The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour this election night, a presidential candidates round-up, what's at stake as seen by Dorothy Rabinowitz, Cornel West, Michael Novak, and Barbara Ehrenreich; a Rod Minott report on the youth vote, some final analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot, plus the other news of the day, including Boris Yeltsin's heart surgery, at the end of the program tonight. FOCUS - AMERICA VOTES

MR. LEHRER: This was election day in America. The presidency and 435 House and 34 Senate seats were on the line, among many other political matters. Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: Ross Perot was the first of the prominent presidential candidates to appear this election day. He and wife Margo voted at about 9 AM at a recreation center in Dallas. A few hours later, Bob and Elizabeth Dole were at the First Christian Church in Dole's home town of Russell, Kansas. Dole noted this vote was unique for him.

SEN. BOB DOLE: Well, I've voted before. It's kind of--but never voted for myself for President.

MR. HOLMAN: Then this afternoon, Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton made their way to an old train station in Little Rock, Arkansas. Joined by daughter, Chelsea, President Clinton declined to speak about politics but waved to supporters after voting. Like Perot and Dole, the President capped this long campaign season by speaking at length one final time last night. He spoke at a rally just before midnight in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: This is the last speech of my last campaign. If you came up to me and said, what have you learned in 23 years that never changes, I would say, when people look into their hearts and they ask, what is the right thing for my children and for my family and for America's future, when they set aside their prejudices and embrace people of different racial and religious and ethnic groups who share their values of work and family and belief in the Constitution. When they roll up their sleeves and work together, America always wins. This is the greatest country in human history because we have created a system in which you are the boss. Tomorrow, you will be the boss, and you will go in there, and you'll be asked, will we renew President Clinton'scontract?

MR. HOLMAN: Mr. Clinton and his family plan to spend election night in Little Rock. It was a hoarse Bob Dole who wrapped up his 96-hour non-stop campaign marathon at 3 AM today in Independence, Missouri. Dole predicted a come-from-behind victory.

SEN. BOB DOLE: Well, let me say tonight, we're approaching the end of a very historic campaign, that for many months I've traveled all over this country to spread my message about the future of America, and like all worthy causes, this one was done without its challenges. At times, many wondered whether my voice would be heard. In fact, I've wondered that myself the last couple of days, but--so it is fitting in the final hours of this campaign that I have come here to Independence, Missouri, the hometown of Harry Truman, a plain-spoken man, who defied the odds and challenged the prevailing wisdom and dared to trust the people--dared to trust the people. [applause]

MR. HOLMAN: Tonight, Bob and Elizabeth Dole return to Washington, D.C., to await the election results. Ross Perot's election eve message came via his trademark venue, a series of prerecorded infomercials aired in prime time on major networks at a cost of about $2 million.

ROSS PEROT: Before you cast your ballot, ask yourself, would you hire a person facing criminal charges to baby sit your children? Of course not. To paint the interior of your house? No, they might still something. Or to be the cashier at the cash register at a fast food restaurant? No, you wouldn't do it. Or would you even give a person facing criminal charges money to buy groceries for you and your family? No. You'd be afraid he wouldn't come back with the groceries. If the answer to these questions is no, how could you ever consider voting for a person with pending criminal charges to be President of the United States?

MR. HOLMAN: Before the night is over, it probably will be known how Perot's and Dole's late campaign attacks on Bill Clinton affect the presidential outcome. FOCUS - WHAT'S AT STAKE

MR. LEHRER: Now a special look at what was at stake in today's elections and to Margaret Warner.

MS. WARNER: As Americans vote or don't vote today, what does this election say about our society and culture? For thoughts on that and other questions, we're joined by Barbara Ehrenreich, an author and essayist for Time Magazine, Dorothy Rabinowitz, editorial writer and television critic at the Wall Street Journal, Cornel West, professor of the Philosophy of Religion and Afro-American Studies at Harvard University, and Michael Novak, theologian and director of Social and Political Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Thank you all for being with us. Michael Novak, what is the most important thing you think is at stake in this election?

MICHAEL NOVAK, American Enterprise Institute: Well, the most important thing is nudging us closer to the American experiment, which is an experiment in self-government, a republic of self- governing people. I think that's the direction, if I may put it this way, the tides of history are moving both us and the rest of the world to, and I hope we come to grasp it more clearly and move in that direction.

MS. WARNER: And how does this particular election have the potential for doing that?

MR. NOVAK: Even Mr. Clinton, though running as a Democrat and running as a liberal, has talked about the era of big government being over. He's talked about welfare reform, personal responsibility. Now, it's to a remarkable extent those who are enunciating the original ideas have been winning the intellectual argument in America. And I think this election showed that in practical political terms.

MS. WARNER: Barbara Ehrenreich, what do you see as the central issue, or the focus of this election?

BARBARA. EHRENREICH, Author/Essayist: Well, there wasn't an issue. I think this was our first issue-free campaign, and, and Michael Novak I think gave part of the reason that--it's that we had a tremendous ideological convergence of the candidates and not a huge difference between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Uh, that certainly saps enthusiasm, and then I think we've been listening to the right bash government, bash politics, bash the political process for so long that the whole thing begins to seem a little bit tawdry and worthless and insignificant. And that, I think, is pretty tragic. When we withdraw this much, we get so bored and so disgusted with our own national affairs.

MS. WARNER: Well, Michael Novak seemed to be saying that he saw this election has potentially an affirmation of something in a positive sense. You don't see it that way then? You're seeing it- -just make that distinction.

MS. EHRENREICH: It's hard to find any affirmation. This is the first time that actually the media got sick of things too, that the media stopped their coverage, cut back significantly in their coverage. This has been a period that, well, the New York Times called it the year of the yawn. Uh, no--people just turned off, tuned out, and I can't see anything positive about that, uh, if you're looking at a future of democracy.

MS. WARNER: Dorothy Rabinowitz, what do you see at the heart of this election?

DOROTHY RABINOWITZ, Wall Street Journal: I see the American people having to go back to, uh, an earlier time in their lives when they trusted themselves and were able to make judgments. We have seen an election campaign now in which Americans have, I think with the help of the media but not entirely, simply abdicated their right to make judgments, because they have had this message ground down upon them, and it's come out of them. Negativism is a bad thing, and absolutely everything related to character and uh, questions of, if not morality, what is right and what is wrong, Americans have been taught to say, well, they all do it. They all do it is about as poisonous a piece of wisdom that has come out of this election campaign, probably the most depressing. They all do it means I don't have to make a judgment about any of it, it's none of my business.

MS. WARNER: So you're saying then that you think character questions should have been at the heart of this election but aren't?

MS. RABINOWITZ: Yes, indeed. I mean, it was suddenly not an issue. When is it not an issue to say, uh, that there is a character and he sits--it's part of the President of the United States, and we have a right to ask questions. Instead, it was simply preempted. It was ruled out as in bad taste. We will not dirty your hands with these discussions. But we cannot blame the media for this. And this is, in good part, the electorate's abdication. You hear people over and over saying things you know that they don't mean, that they have learned to parrot approved ideas.

MS. WARNER: Cornel West, what do you see at the heart of this election? CORNEL WEST, Harvard University: Unfortunately, I think we've seen an election of avoidance and evasion and denial. I think that most Americans would agree that we're actually in trouble, if not deep trouble, but the major issues are wealth and income inequality and the major issues of economic insecurity and anxiety, de facto racial segregation by space geography and social life were hardly touched upon. No focus on inner cities, very little talk about urban policy, housing policy, investment in education--so unfortunately, it was a missed opportunity, and I think Barbara's absolutely right, uh, in regard to a democracy that if not in decline is certainly in need of deep renewal.

MS. WARNER: So do you think that the fact that those issues weren't addressed, in your view, says more about the political leaders that happen to be running, or about us?

MR. WEST: Well, I think about both, but especially leaders, leaders who were courageous enough to enter public life or give them credit for that, but I think they have to have a vision and courage, and I think unfortunately most are politicians opposing process more than high principles and wise prudence, and, therefore, they were unwilling to challenge us, they were unwilling to challenge the American people. When we look back in American history, the Abe Lincolns and FDR's, they challenged the American people because there were states of emergency in various parts of this country. And I think this is certainly true in working communities and poor communities. There's a real sense of urgency.

MS. WARNER: Michael Novak, would you agree with--I know you don't agree with Cornel West--well, let me ask you, do you agree with him about the issues that he believes were not addressed and he thinks should have been addressed?

MR. NOVAK: Well, they were addressed in some part. Jack Kemp, just to give a "for instance," talked most often--more often than anybody else, I think--about empowerment and specifically about inner cities and about racial harmony. So it's not as if the ideas weren't addressed. I think what has happened, though, is that the notion that the government is the vehicle of our hopes for helping the poor no longer convinces people. It doesn't even convince most Democrats. And as a consequence, the political leaders cannot go on repeating a mantra which has shown--you know--seems empty when the government is over-promised and under-achieved. In some ways, the condition of the poor today--especially the young--is worse than it was 30 years ago when we launched a war on poverty. So we tried very hard--and some things worked. The condition of the elderly is much better. But the condition of the young is worse, and so people think there's got to be a better way than what we've been doing. We need more invention. We need to try a new way.

MS. WARNER: Cornel West, reply to that point. Do you agree with Michael Novak that perhaps one reason those issues weren't addressed in the context of a presidential campaign is that the public--a majority of the public--no longer sees government or the federal government as the answer to those problems?

MR. WEST: I think part of the problem is that we're locked into such a narrow and truncated public conversations on the one hand, you have a kind of spineless neo-liberalism of the Democratic Party and a kind of cold-hearted conservatism, and the American people believe these are the only options, and Michael's absolutely right. We try one, it doesn't work. We try the other, it doesn't work. It seems to me we have to be much more creative. We need to recognize the private sphere had this role, but there has to be some regulation of where--from a 205 percent increase in corporate profits but stagnating and declining wages for workers raises deep problems in terms of class and inequality and increasing economic inequality, so I do not want to argue that big government is the answer, the panacea, but we have to be able to talk about this in such a way that private and public can work together in the name of justice, and I think it's very important not to confuse racial harmony with racial justice. There can be racial harmony, but alongside racial hierarchy. That's not what we're after. We're after about--we're after justice.

MS. WARNER: Barbara Ehrenreich, let me present to you the two lacks that have just been expressed. One is Cornel West saying that the election is flawed because it didn't address economic, uh, injustice and insecurity, Dorothy Rabinowitz saying she thought it lacked something because it didn't really address or comes to grips with character. Where do you come down on either of those?

MS. EHRENREICH: I don't think character was the issue. I wanted issues like economic policy, like the growing inequality in this country. I'd like to have a real discussion about government and its role in our lives. There's a lot of hypocrisy in this talk about big government. We still have military spending at average Cold War levels. We see the prison system expanding and expanding, government becoming more intrusive in many ways, so there hasn't been a shrinkage of government. There's been a shrinkage of helping functions of government--uh, the sort of progressive functions of government. There's a lot of hypocrisy about that, and what we're left with, if we're going to say, as Michael Novak was saying and I think Dorothy Rabinowitz too, is that, um, government is really kind of a petty concern. It's not very interesting since we can't touch the military, can't touch the law enforcement parts or the prison part of it, so what's left? It's just--it loses interest, and I think that attitude has sapped the whole democratic process, that our collective affairs are common affairs, our politics, our government look to us clearly trivial and loathsome, and I think that's pretty tragic.

MS. WARNER: Dorothy Rabinowitz, do you see that, that the American public really thinks government has become kind of a petty or trivial concern?

MS. RABINOWITZ: I think that they do only because of the nature of the discourse that came out in this election season. I really think that the quality of the campaign and the way people in it-- if you look at the conventions, you look at especially the Democratic convention, where, uh, Clinton and the entire Democratic platform had fled from every memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and every--every memory of the old New Deal to the point where they wouldn't even play "Happy Days Are Here Again" to well after--into the convention--it means something that certain subjects are cut out completely. It means something that people are--candidates are afraid to discuss anything that is like a hot-button issue, that candidates return over and over again to the silliness of focus groups, both of them. I mean, I think that this is what has rained down on the electorate in a terrible way and made them feel in its reflection that there's something--that there's a great charade going on. No one is saying anything really about anything because they're waiting to hear what a focus group tells them to say. I think this has dampened and depressed the Americans enormously and the American electorate.

MS. WARNER: Do you agree with that, Michael Novak?

MR. NOVAK: I think the level of discourse was not what it should have been. There were some high moments. I think, for example, Dole's speech at the convention was a really fine speech, and there were moments I have to say when Bill Clinton's eloquence was quite notable. On the other hand, it's hard to know when Bill Clinton's really drawing the line in the stand he's going to stand with, so I think that's a big discouraging, and--and as candidate, Mr. Dole didn't keep at that high level all the time. So we're waiting for a kind of leadership to emerge that will point the ideals just ahead of us that we have to strive for. We didn't get that out of this campaign. I think the drift towards ideas, questioning the state, questioning the welfare state, looking for better ways, they're right, and the country's moving in that direction, but who puts their finger on it, who articulates it? That's what we're still looking for.

MS. WARNER: Barbara Ehrenreich, in the, uh, election of '92, the word "change," we heard change over and over. The American public wanted change. Now all these polls, if they're to be believed, show there isn't even voter anger out there, and we're not hearing that term. Why do you think that is?

MS. EHRENREICH: Well, that was a term with no content, though. It wasn't changed to something. I think it was part--it was a preview of this content list campaign, this election season, and, and I feel very bad about the discussions we didn't have. We didn't have the discussion about welfare partly because Clinton caved in and signed an extremely punitive and dangerous welfare bill before the campaigns heated up. We should have had that discussion. We should have had a discussion of the Dole-Kemp attempt to exhume supply-side economics and bring that back, and talk about what happened with it last time. Why bring that up again? What are the class dimensions of that kind of proposal? There were so many rich possible topics of discussion which we would have had real disagreements about, maybe fist fights over, but that's what democracy is--is to get to those issues and not have vague discussions of somebody's character, whether or not he inhaled and so on--that's fluff.

MS. WARNER: Cornel West, why--I know you think these issues should have been discussed--why do you think they weren't? Did the public not demand it? Why weren't the issues addressed?

MR. WEST: Well, one, I think that we have to recognize that the rule of big money and big business and shaping the very context in which the discussion takes place, very important, because when you have a citizenry that feels more and more powerless and impotent and helpless, they begin to pull back, become much more apathetic and indifferent, and, therefore, don't bring the kind of pressure to bear on our candidates. I think there has to be some serious debate about campaign finance reform, or we're going to continue to see this kind of hemorrhaging. The American people are so much more intelligent, imaginative, courageous, and visionary, than was reflected in the campaigns of most of our politicians.

MS. WARNER: But why aren't they able to demand that of the politicians?

MR. WEST: Well, one, because you've already got certain politicians in place within the two major parties--both parties very much beholden to--it seems to me--some very, very narrow frameworks--frameworks, as I said before, deeply shaped by big business and big money.

MS. WARNER: Dorothy Rabinowitz, do you agree with, with that critic, that the funding of campaigns maybe partly responsible for what you have said is a lack of exploration of certain ideas?

MS. RABINOWITZ: I think only in small part. I think there's something in larger part goal--the spirit of the age that's like- -which tells us what the morality is that everyone is simply falling victimto--I continue to harp, perhaps excessively, on the question of--on the outlawing of this thing--negative campaigning, which means the outlawing of every genuine exchange of ideas, anything hard, anything tough, anything that relentlessly pushes you to the board is a negative campaign. When we speak of character, we're not talking about smoking pot or women or anything of this course. We're talking about--we're talking about consistency of view and adhering to one's political conviction, rather than flip-flopping one day after another. That's character. But when all of these assaults on--on character are outlawed in the interest of something called civil discourse, uh--and it-- essentially utterly phonying up of the whole nature of this political discussion--and this is relatively new phenomenon. We have not seen this before, where no hard, tough exchange is permitted. And if you look at the presidential debate that took place or the vice-presidential debate between the two candidates, you could have seen that immediately--the lack of anything like a hard exchange is a very serious symptom.

MS. WARNER: All right. Well, this exchange I'm afraid will have to end, but thank you Barbara Ehrenreich and Cornel West, Dorothy Rabinowitz, and Michael Novak. Thank you very much.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the youth vote, Shields & Gigot, plus Yeltsin's surgery, and the other news of this day. FOCUS - KIDS VOTE

MR. LEHRER: Now an election day story about one way to cope with voter apathy. It's called the family solution. Rod Minott of KCTS- Seattle reports.

ROD MINOTT: Today at this polling place in Seattle, Partha Mukhopadhyahs's long habit of not voting finally came to an end. An immigrant from India, Mukhopadhyah had skipped casting ballots in every presidential election since becoming a U.S. citizen in 1987.

PARTHA MUKHOPADHYAH: I think we had some hesitation we would make a mistake, choose the wrong candidate by not knowing enough about them.

MR. MINOTT: But now, the 48-year-old Boeing manager credits his two sons, including twelve-year-old Ram, for changing his mind about the importance of voting.

RAM MUKHOPADHYAH, 8th Grader: And Dole voted against that in the Senate.

PARTHA MUKHOPADHYAH: Is that right?

RAM MUKHOPADHYAH: Yeah.

PARTHA MUKHOPADHYAH: They encourage us, you know, that we must vote. Certainly that keeps us perked up. Otherwise, the interest may just die down along the way.

TEACHER: Ram, what do you think if people don't vote?

RAM MUKHOPADHYAH: Well, maybe they don't have enough interest in voting and they don't really care who wins.

MR. MINOTT: Ram, an 8th grader, says his interest in seeing his parents vote came from a special civics program started this year in Seattle's schools. The project, known as Kids Voting USA, encourages children to accompany their parents to polling booths on election day, where they vote on their own mock ballot. The idea is to get children enthused about voting early on so that they'll keep going to the polls for real once they turn 18. Today, Ram joined 2 million other schoolchildren across the country in voting. The 8thgrader had no doubts about his choice for President.

RAM MUKHOPADHYAH: Bill Clinton.

MR. MINOTT: Why?

RAM MUKHOPADHYAH: Because I like him, and Bob Dole's too old, and he's a little bit bland and not fun enough, and Bill Clinton is like fun, and he's cool.

MR. MINOTT: Kids voting was set up in 1988 by a group of nonpartisan civic activists from Arizona. The project was modeled on a program in Costa Rica, where voter turnout typically reaches 90 percent.

MARILYN EVANS, President, "Kids Voting USA": [addressing group of children] I suspect that you're thirteen and fourteen years old. In only about five years, you're going to be voters.

MR. MINOTT: Marilyn Evans, president of Kids Voting USA, says that turnout in Costa Rica is so large because education about voting starts in kindergarten. In the U.S., by contrast, only 55 percent voted in the last presidential election. And Evans thinks that's going to get worse.

MARILYN EVANS: Political scientists are telling us to expect less adults to vote every year. We will be lucky in this year's presidential election if 50 percent of eligible voters go to the polls.

MR. MINOTT: Among the young, ages eighteen to twenty-four, the numbers are even worse. Turnout in presidential races dips to 42 percent. Evans and others cite several reasons for the low number of voters.

MARILYN EVANS: The rage is from saggy satisfaction--people are so happy with what's going on that they feel like there doesn't need to be change and, therefore, they don't need to be involved, to angry alienation--and that is people thinking they are powerless, that their involvement will not matter.

MR. MINOTT: The Kids Voting project is now taught in 40 states, involving six thousand schools and five million students--grades kindergarten through high school. According to a recent study, the Kids Voters program has increased adult participation by an average of 3 percent, but in Enumclaw, a small town 50 miles southeast of Seattle, that rise was 9 percent. For three years, that district of 5,000 students has been using games and exercises centered around voting. Judy Martinson is the deputy school superintendent.

JUDY MARTINSON, Enumclaw School District: We try to make children aware through a lot of the simulations how very much difference one vote can make, how very much difference it can make if you make a casual vote as opposed to a carefully thought-through vote, because if you choose this versus that, you may have some very different results that you may like and want to live with. So we try to make sure that they understand that they can make a difference as an individual.

TEACHER: Today, we're going to go ahead and introduce voting, the different parts of voting, and how we actually vote.

MR. MINOTT: For these Enumclaw third-graders a recent lesson included casting votes on a sample ballot.

MALE STUDENT: These sample ballots: School will be year-round. Recess will be sit-ups and push-ups.

MR. MINOTT: Other children learned how to fill out voter registration cards. Ashley Abramson explained why she felt it was important to register and vote.

ASHLEY ABRAMSON, 3rd Grader: Because, um, when you don't vote, people make your decision, and you don't like that. They tell you--they tell you what to do.

SHERRIE HARDERSEN, Teacher: [speaking to class] Everyone that's at the table and already has their card, would you please put your name on the first line.

MR. MINOTT: Teacher Sherrie Harderson says the registration exercise also benefits many parents.

SHERRIE HARDERSEN: We have found that many of our registration cards--when we send 'em out for parents to fill out and give us precinct numbers, we find parents don't know what precinct they can vote in. But by having to fill out this form for their kids at school, they have to go and research the information for themselves. And a lot of times by doing so, they register to vote too.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I believe that the federal government should give people the tools and try to establish the conditions in which they can make the most of their own lives.

MR. MINOTT: The assignment for 5th graders like Lisa Binetti included watching the presidential debates at home with family.

SEN. BOB DOLE: And it seems to me that there's a problem there, Mr. President. And I will address you as Mr. President. You didn't do that with President Bush in 1992.

CHILD: He's so mean. Do these guys like hate each other?

MR. BINETTI: They don't hate each other. They have just different opinions on how to run a business--the government.

MR. MINOTT: Lisa said she was leaning toward supporting Bob Dole. Her mother, Marianne, said she was embarrassed to admit that she never thought about voting when she was Lisa's age and waited until her late 20's before stepping inside a polling booth.

MARIANNE BINETTI, Lisa's Mother: Probably because of kids voting, these kids at a lot much earlier age then take advantage of, you know, their right to vote, whereas, we just--we weren't aware of it, we weren't into it, we weren't interested, and now these kids are going to be interested a lot earlier, and, you know, when they turn 18, they're going to vote, and we didn't.

MR. MINOTT: While political scientist Richard Young likes the Kids Voting program, he cautions it's not the entire answer.

RICHARD YOUNG, Political Scientist: The decline in voting over the last thirty years and even more importantly, the decline in public trust in government, cannot be resolved by simply, uh, bussing children off to polling booths, or going through mock elections. There are some fundamental political, sociological, cultural problems with our political system today, and this program is a good program. I don't really want to criticize it, but it is not the answer to problems of public apathy and public ignorance.

MR. MINOTT: Marilyn Evans acknowledge that Kids Voting won't solve all the problems, but she is excited by the fact that it seems to have brought political habits of economic groups together. She cites a recent study by a Stanford University professor which found low-income families are benefitting.

MARILYN EVANS: And he said to us we expect kids from high socioeconomic families to be interested in politics and be knowledgeable about races going on in their communities and issues and so on; we don't expect that from kids from low socioeconomic families. He says Kids Voting has closed the gap to zero; that the kids from high socioeconomic families and low are just as interested in politics, just as knowledgeable.

MR. MINOTT: Kids Voting advocates plan to spread their program to all 50 states eventually. For now, they say the story of 12- year-old Ram Mukhopadhyah and his family is the best example of what they hope will be repeated across the country as more parents follow their children to the polling booth. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Now, some election day words from Shields & Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. When did you get interested in politics? Were you a kid?

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: I got interested in politics-- um--I'm afraid my parents will tell you when I was entirely too young. In fact, I was sort of an idealistic--

MR. LEHRER: This was in Green Bay?

MR. GIGOT: In Green Bay Wisconsin, where I grew up, sort of an idealistic, misguided idealist, who volunteered for--volunteered for the McGovern campaign when I was 17 and, in fact--attended a rally that Sgt. Shriver, the vice presidential candidate at the time, attended. That happened to be attended as well--I didn't know it at the time--by one Mark Shields, who was working--

MR. LEHRER: You were working for--

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: I was working. Yes. I was working for--political director for Sgt. Shriver in the fall of 1972 on the George McGovern ticket.

MR. LEHRER: When did you get interested in politics?

MR. SHIELDS: It was inevitable going back to my family. I mean, the first memory I have is Harry Truman in 1948 being rousted out of bed at 4:30 in the morning.

MR. LEHRER: So your parents got you involved, rather than the other way around?

MR. SHIELDS: I saw my mother cry for the first time openly when Adlai Stevenson lost in 1952, and it was mandatory that I report home after school and watch the McCarthy hearings because Joe McCarthy was a bad man.

MR. LEHRER: And you've been trying to make up for that ever since.

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I mean--yeah--so it's--it's been deep.

MR. GIGOT: Jim, we were both so sobered by that McGovern experience that Mark became a journalist and I became a conservative.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. And here you are--here you are now. How would you characterize this election campaign?

MR. GIGOT: Uh--

MR. LEHRER: The one we just went through--not the one when you were 17.

MR. GIGOT: I think this was what I would call small election. But what I mean by that, it was not about big issues. I think you have a country which is reasonably content, a little agitated on some things, but by and large not angry the way it was in '92 or '94, or even in 1990. Um, and there were no--there's no war, there's no great economic cataclysm. And in the nature of the politicians, they're tactical, pragmatic men. They were--they were not debating- -we could have had a great debate over taxes. We really didn't. We could have had a great debate over the nature and role of government. We didn't. I--

MR. LEHRER: That relates to the discussion Margaret had earlier, that big--those big debates were not there.

MR. GIGOT: In some ways, the most interesting questions in this- -in this campaign seemed to me were not the ones that were debated but were the ones that were assumed. Uh, Bill Clinton went a long way to giving ground to the Republicans and taking a lot of their issues off the table when he signed the welfare bill, for example, when he said he was going to create a smaller government, as well, and when he moved on the culture, and coopted so many of these issues to say personal responsibility is one of my centerpieces. We were--we were really debating between the 45 yard lines in this campaign.

MR. LEHRER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: I can't argue with--with Paul's conclusion. It was not an agenda election. We have very few agenda elections where there's a--

MR. LEHRER: When was the last big agenda election?

MR. SHIELDS: 1980--before that 1964.

MR. LEHRER: Remind us what the agenda was.

MR. SHIELDS: 1980, it was Ronald Reagan, who was not only the political leader of his party, but the ideological leader of a movement.

MR. LEHRER: The whole--the whole right side of American politics.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MR. SHIELDS: And was unelectable, according to all conventional wisdom.

MR. LEHRER: Right.

MR. SHIELDS: But running on cutting the size, scope, and spending of government, cutting taxes--

MR. LEHRER: The one guy all the Democrats wanted to run against.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: Right.

MR. SHIELDS: I mean, not Howard Baker or George Bush or George Connolly, but my God, if they just get that guy with the prematurely orange hair--out of California, they knew that Jimmy Carter could beat 'em.

MR. LEHRER: Exactly.

MR. SHIELDS: Forty-four states later--[laughter among group]- -that was--and 1964 certainly was, which was the opening salvo really and sort of the conservative challenge to what had been the dominant--the dominant premise of American government since the New Deal. The federal government was an activist interventionist government both in the economy and then the culture. And that, of course, had been a great Democratic victory. So those are the only two. This was a change of speed, rather than a change of direction election. It was a presidential election--the first one I've ever seen, Jim, which took its definition and its direction from the off-year election which immediately preceded it.

MR. LEHRER: The congressional election in '94.

MR. SHIELDS: Yeah. I mean, that Bill Clinton's basic premise going in was, I'm not Newt Gingrich, and I'll save you from them, and Bob Dole's basic premise was, I'm not Bill Clinton, and in the final analysis, the first was stronger than the second.

MR. LEHRER: But in the first analysis, Paul, you had to stand in line to run against Clinton two years ago, because everybody right after the '94 election, every Republican in the world wanted to run against this easy mark, Bill Clinton. And something happened on the way.

MR. GIGOT: They did, but, remember, some of the bigger names stayed out. Jack Kemp stayed out. Dick Cheney stayed out. Colin Powell ultimately stayed out, and I think in part they stayed out because the campaign finance laws make it so tough.

MR. LEHRER: Not because they thought they couldn't beat Clinton?

MR. GIGOT: No. Quite in contrast to 1992, where Bill Clinton became the nominee in part because all the big shots of the Democratic Party stayed out.

MR. LEHRER: Couldn't beat George Bush.

MR. GIGOT: Couldn't beat George Bush.

MR. SHIELDS: Wanted to wait for Dan Quayle--you know, 1996.

MR. LEHRER: And they're still waiting.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. GIGOT: No. That's exactly right.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. GIGOT: And I think a lot of Republicans may, if Bob Dole loses, may look back and say that Bob Dole, in fact, was big enough to preempt a lot of other people but not big enough to beat Bill Clinton and, therefore, may have done his party--it may have been better if he had stayed out as the elder statesman, rather than got into it.

MR. LEHRER: You're both storytellers, in addition to being great pundits. What's your favorite story from this campaign? Do you have one, Mark? Is it something--it doesn't have to be a heavy one.

MR. SHIELDS: Probably the most memorable event--two kind of companion events--the whole election period--uh, said it New Hampshire for me--one was 1995, June of 1995, when Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, the architect of the revolution, came up to the Nashua Chamber of Commerce dinner, and they sold 1200 tickets.

MR. LEHRER: That's a lot of tickets.

MR. SHIELDS: That's a lot of tickets for any Chamber of Commerce. I think it was probably three times as many as they'd ever sold for anybody before, and he had with him dozens of cameras, scores of reporters, including yours truly, just trekking around as he helicoptered from place to place. I mean, this--he was the hottest political property imaginable, and, uh, the fact--seriously mentioned then--and understandably so--as a presidential possibility.

MR. LEHRER: And the conversation--we had it on this program--the dream election would be Gingrich versus Clinton.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. That's right.

MR. GIGOT: That's when Mark was counting Gingrich for the nomination. [laughing]

MR. SHIELDS: Then the other one, which was truly exciting, was the primary in New Hampshire, when Pat Buchanan, this total insurgent outsider, running on, you know, an economic populism, as well as a cultural populism, wins in a major upset over the face cards of the Republican Party, and then goes to Arizona immediately, where he dons a bandoleer, and assault weapon, and a black hat, and essentially ends his own campaign.

MR. LEHRER: And hasn't been heard of since.

MR. SHIELDS: No.

MR. GIGOT: Truth in advertising. [laughing]

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Do you have a memorable moment?

MR. GIGOT: I think Pat Buchanan was the best copy in this election, no question about it, as a journalist, the best--the most entertaining speech was the peasants with pitchforks speech in which he basically called on all these middle age people to rise up like feudal surfs and topple--topple the big wigs, but the one thing about Pat Buchanan that does bring a certain joy in life and conviction, uh, and I think that following him was fun, even if in the end it did end up in bandoleers and disappointment--uh, I think in an odd sort of way the most important story--the most memorable moment of this campaign was the State of the Union Address of 1996, when Bill Clinton stood up and said, the era of big government is over, and then looked up and said, that's Barry McCaffrey up there, Gen. McCaffrey, he's going to be my drug czar now--the way he recreated himself, beginning with that speech set the tone for this entire year and I think set the tone for his likely re-election.

MR. LEHRER: And remember the Republican response to that State of the Union was given by Bob Dole and it was--even he has joked it was, uh, one of his worst moments.

MR. SHIELDS: It was a great chance for Bob Dole to have--to change the whole definition of what a rebuttal was and to stand up there and say, you know, that was a great speech the President gave. He gives a great speech.

MR. LEHRER: Mm-hmm.

MR. SHIELDS: I don't--I can't compete with him on that--nobody can--but let me tell you the two or three things I really do believe--and I think, you know, if Bob Dole had been sort of the plain-spoken Gary Cooper from that point forward, I think his candidacy would have been far better served than trying to--trying to compete rhetorically, because I think the President is as articulate as anybody who's held that office.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. All right. Now for the rest of the evening, for those--give us--give our viewers some hints to look for. I mean, sure, there are some obvious things, but if you wanted to see how this evening's going to go, what should they look for, or what are you going to look for early as a pro?

MR. GIGOT: Well, one thing I want to look for is whether Bill Clinton gets 50 percent of the popular vote. I think that'll be a signal to him and to the country about, um, the strength with which he leaves this election, assuming he wins. Um, I'd also look for regional disparities--for example--I mean, I think you're going to look, in particular, will the path that the Republicans may take in the Northeast be compensated for by the continuing ongoing realignment in the South--

MR. LEHRER: The South.

MR. GIGOT: --and, in particular, four open Democratic seats, which if the Republicans take, as many think--

MR. LEHRER: In the Senate.

MR. GIGOT: --in the Senate three or four of those, they may-- they probably--

MR. LEHRER: Are we talking about Louisiana, Alabama--

MR. GIGOT: Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia.

MR. LEHRER: Georgia.

MR. GIGOT: And they could take all four.

MR. LEHRER: Mm-hmm.

MR. GIGOT: Then they cinch their majority in the South.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MR. SHIELDS: I think, Jim, President Clinton in the last week, uh, broke his schedule to help the Democrats in the Senate. There's no doubt about it. I think his severest critic can't fault him for that last week. I mean, it made no sense electorally. He wasn't trying to run up the score. I remember Ronald Reagan in one of the ungracious moments of an otherwise gracious presidency in 1984 going to Minnesota the Sunday before the election, you know, sort of as a "rub your nose in it" to beat Fritz Mondale in his home state, which he didn't do, but it was not--it was not typical of Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton did not go to run up the score. He went to South Dakota. He went to Kentucky. He went to Iowa.

MR. LEHRER: South Dakota--very close contested race for the Senate.

MR. SHIELDS: Senate race--close Senate race--in Iowa with Tom Harkin--uh--went to Kentucky, to Massachusetts, to New Hampshire, to New Jersey--in other words, he was trying, without ever stating that this is my strategy, he was trying to elect a Democratic majority in the Senate. I'll be interested to see if--like Paul-- if his coattails, especially in the Northeast, are real.

MR. LEHRER: Quickly, in the House it's going to take all night to figure that one out, isn't it? Isn't that--I mean, everything I have seen at least say that's going to be really close, it's going to go all the way down.

MR. GIGOT: Yeah. The two states to watch there I think are the early returns in Kentucky and Indiana. As the Republicans end up gaining a seat in each of those states, it looks like they'll retain their majority.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Thank you both very much. See you later- -for a long time.

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of results, we have some first returns now from election '96. Kwame Holman has them.

MR. HOLMAN: Jim, what we have are the earliest of the early returns, and they begin in the state of Kentucky as, as Paul mentioned. We have a projected winner in the Senate race in Kentucky--Mitch McConnell, the two-term Republican Senator from Kentucky has been projected to win re-election in the state of Kentucky. Moving on to another race in Kentucky, in Kentucky's second district, where David McIntosh is the incumbent going against Mark Carmichael, uh, and then--and I don't have the--the exact numbers--the numbers you can see on your screen there--and then to District 3 in Kentucky, where Democratic incumbent Tim Roemer is going against Joe Zakas, the Republican, and, um, in Kentucky's 6th congressional district, where incumbent Dan Burton is going against Kerry-Dillard-Trammell, the, uh, the Democratic opponent there. Now going on to the Indiana Governor's race where Frank O'Bannon, the Democrat Lt. Governor of Indiana, is going against Steven Goldsmith, the mayor of Indianapolis, and moving on to Indiana's 3rd congressional district, uh, where--I'm sorry- -that's the Tim Roemer race with Joe Zakas in Indiana's third--and moving on to Indiana's 10th congressional district, where Virginia Blankenbaker, um, is going for an open seat--in an open seat race against Julia Carson. Then moving on to the New Hampshire--New Hampshire Senate race, where Sen. Bob Smith is going against former Congressman Dick Swett with 1 percent of the vote total in so far, and, um, also in New Hampshire's 1st congressional district, where John Sununu, the son of John Sununu, the former White House chief of staff, and, um, if we have those national totals up for you, take a look, and we will be back with more throughout the night. UPDATE - DOCTOR'S OPINION

MR. LEHRER: Now on to some non-U.S. election news--Boris Yeltsin's heart surgery. We begin with a report from Lawrence McDonnell of Independent Television News.

LAWRENCE MC DONNELL: After months of speculation about when and if the operation would go ahead, this morning while Moscow slept, the Russian president was delivered from sanatorium to surgery. Ahead he faced seven hours in theater that would decide not just his survival but the fate of the nation. Chief heart surgeon Rinyat Akchurin looked tense even before the operation began. It was hardly surprising. In a clinic on the outskirts of Moscow, Mr. Yeltsin's heart was switched off for some two hours while doctors worked to improve the flow of blood to his vital organs. This afternoon, the surgeons emerged to announce the operation a success. Everything had gone according to plan. There were no complications, commented Dr. Akchurin, and all the signs are that the heart will now be able to function properly. And the chief consultant on the team was confident enough to expect a full recovery.

DR. MICHAEL DEBAKEY, U.S. Heart Specialist: I would predict that President Yeltsin will be able to return to his office and carry out his duties in a perfectly normal fashion.

LAWRENCE MC DONNELL: Just before he went into surgery, Boris Yeltsin signed a decree handing over power temporarily to his prime minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin, including control over the country's armed forces and its nuclear arsenal. As he sped into Moscow this morning, Viktor Chernomyrdin was acting head of state, the most powerful figure in the country. He'll remain acting president until Mr. Yeltsin is well enough to return to office.

MR. LEHRER: Elizabeth Farnsworth has more.

MS. FARNSWORTH: For more about the surgery, we are joined by Dr. Robert Jones, a cardiac surgeon and the chief medical officer at Duke University Medical Center. Thanks for being with us, Dr. Jones. I believe--I believe you have a diagram. Using the diagram, would you explain the heart surgery that Boris Yeltsin just went through.

DR. ROBERT JONES, Duke University: [Chapel Hill, NC] Yes. The view on the diagram would be the same view as the cardiac surgeon had before the chest was closed about 12 hours ago. I think the major difference is that Mr. Yeltsin appeared to have had more grafts than are shown, but the tubes that are seen in this illustration are similar to those that Mr. Yeltsin had are pieces of vein from the skin of the leg that is sewn in one end to the source of good, oxygenated blood, the aorta, and then below where the blockages are into the branches of the coronary tree.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The surgery apparently took seven hours. Some reports are saying it was a quintuple bypass. Does that sound about right to you, seven hours to do a quintuple bypass?

DR. JONES: Uh, I think the times that were quoted were the entire times in the operating room. I think the actual operating time from the time the incision was first made until it was closed was a bit less. Uh, usually to do the five grafts would take close to four hours.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Dr. Debakey made it sound like he'll bounce back pretty quickly. How long do you think his recuperation will take?

DR. JONES: I think Dr. Debakey's very correct. Usually you would expect a patient to spend one night in an acute care environment and in this country four or five additional nights before going home. Uh, the Europeans are a little bit slower in moving their patients along and, of course, with Mr. Yeltsin's special role in the world, it may be that they will go a good deal slower with him, but I think that he will be back to his full strength before very long and be ready to assume the leadership of the country.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let's talk about his special role in the world just for a minute. This has got to be one of the--the highest stress jobs in the world. Would you advise him to return to work especially slowly because it is such a difficult job?

DR. JONES: I think we have to remember that even though he is in a very powerful position, uh, he's a human like the rest of us, and, uh, I think he would be the one to really know when he will feel like he's ready to assume a large amount of stress. Most of us don't mind stressful jobs if we feel like we're in control, but if we feel a little bit under the weather, it can be somewhat frustrating. I'm sure Mr. Yeltsin will be wise enough to know when he's ready to assume some of those stressful roles.

MS. FARNSWORTH: When do you think he'll be able to resume the powers of government, which, as we learned, he's turned over to the prime minister temporarily?

DR. JONES: I would agree with Dr. Akchurin, that it will probably be about two days, but Dr. Akchurin said that he would fully leave that to his patient, and I think that's a wise surgeon speaking.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Dr. Jones, he'll be in a great deal of pain for a while, won't he? I mean, they just cut his whole chest open.

DR. JONES: No. Actually this operation is not that painful. It does hurt to take a deep breath or cough and he'll need some pain medicine. Usually patients are treated only with oral pain medicine after the first day, and they describe the pain more as soreness.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What complications should his staff be watching for now, say in the next 48 hours? What would you be watching for?

DR. JONES: I think most of the complications that could have occurred are really behind him. I think that there would be a few complications that might keep him in the hospital an extra day or two, but the chances of very serious, life-threatening complication really are very low at this point.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So that would have happened already you think?

DR. JONES: Yes, I think so.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Um, how permanent a fix is this? Is this likely to have to be done again, or is this a fairly permanent fix for a heart with the troubles that his had?

DR. JONES: Actually, the best statistics would suggest that Mr. Yeltsin now has a survival that is about equal to a man his age, 67, who did not know he had heart disease. Of course, a 67-year- old man can have trouble with his heart, and Mr. Yeltsin can too, but the outlook is really quite good.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you talk about him now as if his heart disease is gone, he's cured of the heart disease because of this, or that he still has a diseased heart that's been fixed? How do you--how do you see it?

DR. JONES: I like to emphasize to patients that they should consider themselves as well, but all of us who are well should modify the risk factors that we can to lower the fat in our diet, not to smoke, and to try to take good care of our health, and Mr. Yeltsin, I'm sure, will be given that advice as well.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Will he be able to work pretty much--I know you said that it's up to him, but would you imagine--knowing these kinds of cases and imagining the kind of work he has--say in a month be able to goback to his office? I mean, we need to have some sense of when he'll return to his more normal duties. It's been quite a long time.

DR. JONES: I think he would be quite capable in a month. I think whether he chooses to or not will, of course, be up to him. Most patients in situations like him return to work gradually and usually begin doing the things that they enjoy most and saving some of the more stressful decisions until sometime a bit more remote from the surgery.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But you said what really counts is the feeling that you have some control over it, as much as anything else, so it's not just the toughness of the job, it's something else?

DR. JONES: Well, surgery makes you feel very vulnerable, and, uh, the human aspect always comes out. And, uh, it may take a while for him to adapt to that, and he deserves all the time he needs to fully recover. In this country we would recommend to a president of a university or to a leading politician to stay out of the mainstream for about six weeks. Now whether Mr. Yeltsin will choose to do that or not will be up to him and really how he feels. We would suggest that he could begin making some decisions within just a few days.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, Dr. Jones, thanks for being with us.

DR. JONES: Thank you, Elizabeth. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: And the other news this election day, Americans in Saudi Arabia were warned about possible terrorist attacks. The U.S. embassy in Riyadh issued the alert. It said anti-American groups were planning new attacks that could come during the next week to ten days. Five Americans and two Indians were killed in a bombing at a military facility in Riyadh almost a year ago. In June, 19 American servicemen died in the bombing at a U.S. military complex in Dhahran. In Pakistan today, a new temporary government was installed, following yesterday's ouster of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. National elections were called for early next year. We have more in this report from Cyra Shah of Independent Television News.

MS. SHAH: Pakistan's president used to be one of Benazir Bhutto's firmest supporters. Today, he oversaw the swearing in of a new interim prime minister, Meraj Khalid. He's accused Ms. Bhutto's administration of corruption, nepotism, and incompetence. Most Pakistanis who woke up to the news that their prime minister had been sacked overnight showed little surprise and no signs of mass unrest. Police and paramilitary units were deployed around the capitol. The president has promised to hold new elections within 90 days. But angry supporters of Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party called his action unconstitutional. Supporters of the opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, cheered the move. He says he's confident of winning general elections set for February.

NAWAZ SHARIF, Opposition Leader: This day today is a day of deliverance for the people of Pakistan, and the mismanagement of this government--mishandling of this government--is itself responsible for the situation which has arisen today, and the president was forced to take this action.

MS. SHAH: Today, Benazir Bhutto was held virtually incommunicado in her home. Channel 4 News took these pictures at one of her last public appearances a few days ago. She's also accused of undermining the Judiciary and failing to present extra judicial killings by police. Her husband, who has been accused of taking bribes for government contracts, has been detained.

MR. LEHRER: In Washington, State Department Spokesman Nicholas Burns said Bhutto's dismissal appeared to be in accordance withPakistan's constitution. On the problems in Zaire today, African leaders meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, urged the United Nations Security Council to provide a neutral force to rescue 1.2 million Hutu refugees. The refugees have been caught in Eastern Zaire between Zairean army troops and the allied forces of Tutsi rebels and Rwandan soldiers. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: And that's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back shortly on most PBS stations with our special election night coverage. It will run from 8 PM to 1 AM Eastern Time, with a half- hour West Coast update at 11 PM Pacific Time. We'll be on online all night as well and then back here tomorrow evening at our regular time will full coverage and analysis of election '96. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.