I will -- let me just -- if I can add one final thing --

MR. MacNeil: Sure.

MR. GERGEN: -- and I'm sorry, if you think I'm filibustering.

MR. MacNeil: No, go on.

MR. GERGEN: The, it's also true that I left government nine years ago, and during that time you've provided me a wonderful opportunity to develop a voice of my own, an independent voice, and I have evolved since then. I have developed some of my own views. Some are consistent with Republican philosophy; some are not. But I, but the critical thing is I don't think it's my views that are all that important. The question is whether Bill Clinton can pull together an administration and whether he can work with Republicans which I think is important to do, to have a bipartisan administration, reach out, and he said in the campaign he wanted to have people like that around, to reach out and move this country forward. That's the only thing that's at issue.

MR. MacNeil: Well, thank you. Let's move on. Roger. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. MUDD: Next, political analysis of this past week at the Clinton White House. With us for this regular Friday feature is syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and tonight he's joined by Linda Chavez, the former executive director of the Reagan Civil Rights Commission, she's now a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and Eddie Williams, the president of the Joint Center for Political & Economic Studies, which is the Washington think tank devoted to issues that affect black Americans. Mark, it's been quite a week. I have a feeling that Bill Clinton is providing as much excitement for political journalists as Richard Nixon did 20 years ago.

MR. SHIELDS: Well, 20 years ago, Richard Nixon, of course, was in the throes of Watergate, and Bill Clinton, the self-inflicted wounds are far from that.

MR. MUDD: There's never a dull moment.

MR. SHIELDS: No, there is never a dull moment, and, and certainly it was not a good week in, in terms of the President, but I think, Roger, two things happened. First of all, there's the sense that the President took up for a friend, which is always a problem in politics, an embattled friend and all the rest, although I think it was a "no win" situation. He had to do what he did. It was necessary. He had no option, and the other thing that's starting to develop on a cumulative basis is a question of competence, how many more acts of incompetence, bad staffing, or whatever else I think somebody on the Gergen-Shields broadcast said more than once every administration is inevitably a mirror reflection of the man at the top, and the questions of competence start to grow about the President.

MR. MUDD: So how long will it be, Linda, before he turns the corner?

MS. CHAVEZ: Well, I disagree with Mark. I don't really think this in terms, in political terms, is that great a disaster. Frankly, this is a woman who most people can't pronounce her name; they don't know what the job was that she was going for. In that sense, this story is going to go away. But there is a deeper problem. Bill Clinton put his finger on it last night. David Gergen did it tonight. He said, this is not about the political center, this is about my center. And I think what Americans are having a problem understanding and being able to identify is: What is Bill Clinton's center? What are those core values he believes in? It was one thing during the campaign. He's governed differently now, and at least on this issue, on a civil rights issue, this is an issue that's been debated for 20 years. This is an important, fundamental, philosophical problem, and he has not been able to define it, himself.

MR. MUDD: Eddie, you were at the White House this afternoon, if I, if I read the schedule. You were one of the civil rights leaders that the President called in. What happened?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the President did call in a number of individuals I guess in whom he has some confidence. Dorothy Hite was there, Joseph Lowrie, head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Bill Lucie from the trade union, and many others, and he was in a very somber mood and he said, I want to listen, I'd like to hear what you have to say. But what we talked about in that meeting I think is germane to what we're talking about here, and I would say that, that African-Americans may disagree on a number of public policy issues, and, indeed, they do. But when they perceive that civil rights is threatened, there is, indeed, a great deal of concern. And I think there is a lot of hurt and a lot of disappointment in the black community today, and that will not go away very quickly, because in Lani Guinier the issue is bigger than Lani Guinier. The issue has to do with his commitment to someone who will vigorously pursue civil rights in the Justice Department. The issue has to do with his, not just his reading of what she had to say, but some obvious misunderstanding of what she had to say in relation to issues in her work that are now in the courts having to do with the Voting Rights Act. And so there are many civil rights lawyers who feel that the President may have unwittingly given the foes of the enemies of the Voting Rights Act a weapon to further oppose the Voting Rights Act.

MR. MUDD: So was the nomination, was it a, to withdraw it, was it a mistake, or was it simply acknowledging political reality?

MR. SHIELDS: He had to withdraw it. I think that the nomination was a mistake to make in the first place, because --

MR. MUDD: Why?

MR. SHIELDS: Because Lani, Lani Guinier -- first of all, it was a mistake in terms of what Bill Clinton stood for in the campaign of 1992. I think David's absolutely right, David Gergen was. During -- on March 12, 1992, during the Michigan primary, Bill Clinton did something that no presidential candidate had done since Robert Kennedy. He gave the same speech to a black audience in Detroit, Michigan. He then turned around and gave exactly the same speech he had given to a white audience in Macomb County, Michigan, the home of Reagan Democrats, Nixon Democrats, Wallace Democrats, and he talked about well, there can't be any more "thems," there's only "us," there can't be them gays, them blacks, them women, them this and that, and he talked about our being in it together. He did that same speech. To give that same speech, Lani Guinier writings -- and we only have her writings, because she wasn't a judge, she never voted on an issue, she's never been a legislator, we only have her writings so go by -- suggest a balkanization, suggest group rights which are antithetical to what Bill Clinton as a new Democrat ran and won on in 1992.

MS. CHAVEZ: That may be, Mark, but the fact is that the debate in the civil rights community for the last 20 years has been about whether or not we are going to pursue policies that guarantee equal opportunity, equal access, or equal outcomes and equal results. Lani Guinier, I'm sorry, I'm going to defend for now. She's not that far out of the mainstream of civil rights organizations in the United States. For 20 years now, and it's included positions taken by the Reagan-Bush administration, we have been pursuing policies that in a certain respect come down on the line of equal outcomes, equal results, and that's what she stood for. It may not be what Bill Clinton stood for, but, in fact, that is where most of the civil rights organizations are today.

MR. MUDD: Suppose, suppose, Eddie, that the President had gone forth with a nomination, sent it up to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Would he really have been damaged if his nomination had been voted down?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Roger, I mean, that's hard to say.

MR. MUDD: Well, I mean, you can count on five or six fingers --

MR. WILLIAMS: David's President was not all that damaged when the Bork nomination --

MR. MUDD: Right.

MR. WILLIAMS: -- was sent back to him. What the President said today was he had a clear reading that there was no way that nomination was going to fly in the committee or in the Senate. He had counted heads. he said that -- and he didn't name them. He said liberal Democrats came to him and said that it was not viable. And he just felt it was not in the best interest of Lani Guinier. It was not in the best interest of the nation. It wasn't in his best interest to pursue it. And so would he have been damaged? Quite possibly. We don't know. One thing we think that may have been fairer, and I think Lani Guinier would argue this, and that is that she would have had an opportunity to articulate -- she would have had an appropriate forum to articulate her views about what she meant and what she stood for.

MR. MUDD: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: She's going to have a lot of opportunity to make her views known not only in this broadcast but on virtually every show in the country. I think David Cohen, who is the former president of Common Cause and probably as good a lobbyist as there is in Washington has a great expression when it comes to issues like this. He said, on Capitol Hill, it's better to have one tiger than a hundred pussycats, in other words, one legislator who feels that his or her fate, fortune, or future is tied to her cause. Lani Guinier lacked that.

MR. MUDD: No patron?

MR. SHIELDS: There wasn't anybody who felt this is so important to me -- I mean, and the fact that Bill Coleman's article in the New York Times, which Roger asked David Gergen about, came out today. Bill Raspberry in the Washington Post had a wonderful piece today. There hadn't been an organized campaign. I think it suggests two things about the Clinton administration. First of all, you can only do one thing at a time. It's like one bead on the string. I mean, if you're doing the tax and the economic bite, they can't do, they can't do a confirmation fight. And secondly, there's a division in this administration which David's going to have to bridge between friends of Bill, sort of the elite friends of Bill Clinton, whether they come from Oxford or they come from Yale or they come from Georgetown or they come from one of the think tanks, and those people who were in the campaign. And the problem is when a friend of Bill is nominated, it's pretty tough as a staff member to go in and say this is someone that the First Lady went to her wedding, togo in and say, hey, boss, you ought to take a look at her, because any President, it's a premium in the White House on delivering good news, not bad news. And it makes it doubly tough for a staff person.

MR. MUDD: Linda.

MS. CHAVEZ: But this is also a problem that Democrats have, and that is that there are an awfully lot of people out there in the Democratic Party who are not centrist Democrats, and a lot of those people are now in the Clinton administration, and he has turned to the Carter people. He's turned to a lot of people who were not the Democratic Leadership Council Democrats that he ran with in the first place. Those are the people that they have to hire because they don't have enough DLC type Democrats in the Democratic Party to fill all these jobs, so in a sense, even if he wants to move his administration to the center, there aren't enough people out there in those Democratic slots.

MR. MUDD: I don't want to drop altogether the meeting this afternoon, and I think I moved away from it a little too quickly. When the meeting broke up, and you talked to your confederates there, what was the feeling? I mean, was there any progress made, or --

MR. WILLIAMS: Roger, I hate to tell you -- I told David the meeting got started late, and I was anxious to get with you, so I wasn't there when it ended, but I did get in a few -- couple of points in talking with the President. I think he warmly welcomed a candid response, and believe me, he got it.

MR. MUDD: He did?

MR. WILLIAMS: He got it, yes, indeed, and the Vice President was there, and the attorney general was there for much of the meeting, and three specific recommendations came out, and before I left one was that he in the sense of moving on, which the attorney general made a big point about this morning, and the President made a point at our meeting today, in that spirit he has got to commit himself or find a "qualified," vigorous supporter of civil rights, an African-American to nominate for that position.

MR. MUDD: A replacement?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. Much as he stuck with a woman in trying to pursue the attorney generalship. Secondly, he's got to make it very clear that he is not sending a signal to weaken, to put the voting rights, the Voting Rights Act at risk, and thirdly, he's got to continue to commit himself to doing something about judicial appointments in bringing people who do share his temperament, his judicial temperament, his moderate to liberal leanings, his protection of civil rights, and get them into the judiciary, which has been up to now loaded by a lot of Reagan appointments.

MR. MUDD: Will there be a fall guy in the Clinton White House staff for the Lani Guinier problem?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't know. Once again --

MR. MUDD: Or would it be Mr. Neusbaum?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think Mr. Neusbaum, having the FBI --

MR. MUDD: The White House counsel.

MR. SHIELDS: -- and Travelgate and the White House counsel coming out of his office and, and this as well, there appear to be some fingers pointing his way, I mean, always those wonderful anonymous sources within the White House. He seems to be the designated hit, if not hitter, for this, for this one. So I don't know -- but, again, the attorney general stepped forward, and she was willing to take responsibility. I mean, she, she is really breaking all the rules in Washington. I mean, she takes responsibility all the time. Doesn't she know how we do it here? We shift responsibility.

MS. CHAVEZ: Wasn't it a little disturbing to you last night that when he was asked about Janet Reno and her position on this that it didn't seem to be -- she wasn't there last night -- she wasn't with him when he came into the, into the briefing room.

MR. MUDD: I noticed that.

MS. CHAVEZ: And I had the sense that she had weighed in but that she wasn't all the way there with him. Even today, I mean, Lani Guinier was over at the Justice Department for a press conference.

MR. MUDD: Let's talk a minute now about the Gergen appointment, and I want to read to you quickly a quote from the Wall Street Journal this morning. "Chaos reigns at the White House amid resentment over David Gergen's hiring. Almost every department is under siege. Cabinet officers claim they can't get through to the President. Clinton bad mouths his own political operation. The arrival of Gergen stirs talk of angry departures. For several days after the Gergen announcement, the White House Communications Office refused to take his calls." Is any part of that true? Is that what went on? Do you --

MR. SHIELDS: I did, I did hear -- I think there was obviously some resentment, those people who are fighting for Bill Clinton's soul. I mean, Linda's point about the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party, as Jim Wright, the former speaker, said, is an amalgam, it's a mosaic, it's fruitcake. I mean, there are all these disparate groups, and they're all trying to get -- and Bill Clinton carried most of them to win and all of them feel that they played a part in it. So there is some -- there is some resistance to, to David. He comes in as a friend of the President. He comes in as somebody who was an adviser and a principal player in the Reagan administration. I think there probably is, but I think that David's skills are such that he'll be able to woo and win them over. It's too bad he's going to have to be spending his time doing that, but he will.

MR. MUDD: What do you think of the Gergen appointment, Linda?

MS. CHAVEZ: Well, I wish David Gergen hadn't done it.

MR. MUDD: Really?

MS. CHAVEZ: Beside that --

MR. MUDD: I mean, just why not?

MS. CHAVEZ: Because he's a friend of mine. Who would wish this job on anybody? But I do think that there is a problem here. David Gergen was a terrific communications director for Ronald Reagan, because Ronald Reagan did know what his core beliefs were. It's not clear that David Gergen can do for Bill Clinton what he did for Ronald Reagan, because it's not clear that Clinton, himself, knows what those core values and beliefs are.

MR. MUDD: And Eddie, what do you think David Gergen's priorities ought to be when he -- I guess he goes on the payroll Monday.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm sorry he's not on the payroll already, but I dropped him a note saying I congratulated him on what I felt was a fantastic match, my words, the match between Gergen and Clinton. But, you know, if I did not know David personally and the kind of person he is personally, I'm not sure I would have said that. If all I knew was what I read in the paper about his having served Reagan and having served Bush, I don't think I would have said that. But having gotten to know him in this forum and other forums, I think that's going to work very well. I hope he doesn't fall in Mark's trap of being a friend to Bill, but more importantly, I worry about the FOG, the friends of Gergen, who might have some influence.

MR. MUDD: What about the main friend at the White House of Bill Clinton, Mack McLarty, is his position in danger?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't think it's danger immediately by any means.

MR. MUDD: Do you think there are going to be more staff changes?

MR. SHIELDS:I think, I think there will be some more staff additions and there'll probably be some new.

MR. MUDD: Additions.

MR. SHIELDS: Let me tell you what David Gergen brings, I think, to Bill Clinton. Bryce Harlow, who was counsel to three presidents, President Eisenhower, President Nixon, and President Ford, and a delightful, bright, wise, good man, and a great Republican, once told me the toughest part of the job being in the White House is that you talk to a powerful committee chairman, you talk to the president of a university, you talk to a Fortune 50 company CEO, that say if I could just have five minutes with the President, Bryce, I could straighten him out. And without exception, you say when you brought him in, regardless of who they were, who the President was, once they stepped over the threshold, Mr. President, our prayers are with you, you're doing a wonderful job, Mr. President, and what David Gergen brings, okay, he doesn't need the White House mess, he doesn't -- he's had it all -- he's had the parking space -- is he has that ability to come in and speak the truth.

MR. MUDD: Well, let me ask, David, in the few minutes -- did you realize he's been sitting, listening to us the whole time? Is that what you're going to do, David?

MR. GERGEN: I was just thinking as I listen to this conversation about the staffing, I think there a lot of people over there probably think that, you know, I represent a liver transplant, and I'm the liver. And I may wind up as chopped liver before it's over.

MR. SHIELDS: A big liver.

MR. MUDD: When you go into the Oval Office, do your knees shake, or are you able to say, this is the way it is and you'd better learn fast?

MR. GERGEN: Well, Mark has a point. I do think, Roger, that if you, you know, I had the opportunity to work at the White House 20 years ago my first time, and there's no question when you're young and you walk in there, you're grabbing for the brass ring, and I think a certain arrogance creeps in. I think you sort of think you're lord of it all, and you confuse who you are with what you are, and you think people are, are celebrating you because of who you are when it has everything to do with your position and power. Once you get past that and you sort of grow up a little bit, then I think that, in fact, it's a little easier to go in, because, you know, you've got a bit of a center of your own, and you can say, I hope I can say to him, Mr. President, let's not do that, let's not do that. Let's do it another way, you're a terrific guy, you're the guy who got elected, but think about it this way.

MR. MUDD: Okay. I'm going to give in the few seconds we have left, I'm going to give the last word tonight, if you'll permit me, to Mark Shields.

MR. GERGEN: Him the last word?

MR. SHIELDS: I got to tell you, David, all week long wonderful and friendly strangers have come up to me and offered their condolences at my loss, the loss of my partner. Now I've never had before a joint identity, joined at the hip identity, in my life, but it's, it's a new experience. I'm going to miss you. I've enjoyed the six years. I wish you luck, and I'll give you exactly 72 hours of free fire zone before we start -- [Gergen laughing] - - thank you.

MR. GERGEN: I hope I can be back with you. I'm looking forward to coming out and playing with you on Friday night occasionally.

MR. MUDD: And when you come back again after you get on the White House payroll, we expect you to come back in a White House limousine and not in a cheap taxicab. [Gergen laughing] Thank you, Linda, Mark, Eddie, and David. FOCUS - TEXAS SHOWDOWN

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight the Texas Senate race. Tomorrow, voters will select a successor to fill out the term of former Senator and now Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen. The prospect of a Republican takeover of a Senate seat held by the Democrats has attracted national attention. Kwame Holman reports.

RICK PERRY, Texas Agriculture Commissioner: For 150 years we've been sending men to Washington, D.C., as our United States Senators. I'm ready to send a woman to do that job for the state of Texas and --

MR. HOLMAN: If voters send Kay Bailey Hutchison to Washington, she will become the first woman elected to the United States Senate from Texas.

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Republican Candidate: I will fight as long as I am elected by the people of Texas against these new taxes that are coming out of Washington.

MR. HOLMAN: And if the 49 year old state treasurer is elected, there will be another first. For the first time since reconstruction, Texas would have two Republican votes in the Senate at a time when President Clinton is looking for congressional support for his programs wherever he can get it.

SPOKESPERSON: [presenting Hutchison with yellow roses] For our yellow rose of Texas.

MR. HOLMAN: The prospect of adding one to the Senate GOP minority pleases the party leadership.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: [May 28] If the Republican candidate, Kay Bailey Hutchison, wins that seat a week from tomorrow, it'll send a message heard around the United States and in every seat in this chamber, and I think it may bring back some stability and some sense of direction.

MR. HOLMAN: Fifty-seven year old Democrat Bob Krueger is running as the incumbent, having been appointed in January to fill in for Lloyd Bentsen when he became Treasury Secretary.

SEN. BOB KRUEGER, Democratic Candidate: Texas has not in over a hundred years been without at least one Democratic Senator. This is the seat held by Lloyd Bentsen, held by people like Lyndon Johnson and Sam Houston, and the state of Texas will be the only one of the nine largest states in the union, to be without at least one Democratic Senator.

MR. HOLMAN: With the backing of Texas Governor Anne Richards and every other major Democrat in the state, Krueger was expected by party regulars to be an easy victor in last month's special election. But he finished second to Hutchison, and since no candidate in the open field of twenty-four got more than 50 percent of the vote, Krueger and Hutchison face each other in a run-off tomorrow.

SEN. BOB KRUEGER: The people should support me simply because I am independent. I'm probably the most independent person who is serving in the United States Senate. I support the President and I agree with him when I think it's in the interest of Texans. I don't support him when I don't, and that differentiates me from my Republican opponent.

MR. HOLMAN: Krueger says a measure of that independence was seen in his Senate votes against the President's economic plan. He also opposes the Clinton energy or BTU tax. Krueger is a Democrat running in a big, energy-producing state that went to George Bush in 1992, and where Clinton is even less popular today. Adding to Krueger's difficulties is a campaign that has been fraught with money problems. Issues like gays in the military also have hurt the Democrats, and mention the President's BTU tax at a political gathering here and eyes begin to roll. Paul Burka, editor of Texas Monthly Magazine, told Correspondent Betty Ann Bowser Krueger can't shake the identification was the head of his party.

PAUL BURKA, Editor, Texas Monthly: Krueger is trying to run with this albatross around his neck. Clinton's not performed well. Texans are hard ball politics players. They don't like people who sit on Air Force One and get $200 hair cuts. That doesn't play well here.

MR. HOLMAN: The President hasn't campaigned for Krueger, and the Senator hasn't asked him to. Hutchison has had her own set of problems. First, there was a blistering attack from former Governor John Connolly's daughter, Sharon Amman, who said Hutchison slapped her with a notebook when Amman worked in the state treasurer's office.

SHARON AMMAN, Former Hutchison Employee: She became wild, and she came over to the desk and she started pounding me, pounding me, and pounding me on the left arm, saying, "I told you to find that number, and I mean it." And then she turned around and she slammed her door and that was it.

MR. HOLMAN: Then last week came charges Hutchison traded a state job for political endorsements.

SEN. EDDIE LUCIO, Texas State Senate: These allegations are too serious to be ignored, and our U.S. Senate seat is too important to have someone get elected and then be under investigation or indictment after the election has been held.

MR. HOLMAN: Krueger jumped on those issues during a joint appearance on national TV.

SEN. BOB KRUEGER: These are things that she needs to come and be straight forward with the people of Texas. These are questions that need to be addressed before the election and not after the election.

SPOKESMAN: Now's your chance. What about it?

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Well, thank you. Bob Krueger has gotten out of control. I think he's getting hysterical. That is ridiculous. He is brow beating my employees, trying to make them sign statements that I've done something that I have not done. This is crazy!

MR. HOLMAN: Hutchison and Krueger have locked horns over other issues, health care, term limitations, but they agree on some major points. Both oppose the BTU tax and favor abortion rights. By Texas standards, this has been a quiet political campaign. Krueger freely admits he is uncomfortable on television and to hear the consultants tell it, the whole election may come down to a question of image. Rob Allyn is a Dallas political adviser.

ROB ALLYN, Political Consultant: He is abysmal television. He is that kind of a media consultant's nightmare. He looks bad. He speaks slowly and an ineffective, ineffectual way, and it, it doesn't matter what he's saying. He is so pitiful at communicating it that it's absolutely devastating to him.

SEN. BOB KRUEGER: What was it, this old suit, the hair, my Arnold Schwarzeneger physique?

MR. HOLMAN: Krueger's media gurus have tried to change his image as a dull, lackluster, Elizabethan scholar and college professor by having the candidate poke fun at himself.

SEN. BOB KRUEGER: Was it Shakespeare who said, "Asta la vista, baby?"

MR. HOLMAN: Jim Moore has been covering Texas politics for 16 years.

JIM MOORE, Political Reporter: Down here you're chosen based upon what you are, not what you want to be, and this whole notion of Bob Scharzenkrueger or whatever it is isn't working. People are saying this is nonsense, this is ludicrous.

MR. HOLMAN: It became dueling commercials when the Hutchison campaign put on this ad.

SPOKESPERSON: It's not the hair.

WOMAN: It's not your physique.

MAN: It's not the suit.

OTHER MAN: It's your record, Bob. You add 22 billion to the deficit.

ANNOUNCER: These are great Senators. He brags about being a lousy politician.

SPOKESPERSON: Asta la vista, Bobby.

MR. HOLMAN: In the final days of the campaign, Hutchison is trying to cross traditional Republican Party lines. Last week, she took a bus tour through historically Democratic East Texas, where voters are said to be unhappy with the President many of them voted for in the fall.

SPOKESMAN: I'm giving you like it is, and it's Democrats going to vote for you.

MR. HOLMAN: Small towns like these once were so Democratic that folks said they would sooner vote for a yellow dog before Republicans, but in this special election, Republican Hutchison is going after them.

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: They voted for Bill Clinton thinking that he was going to be an agent for change that would get serious about getting this economy going again. And everything he's done since he got here is something out of Harvard Economist. It's not real world.

MR. HOLMAN: In the latest statewide poll, Hutchison holds a 17 point lead over Krueger. If the polls are right, tomorrow's vote could be bad news both to Krueger and to Gov. Anne Richards. She has expended great political capital in support of Krueger and is expected to face a tough re-election bid of her own next year. RECAP

MR. MUDD: Again the major stories of this Friday, Lani Guinier criticized President Clinton's decision to withdraw her nomination to head the Justice Department's civil rights division. The nation's unemployment rate dropped .1 percent to 6.9 percent. The United Nations Security Council voted to establish six Muslim safe havens in Bosnia protected by heavily-armed troops. And this evening, health officials in New Mexico said there are preliminary indications that a mystery illness which has killed at least twelve people near a Navajo Indian Reservation is caused by a virus associated with rodents. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Roger. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll see you again Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.