The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the renewed crisis of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, political analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot, and a MacNeil-Lehrer 25th anniversary conversation with Robert MacNeil. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: This was one of the deadliest days yet in three weeks of fighting in the Middle East. Palestinian gunmen and stone- throwers battled Israeli troops across the West Bank and near Jerusalem. Nine Palestinians were killed and 67 wounded. Six Israelis were hurt. The fighting erupted despite a cease-fire that President Clinton mediated this week at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. In Washington, State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher said there's still hope.

RICHARD BOUCHER: Today has been a particularly difficult day. And we certainly regret the additional loss of life and the violence that has occurred. However, despite the anger and the frustration at what was happening on the ground, at Sharm el-Sheik, there was a recognition from both sides that a negotiated solution was the only way to end this confrontation. And both sides seemed to recognize that a negotiated solution, however difficult it is to achieve, is immensely preferable to a future of continued violence and bloodshed.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. A former U.S. Army sergeant pleaded guilty today to helping plot the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa. Ali Mohamed, a native of Egypt, appeared in federal court in New York. He admitted he scouted sites in Nairobi, Kenya before the attacks in 1998. And he said he met with Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the plot. The bombings in Kenya and Tanzania killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. In the U.S. presidential race today, Governor Bush defended his tax cut plan. In Manchester, New Hampshire, he rejected Vice President Gore's criticism that it would hurt the economy. He said Americans pay more to the government than they spend on food, clothing, and housing, and he said that's the real threat to the economy.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: The percentage of GDP taxes are the highest they have been since Pearl Harbor. And pretty soon, those high taxes are going to have an effect on our economy. At least, that's our point of view. We also believe this: When you reduce taxes on the people who work, when you give them more money to spend, it serves as an insurance policy against an economic downturn. It seems to me to make sense if there's been a failed energy policy and heating oil is going up and gasoline is going up, why not give people some of their own money back that we have a surplus, to be able to afford the basics in life.

JIM LEHRER: Later, Bush campaigned in Bangor, Maine. He was joined by Arizona Senator John McCain, his former rival for the Republican nomination. Vice President Gore said today he'd welcome campaign help from President Clinton. He dismissed reports of tension between them, and he said they remain "good friends." As for making joint appearances, he said details of Mr. Clinton's role in the campaign haven't been worked out. He spoke aboard Air Force Two.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: This is a campaign that I am running owe my own. And as I've said on previous occasions, I am who I am. I'm running in my own right with my own vision about the future of our country. We face new challenges in a new time. We are fortunate to have a strong economic foundation to stand upon. And the big question is whether or not we will have prosperity for all.

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton and Vice President Gore joined thousands of others today at a memorial service for Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan. He was killed Monday in a plane crash, along with his son and a top aide. The mourners marched around the state capitol in Jefferson City, to a slow, steady drum beat. In his eulogy, Mr. Clinton said of Carnahan, "he was a leader like Harry Truman. He spoke the plain truth." And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the worsening situation in the Middle East, Shields and Gigot, and some anniversary words from Robert MacNeil.

FOCUS - NO CEASE FIRE

JIM LEHRER: We begin our Middle East coverage with a report by Lindsay Taylor of Independent Television News.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: Countdown to a cease-fire, but as the deadline approached, the violence intensified. The world's major powers had persuaded Israeli and Palestinian leaders to work towards a truce, but on the ground here in Ramallah, this was the response. Once again, from behind barricades, stone-throwing Palestinians vent their anger. The Israelis retaliate, firing their weapons. The result: Injuries, and again, death. Today, a 13-year-old boy and a 19-year-old were among those shot dead. In Bethlehem, similar scenes, as all the hopes of the Sharm el-Sheikh summit seemed to evaporate. ( Gunfire ) On the West Bank, too, there was aggravation and retaliation. The would-be truce is a key test of the two sides' ability to end the violence, and prevent the slide into all-out confrontation. But if the scenes today are anything to go by, there is no cease-fire. The countdown was to more conflict. In Nablus, Palestinian gunmen opened fire on Israeli soldiers at the checkpoint. Four Palestinians were killed, and others wounded in the exchange. (Gunfire ) Six Israeli soldiers were injured in Tulkom, when they were reportedly fired on by Palestinian police after their vehicle took a wrong turning. There had been signs after the summit that the clashes may have been easing, but today the violence was as bad as in recent weeks, if not worse. A spokesman for the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, accused the Palestinian Authority of failing to fulfill its part of the understandings of the summit. In turn, Israel was accused by the Palestinians of wrecking hopes for peace. Being killed out there, too, is the best international efforts could bring this violence to an end. The U.N. Secretary General says the next 48 hours will be crucial, but already it appears too late. There is a cycle of retribution now in place that seems impossible to break, a conflict with a momentum that for now, at least, seems unstoppable.

JIM LEHRER: And to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on the breakdown in the cease-fire between the Israelis and Palestinians, we go to Tova Herzl, minister for congressional affairs at the Israeli embassy in Washington, who has just been named Israel's ambassador to South Africa; and Hassan Abdel Rahman, the chief PLO representative in Washington.

RAY SUAREZ: Tova Herzl, let's start with you. The deadline came and went. A cease-fire did not begin. Why not?

TOVA HERZL: Israel fulfilled what it had committed to do as part of the cease-fire. We opened up the airport in the Gaza Strip. We opened the borders between Jordan and Egypt and Israel. We lifted the barricade or the siege beyond the Palestinian city. Unfortunately in parallel, the Palestinian authorities declared today a day of rage. We thought it was a day of cease-fire. They thought it was day of rage. Rage against what? Rage against cease-fire? Rage against the possibility of peace? It was a terrible day today. It was a terrible day yesterday when a group of hikers, who might have made misjudgment in where they should be hiking in this kind of situation, were attacked by the Tanzim, which is directly controlled by somebody who reports to Arafat. They were not evacuated. Somebody bled to death. We are seeing terrible, terrible, terrible days. But it's not too late.

RAY SUAREZ: Hasan Rahman, why didn't a cease-fire begin today.

HASAN RAHMAN: The rage was against a massacre of Palestinians by Israeli troops. The Israeli killing of Palestinians has not stopped since Sharm el-Sheikh. On the contrary, it has intensified. And we saw the massacre today by Israeli troops of so many Palestinians, young as well as old. There are nine Palestinian martyrs today, and over 70 wounded and 200 more hurt. This is not a cease-fire. This is really a one-sided war declared by Israel against the Palestinian population. I believe that Mr. Barak is trying to pay in advance to Mr. Sharon in exchange for forming what is going to be a national unity government, which is going to be a government of war against the Palestinians.

RAY SUAREZ: But let me follow up there. At Sharm el-Sheikh, President Clinton said that both sides, both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat had promised immediate concrete measures to end the confrontation. Now on every confrontation, there are two sides in confrontation. Did the Palestinians side...

HASAN RAHMAN: Absolutely. We issued a statement to the Palestinians. The Palestinians abided by it. Israel, instead of withdrawing its troops, it elected more check-points. It intensified its military presence in the Palestinian territories and it intensified its shooting of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, there was one-sided declaration, and that's ours. While Mr. Barak was paying lip service to the cease-fire, he ordered his troops to fire live ammunition on Palestinians. And we saw today what are the results.

TOVA HERZL: There were a few catch words in what Mr. Rahman said. One was the word martyrs. It seems that somebody wants martyrs for a cause, which would much better be served at the negotiating table. The second thing is as you saw in the ITN reports, Palestinians started shooting; we only use live fire when we are shot at. We do not use live fire unless we are shot at. And somebody should ask the question what these young people, children by my standards, are doing where troops are shooting from; it's an excellent question and I think it should be raised. Why are children there where people are shooting? What is the point? And should we not respond when we are shot at? Should we not respond when we are shot at? Not one of these shooting incidents was begun by us. We do not throw live fire at stones. We shoot live fire when we are fired upon.

HASAN RAHMAN: Those kids were protesting with the stones. You do not have to fire live ammunition to on them to kill them? There are Jews who sometimes throw stones on Jewish soldiers. Do you kill Jews? You kill Palestinians because you feel that Palestinian life is much cheaper than a Jewish live. We saw that the results of this confrontation, the report said, seven Israelis hurt, nine Palestinians killed, 78 wounded by live ammunition and 200 other Palestinians hurt.

RAY SUAREZ: Tova Herzl coming out of the area, news reports have said that the Fatah faction of the PLO was, in fact, had a militia out in the field and they were shooting in the direction of Israeli soldiers. However, there were also many thousands of civilians from the news reports, like the one we just saw, who appear to be unarmed. Is there, in your view, a nuanced response to these differing kinds of threats?

TOVA HERZL: Certainly there is. We do not respond with live fire unless we are shot upon with live fire. There are other means, which are used when it's not live fire. But this is categorical. And for anybody to expect us not to shoot back when we are shot upon that's not...what kind of response is that to expect from anybody? Yes, we do shoot back. Unfortunately there are victims. There are victims, unfortunately. This violence has to stop. Now, Mr. Barak came out categorically after the Sharon summit in person and said we are prepared to comply. To this date, we have not heard a word from Mr. Arafat.What we heard was after some pressure, a statement from Palestinian sources not even from the Palestinian Authority in parallel, the incitement, the official Palestinian media is continuing completely unabated. Today was a day of rage. What does a day of rage mean? We talk loud when there is a day of rage? A day of rage instead of a ceasefire?

HASAN RAHMAN: Rage against the atrocities committed by the Israelis. You seem to miss the basic point. The basic point is that Israeli army is in Palestinian towns. It is in Palestinian villages. It's attacking Palestinians in their own homes. Those Palestinians are not in Israel. They are in Palestine. They are within the limits of Palestinian town. Why do you have to have tanks in Palestinian towns? Why do you have to have soldiers in Palestinian towns? Why don't you stay on your side of the borders? Why do you have to impose yourself on Palestinians? That is the basic problem. This is a protest by the Palestinians against 33 years of military occupation, denial of the basic political and human rights of the Palestinians. The Palestinians want independence from Israel.

RAY SUAREZ: In the last few hours the prime minister of Israel declared a time out in the peace process. What does your government mean by that?

TOVA HERZL: The prime minister said after the summit in Cairo this weekend he will consider his options and see where the situation is going. But may I just add that in parallel to what the prime minister said, I just read the polls in the Israeli weekend papers. Amazingly the prime minister is not doing so well in the polls. But 62% of the Israeli public, despite what we have seen over the last few weeks, 62% of the Israeli public still thinks we ought to talk to the Palestinians. We do not want to be engaged in this. We do not want days of rage. We want peace. But we want peace with somebody who wants peace; not with somebody who substitutes rage for cease-fire, for somebody who replaces incitement for preparing the public for the fact that peace does require some compromises. We were engaged for seven years in the process of negotiations. We came this close, and somebody had an interest to produce martyrs rather than to produce a peace treaty. It's very sad.

HASAN RAHMAN: I have no doubt that 62% of the Israeli public want peace. The Israeli government does not want peace. Mr. Barak seems to look... wants to look for a pretext out of the peace process, especially after Camp David. That's why he deployed more troops in the Palestinian territories even before those events took place. There was reoccupation of the West Bank by Israeli soldiers, more settlements, more confiscation of land. So Mr. Barak, after Camp David, wanted to impose on the Palestinians what he could not get on the negotiating table. He wanted to achieve it from the Palestinians concessions by military force.

RAY SUAREZ: So, quickly, when you hear the words time out, you're saying that Barak is trying to pull out of the peace process.

HASAN RAHMAN: He is confirming what he has been trying to do for a long time: To get out of the peace process. We declared our commitment to the peace process. We believe that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have any alternative to peace. It is absolutely nonsense any notion that the Palestinians do not want peace. We want peace. We are the victims of the continued conflict. We are paying the price. We pay it with the lives of our people. There are 120 people killed and over 5,000 people wounded. It is impossible; it is insulting even. It borders on racism, to accuse us that we want our people killed.

RAY SUAREZ: We're going to have to leave it. This conversation will continue. Thank you both.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields and Gigot, and some birthday talk with Robert MacNeil.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner is with Mark and Paul.

MARGARET WARNER: That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. All right. Gentlemen, the debates are over. How has the race shifted in the last three weeks?

PAUL GIGOT: It's flipped. The debates moved, Margaret, moved Bush into the situation that Gore really was in before the debates and that is with a small but nonetheless, significant lead. And I think the debates did a couple of things for Bush. One is they gave him a boost over Gore on personal qualities: Trustworthiness, honesty and certainly likeability, leadership -- and reinforced that personal qualities and credibility. They also allowed Bush to fight, I think, to a draw with Gore on what were supposed to have been some of Gore's best issues, defining issues, winning issues: Education, health care, maybe still a little behind on health care, but he has closed the gap on Social Security, and defined Gore as something he doesn't want to be defined as which is an old time Democrat, a bigger spender than Bill Clinton. That has hurt him in an awful lot of swing states.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree, Mark, do you think that the debates had that kind of an impact, a positive Bush impact?

MARK SHIELDS: I think they had a positive Bush impact, not to the dimensions that Paul described.

PAUL GIGOT: I said a small lead.

MARK SHIELDS: Small but significant lead. I think the race is an absolute dead heat today, but it wasn't three weeks ago. Paul is right. George Bush then trailed. And the debates were good. He exceeded expectations. I said earlier that I thought he faced a different standard from al Gore. He faced pass/fail. He passed. And Gore got B minuses and C pluses and more scrutiny. But the race today is a dead heat. Gore still enjoys enormous advantages over Bush on most of the issues of interest to people. Add to that Gore has a big lead in knowledge and compassion over Bush. Bush does have an honest lead over Gore on honesty and moral standards. But the race is a tie for very simple reasons, and that is that neither candidate has been able to resolve the doubts that people have about them. The "Wall Street Journal" pollsters Bob Teeter and Peter Hart this week found 43% of Americans find themselves comfortable with the idea of George Bush's knowledge and capacity that he has his vision to be President. The same 43% only found themselves comfortable with Al Gore's honesty and straightforwardness to be President. So each of them has that. And I don't know quite frankly, Margaret, how they resolve it in the remaining days. I mean, they're probably going to have to run with these liabilities to the end.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's look at how the race is shaping up in another way now that the debates are over, because, as we know, the President isn't elected nationally but state by state. In the past three weeks, those standings seem to have shifted too. According to independent analyst Charles Cook, who closely tracks state polls, the electoral map right now looks like this. These states are solid, that is the ones in red, are considered solid likely or leaning for Bush. That adds up to 205 possible electoral votes. And here's how it looks for Gore -- the states in blue -- 187 potential electoral votes. And these, the others, are of course, the toss-ups. Now we know that these shift all the time and they are basically just based on state polls with margins of error. But still in the last three weeks, that's basically a reverse. Gore used to lead in the electoral vote count. What do you think is happening state by state? Where do you think the shifts have occurred and why?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I think that the big picture is that more than in 1992 or 1996, this is a much more competitive race in many more states. The Republican National Committee source told me they're competing on the air and advertising in 22 states right now, which is an awful lot of states, almost half of them. So there is no question about that. There is no state that Bob Dole carried in 1996 that Al Gore is really competing in. But I counted about 17 states that Bill Clinton has carried twice where George Bush is at least competitive, not necessarily ahead, but is at least on the air or competitive. So I think this demonstrates that Bush, you know, a lot of the swing states is really competitive when you wouldn't expect them to. I mean Minnesota?. The poll today said he was up three. Part of that is Ralph Nader because Ralph Nader is scoring eight points in Minnesota. Nader is hurting Gore, I think, in Minnesota, in Wisconsin, in Iowa in the upper Northwest and Oregon and Washington. And that's something that Gore has to watch out for because Bush could come in and steal those states; whereas Pat Buchanan, the third party candidate who has threatens Bush from the right, he is negligible in any survey.

MARK SHIELDS: Shields: America is not static. America changes. We have a tendency in politics to say well, Michael Dukakis carried that state, therefore it is a Democratic state permanently. States in play now that should be were reliably the Republicans -- North Carolina, all of a sudden North Carolina is up for grabs. Nevada, which people thought was a lock for the Republicans going in is now very much in competition.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying, in other words, the shift hasn't all been just towards Bush., that a lot more states are in play?

MARK SHIELDS: And it's not only migration from outside the United States; it's in migration within the United States. Take the state of Florida. I mean today there are more non-Cuban Latinos in Florida than there are Cuban Latinos. And the reality is that the Democrats are betting the farm on Florida. Make no mistake about it. It is a big, big bet for them. But they feel if they can deprive George Bush of the state where his brother is the governor with a 65% approval rating, Jeb Bush has, that they would deprive George Bush of the 270 votes he needs to put together for the presidency. So you have a whole series of other factors. First of all George W. Bush is not Bob Dole. All right. I mean, Bob Dole, while an admirable legislative leader and a distinguished American, was not a good national candidate. George Bush has been a lot better candidate with a lot more united party behind him and Al Gore is not Bill Clinton.

MARGARET WARNER: With only 18 days left though, don't the candidates have to start picking and choosing? Where do you think they're going to focus or can they continue spending money everywhere?

PAUL GIGOT: No, they can't. They have to make strategic choices. I think the pressure probably is a little bit more on the Democrats right now as far as the choices because they have maybe a little bit more... Less money at the national level. It's going to be fascinating. The Bush strategists today told me they feel they are only behind five points in California. Now part of that reason is they have been running ads and Al Gore hasn't because Al Gore thinks the state is safe for him. What happens if Bush makes a big push in the next week in California. Then does Gore have to take money away from Florida and away from Pennsylvania and Michigan, put it into California and contest that? Otherwise he is holding... Keeping his fingers crossed thinking he can win anyway. That's high stakes in a state he has to win. But the real point is that this year -- unlike 1992 and 1996 - in the last two weeks there will be tactical decisions where you put your money that could make the difference in this election.

MARK SHIELDS: Bush is in the same position, for example, in Illinois. Illinois and Ohio are sort of the book ends of the Midwest as far as electoral votes. The Democrats haven't written off Ohio but they don't think Al Gore is going to carry it. The Republicans haven't written off Illinois because the Speaker of the House's state and all of rest of it but there is an acknowledgment.

PAUL GIGOT: Pretty close.

MARK SHIELDS: It's reflected in expenditures they don't think they can. The wild card in this race and it can't be overstated is Nader. I say that not simply because of the states involved, I mean states the Democrats have carried in the past: Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa. But the fact that he... this is a passionless race. We have two men running for President, neither of whom is a movement. There is nobody running for office today saying I'm a Bush Republican. I mean George Bush was a President's son. Al Gore came up as a Vice President. There is no sense of maverick, there is no sense of movement, there is no sense of we're taking on the established order and we're going to change things. The only candidate who has generated passion is Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader has done it in a way that these guys couldn't do. He has had 12,000 people pay $10 each to get into rallies in Minneapolis and Boston and Portland and Seattle. I mean you couldn't... George Bush couldn't get 10,000 people to pay ten dollars. He could get ten thousand people to pay $1,000. Al Gore couldn't get ten thousand people to pay $10. That's where the turnout is going to be because Nader is going to be a factor in those states. And if Nader goes to high single digits or into double digits, Margaret, then it spells nothing but trouble for the Democrats.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, what about the other figure hovering over this race, not a candidate, Bill Clinton? I noticed today and we ran a clip of it earlier, Gore may be prompted by this "New York Times" story today, but Gore was asked twice today about do you want Bill Clinton campaigning for you and so on. What is this all about?

PAUL GIGOT: It's about, I think, Al Gore's fundamental ambivalence about Bill Clinton as his mentor and as somebody who may or may not help him. In a way, Al Gore's ambivalence is the country's ambivalence about Bill Clinton. Great job approval rating, awful personal approval rating. We have never had that in a two-term sitting President. Reagan -- Eisenhower -- both more popular personally than in their job approval. And the only people that Bill Clinton motivates than Democrats are Republicans. So there is a real danger for Gore, that if Bill Clinton gets in, that it no longer will be seen as a Gore-Lieberman ticket. It becomes again a Gore-Clinton ticket. And that historically over the last year has been where Al Gore has not been the strongest. He was strongest after the convention when he broke out on his own when it was a Gore-Lieberman ticket.

MARGARET WARNER: There are many congressional Democrats who want Clinton in this race.

MARK SHIELDS: Absolutely. I dissent from Paul in this sense. Al Gore might be ambivalent about Bill Clinton; he's not ambivalent about wanting the presidency. And Bill Clinton is the big enchilada in this race. He is the guy who is the most popular Democrat in the country among Democrats. Among the one out of four voters who are undecided according to Bob Teeter and Peter Hart, Clinton gets a 71% favorable rating. That's not much of a risk. I mean, you know, sure they don't like the guy, they prefer that he hadn't behaved the way he had. But you are talking about somebody who is coming in with enormously positive credentials on framing the issues for this campaign. I don't know a Democrat in shoe leather, Margaret, who didn't watch the third debate when George Bush got up there and said you're picking winners in this tax code. I mean, Bill Clinton would have hit that out of the park. You mean to say you don't pick winners the way you do it and the way you reward those well off... It would have been gang busters. You'll see Bill Clinton back in this race.

PAUL GIGOT: When Ronald Reagan and Eisenhower came on the stump in the last part of the '60 and '88 races, they were assets. Bill Clinton is a double-edged sword.

MARK SHIELDS: And Bill Clinton has to come out immediately, immediately for a simple reason. You get one day's story, as Paul is talking about. Should Clinton be out? Then the rest of it, you get Clinton campaigning and let's be frank about it. I mean, the gipper was good, but Clinton is better.

PAUL GIGOT: But Reagan was loved and Clinton, there is just this sense that they don't... A lot of people don't like him. A lot of people are going to go out because they don't want to give Bill Clinton that third term if he identifies himself so closely with Al Gore.

MARGARET WARNER: But Al Gore is going to have to say I really want him in for real.

MARK SHIELDS: I mean he's already out. He is doing for Democrats. But Gore is ambivalent but wants to win.

MARGARET WARNER: We have to leave it there. Thanks.

FOCUS - A PAUSE FOR HUMOR

JIM LEHRER: And now a little more politics. Vice President Gore and Governor Bush were both in New York City last night at the annual Al Smith dinner. That's a white-tie charity event honoring the former Democratic Governor of New York who lost his bid for the presidency in 1928. Here are some excerpts.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: I'm honored to be at this year's Al Smith Memorial Foundation dinner. This dinner represents a hallowed and important tradition, which I actually did invent. ( Laughter ) And, of course, I want to acknowledge FEMA Director James Lee Witt, who accompanied me here tonight. (Laughter ) We travel everywhere together. ( Laughter ) Please accept my apology for interrupting your meal. Since this is a special occasion, I wanted to mark it by getting all of my interruptions out of the way before Governor Bush speaks. ( Laughter ) I know some people are going to keep accusing me of exaggeration, so let me be clear. Those people seek nothing less than the complete destruction of the American way of life. ( Laughter ) ( applause ) It's absolutely clear. I never exaggerate. You can ask Tipper or any one of our 11 daughters. ( Laughter ) Another thing that bugs me is when people say I am just a wonk, obsessed with policy detail. Well, like some many Americans, I like to just kick back and relax and watch television for relaxation. One of my favorite shows is "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Well, it should really be called "Who Wants to be After Taxes a $651,437.70 Person?" ( Laughter ) Of course, that's under my plan. Under Governor Bush's plan... ( Laughter ) it would be "Who Wants to be After Taxes a $701,587.80 Person?" ( Laughter ) This is a fund-raiser, isn't it? Whenever I see everybody dressed the same way, my antenna goes straight up. ( Laughter ) I also make you this simple pledge: If I am entrusted with the presidency, I may not always be the funniest President, but I will never sigh to you. Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America. ( Applause )

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Thank you all very much. This is an impressive crowd-- the haves and the have-mores. ( Laughter ) Some people call you the elite. I call you my base. ( Laughter ) The woman I just ran into coming off the elevator, she said, "I'd like to give you some advice on what to wear." I said, "well, I appreciate that." She said, "white tie is fine, but you need some more earth tones." ( Laughter ) Perfectly nice woman. I think her name is Naomi or something like that. The odd thing was she handed me a bill for $15,000. ( Laughter ) Can you imagine? Sure, a grown man paying $15,000 for somebody to tell you what to wear? Heck, $15,000 these days gets you a sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom. ( Laughter ) (cheers and applause) This evening does have a special meaning. The story of Al Smith's historic run for the presidency is truly inspiring. It gives me hope that in America, it's still not possible for a fellow named Al to be the commander in chief. ( Laughter ) And I see Bill Buckley is here tonight-- fellow Yale man. ( Applause ) We go way back, and we have a lot in common. Bill wrote a book at Yale; I read one. ( Laughter ) He founded the Conservative Party. I started a few parties myself. ( Laughter ) Bill was certain he won every debate he had. Well, I know how he feels. ( Laughter ) It's been a pleasure to be with you all tonight. Your excellency, Laura and I would like you to come and visit our family next year. I'll send you the address as soon as I know what it is. Thank you very much, God bless. ( Applause )

FOCUS - SILVER ANNIVERSARY

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, a little birthday talk. It was 25 years ago tonight that a new television program went on the air in New York with this opening.

(MUSIC PLAYING IN BACKGROUND)

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Good evening. ...

JIM LEHRER: As direct descendants from that came the MacNeil-Lehrer Report, the MacNeil- Lehrer NewsHour, and after Robert MacNeil retired five years ago, this current years ago, this current program. To mark our family anniversary, I spoke with Robin earlier this evening from New York.

JIM LEHRER: Robin, good evening, sir.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Good evening.

JIM LEHRER: First, tell the story of how all this happened. How did the Robert MacNeil Report come into being?

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Well, you remember that when you and I did the Watergate hearings, it created a bit of a tension and people thought you and I were a team, and maybe there should be a nightly program; that was back in '73. And it didn't work out then, and I went back to the BBC, where I was working, and then the New York station, WNET, said, why don't you come and start it here, and I did. And we were trying to create in an atmosphere so different from today - when there were basically only the three networks and maybe one independent station in each city - something that would complement what commercial television did brilliantly but briefly each night and would also create a role that would be different for public television and make a journalistic contribution. And that's really how it started. And we were given a budget of $1 1/2 million, which for a year was about what the networks spent in a week - sometimes in a day. And what we came up with was something that we could afford with that amount of money that would be a real alternative. And so that's really how it began.

JIM LEHRER: And it was one story a night for 30 minutes.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Exactly. Because what did the networks not do in their brilliant half-hour coverage, which commanded the attention of the whole - of the whole nation? They didn't go into any detail into one story, and so we thought, well, we can do that. And Channel 13 had the brilliant idea of scheduling it right after the network news shows ran. So we could pick up the audience that might have hunger for something in more depth right after that. In fact, you remember, we even ran some funny commercials saying - or newspaper ads - saying, watch Walter Cronkite; then watch us - watch John Chancellor; then watch us. And because there was nothing much else on then, it worked, and it really caught on. Within a few months it was picked up by the PBS network and then the station you were attached to - Washington - joined in, and instead of being with Jim Lehrer in Washington, it became the MacNeil/Lehrer Report.

JIM LEHRER: Which I remember as being a brilliant decision too when it became the MacNeil/Lehrer Report.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: I can't imagine why.

JIM LEHRER: Remember our joke at the time was that there was some discussion and some dispute about what the title should be.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Yeah.

JIM LEHRER: And that they turned it over to our mothers, and they decided on the MacNeil/Lehrer Report.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Well, the other thing that - remembering now what we thought at the time - and you're nice to ask me these questions, but you were at least as much a contributor of all this as I was -- that we thought, what are the networks not - what can we introduce that isn't going? Well, as you know, television at the time despised talking heads. Talking heads were all we could afford. So how could we make talking heads interesting and coherent? How could we add a kind of respect for complexity to the news that was already there? And really that's how our concept was born.

JIM LEHRER: Well, speaking of talking heads, I quote you all the time, so why don't we get it directly from you about your wonderful line about how we get all the things that really - all the information that really matters to us.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Yeah. It struck me as really extraordinary that commercial television had built up this antipathy to the talking heads. For one thing, the talking head is the only thing that fits the television screen life size, and I think at a primitive level in all our consciousness, that meant something; it was real. And the other thing is this despised talking head is how all of us hear the things that really matter to us: You're hired; you're fired; I love you; I hate you; will you marry me; I want a divorce - whatever it is - these are the things - and those talking heads don't usually come in a box with a picture over the shoulder, or voice over, action pictures, and so we thought that if we could re-establish the talking head as something vital and well edited, which was very important, and that we could just slow things down a little bit and make them a little more coherent and provide a little more context to the news, we would provide an alternative, and something additional, which is what commercial television, as I say, really brilliantly provided.

JIM LEHRER: And then in 1983, we got very ambitious; that's when we went to an hour.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Yeah. And we've begun to feel the limitations of the half hour because if you're doing only one story a night, which was our gimmick, and a good one, to attract attention to ourselves and be noticed, it is very limiting, and sometimes we made some really sill mistakes, mostly my fault, you know -

JIM LEHRER: No, no, no.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: -- doing a light program about the plastic tomatoes, when something really important -

JIM LEHRER: We did 30 minutes on Pringle's potato chips.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: We did.

JIM LEHRER: With outrage... (laughter)...phony potato chips.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: I take the blame for that. And we really got - you know, we really got hoist with our own petard a few times, like going on about what terrible tomatoes the industry was producing now so you could have them all year, and we went out at random, bought tomatoes around the areas of the New York station, had the leading expert on tomatoes in, and she cut through the first one, and it was the most delicious smelling tomato ever and so on and so on ...

JIM LEHRER: I remember also in this very studio back in those days we were doing 30 minutes on new advances in banking, and they had brought in what was then called the new revolutionary thing called an ATM machine.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Right.

JIM LEHRER: And we were live, of course - everything we did was live -

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Right.

JIM LEHRER: And I couldn't get the thing to work, and I kept putting the card in; the money wouldn't come out and all that. Go ahead, sorry.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: ATM's have survived that.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, I know; they really have.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: But, so if we were saying we were just a complement to the networks up till '83, after '83, in the hour, we could really claim to be an alternative, and I think we and you have been ever since.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. And as we changed all along - and then of course we - when you left about five years ago, there were other changes of personnel, as well as other little things all along, but the one thing that's never changed, Robin, is the philosophy behind this, the underlying principles under which we operate, which you started 25 years ago tonight.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Well, I started, but with - with your input because I'd learned a lot from you doing the - during the Watergate hearings. I learned a lot from you about fundamental fairness and objectivity and also the idea that the American public is smarter than they're often given credit for on television.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: And they don't all need things in little bite-sized, candy-sized, "mcnuggets" of news. Some of them want something a little more grown-up and at a slower pace but a more thoughtful pace. And I think it's that ethic and those standards that have led to you being asked for two presidential elections in a row to be the moderator of all the debates.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Well -

ROBERT MAC NEIL: And you've just been through the fire on that.

JIM LEHRER: Boy, I really have been through the fire. That's the hardest work I've ever done, I must say, these last three debates.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Well, but you brought all those values to it. You know, there are a lot of people who still want the debates, and in the special you did a few weeks ago on previous debates, a lot of people are looking for the kind of gaffes and fireworks and dumb things or one liners or displays of anger that have been colorful in previous debates. And I think there's another factor, and I know that some people have criticized the way you - I think unfairly - or wrong-headedly - about the way you handled it. I think there's another factor here. Increasingly, as the candidates are more and more molded and controlled by the products of their focus groups and their advisers not to do a single thing that might alienate some potential voter, they become more and more sort of plastic in that - and restrained - in that way. And, therefore, their partisans failing - the candidates failing to really go at each other hammer and tongs and stick knives in each other or punch each other in the face, they want the moderator to do it. And that's not the moderator's function.

JIM LEHRER: They want the moderator to do the dirty work.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: I thought you did great.

JIM LEHRER: Well, thank you. But the bottom line here on these debates - and it's hard - and I believe this -- I would believe it if I had nothing to do with these particular three debates or any of the other ones I've moderated - is it doesn't matter what the format is; it doesn't matter about - that's kind of interesting if you have this format, that format, that format - but the bottom line is when you have the two major candidates for President of the United States on the same stage anywhere for 90 minutes talking about things that matter, it is in and of itself revealing to the voters. It reveals a lot about themselves, no matter how lousy the questions might be from the moderator, no matter how confining the format might be. The American people get to see these two men - in this case Vice President Gore and Governor Bush - as individuals, what they - hear them talk about what they believe, no matter how they expressed it or whatever. I mean, it is a terrific exercise for the democratic process.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: And it's a format that you didn't choose.

JIM LEHRER: No.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Every case, you were the prisoner of the format as much as they were.

JIM LEHRER: I know. People have jumped me for - you kept talking about the rules, the rules, you're violating the rules -- but I was confronted with a situation. I'm really not trying to defend myself, but the fact of the matter is that I'm going to - no, I was given a set of rules to enforce, and one of the candidates - Vice President Gore - wanted more flexibility in them - and Governor Bush wanted them rigidly enforced. And I would go a little bit one way and a little bit the other way, and I made some bad judgment calls, no question about that here and there along the way.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: No, I don't think you did. And what people don't know is how much behind-the-scenes work there was in that and, for instance, in the last debate you had 140 questions that came to you, and you had to choose among them with a reasonable balance and everything, and that was a major contribution. But I'd like to make another point about this: I think it flows out of the values of the program you do every night that it has a respect for the institutions of the democracy. I don't mean for the people in it occupying them necessarily, and I think we both agree that journalists are not here as disinterested bystanders in the democracy. We're not here just watching the idiots screw it up and making - and making a joke about it. We're all here as participants; we hold the edge of the fabric, and I think the exercise that you've done is a major contribution to that democratic process. As square as that may sound to a lot of people these days, we believe in it.

JIM LEHRER: Well, we do, and the people who watch this program know where it all came from. Of course, it came from you and it's been here for 25 years. Thank you very much, by the way, for what you just said, but before we go, bring us up to date on you. What have you been doing with yourself these last five years without us?

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Well, it's nice of you to ask. But you always ask questions you know the answer to.

JIM LEHRER: Well, it's a very simple question.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Well, I've been writing. I've published a couple of novels.

JIM LEHRER: Tell us the titles.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: One was called -- since leaving the program - "The Voyage," and "Breaking News."

JIM LEHRER: Which is a terrific book about the television news business.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Thank you. I'm not up to your prolific rate, but - and I just finished the first draft of another one. I'm working on a play. I'm working with MacNeil/Lehrer Productions on trying to develop the 11 o'clock national news program called "National Edition," a sequel to "The Story of English" called "Do you Speak American" on American language today; I'm the chairman of the McDowell Colony, the oldest artists' colony in the United States; I work with the Freedom Forum, and the New York Public Library and the Japan Society, and the Theater for a New Audience, so I've been busy.

JIM LEHRER: So we shouldn't worry about you.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Well, if you want to ...

JIM LEHRER: Hey, look, as we used to say five nights a week, Good night, Robin.

ROBERT MAC NEIL: Good night, Jim.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: The word I was trying to pronounce there was rotten, by the way. Again, the major stories of this Friday: It was one of the deadliest days in three weeks of violence in the Middle East despite a cease-fire agreement. At least nine Palestinians were killed; 67 wounded in clashes with Israeli troops. And a former U.S. Army sergeant pleaded guilty to helping plot the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa two years ago. Our closing credits tonight are special, and longer than usual. What you will see are the names, in alphabetical order, of the many people who have worked on this program during the last 25 years. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.