The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WARNER: Good evening. I'm Margaret Warner in Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, the Republican and Democratic Party chairmen give their forecast for next week's elections, then political analysis from Mark Shields and Paul Gigot. We have a report from Washington, one state that allows people to vote by mail, and we close with an update from Bosnia on the new offensive by government forces.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: Susan Smith, who claimed her two young sons were abducted, was arraigned today on charges of murdering them. Late yesterday, the Union, South Carolina woman confessed to killing three-year-old Michael and fourteen-month-old Alex. Smith, who is 23, had set off a nine-day nationwide search for the children after she told authorities they'd been taken by a carjacker. This morning, she was taken from jail to the county courthouse, where she declined to enter a plea and waived her right to a bail hearing. She was ordered held without bond. Hundreds of police officers and volunteers had searched the area where Smith claimed a black man had taken her car and children on October 25th. That vehicle, a burgundy, 1990 Mazda, was retrieved late yesterday from a lake outside town. The bodies of the two boys were inside. Police confirmed today that the children were alive when the car entered the water. They did not suggest any motive for the murders. Smith and her husband were in the midst of a divorce. Authorities said they did not think he or anyone else would be implicated. President Clinton today talked about the community's response to the tragedy. He made his remarks at a campaign stop in Duluth, Minnesota.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The American people looked on them with enormous admiration the way they pulled together across racial and other lines, the way they tried to find those children, the way they worked to get to an answer, the way they prayed for the safety of the children. I just don't want them to believe that somehow what the mother did in any way diminishes the quality and the character, the courage of what they did. And my thoughts and prayers are with them today, and I would hope the American people would feel that way as well. I think we were all moved and deeply impressed by how that community responded, and this awful turn of events cannot undermine that.

MR. MAC NEIL: When the alleged kidnapping was first reported, townspeople in Union put up yellow ribbons to signal their hopes for the safe return of the children. Today, many of those yellow ribbons were gone. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: In economic news, the nation's unemployment rate has fallen to a four-year low. The Labor Department reported today that the jobless rate fell in October to 5.8 percent and that 194,000 new, non-farming jobs were created. President Clinton talked about the new figures in Duluth.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Had we listened to the doubters, this progress never would have been made. Those who oppose our economic plan argued that growth would stall, that jobs would be lost, that the deficit would go up. They were plain wrong. We have delivered what the American people have long wanted, lower deficits, $100 billion lower than predicted, strong growth, nearly 4 percent a year since I assumed office, and with the new revision over 5 million jobs, five times as many per month as were created in the previous administration.

MS. WARNER: That assessment was disputed by Mr. Clinton's predecessor, George Bush. During a campaign stop for Republican candidates in Omaha, the former President said Mr. Clinton and the Democrats can't take credit for today's good unemployment news. Mr. Bush said, "We handed the new administration an economy that grew." The man who was hired last year to help burnish President Clinton's image and bring order to the White House has submitted his resignation. Political strategist David Gergen will leave his post on January 1st. He's currently a special adviser to both the President and the Secretary of State. Gergen was a magazine columnist when Mr. Clinton hired him but had worked for three previous Republican Presidents. He plans to teach at Duke University.

MR. MAC NEIL: Twelve jurors have been seated in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson. The jury consists of eight women and four men. Eight of the jurors are black, one is white, one Hispanic, and two are of mixed race. They range in age from twenty-two to fifty-two. Selection of 15 alternates will begin next Tuesday. Simpson has pleaded "not guilty" to the charges that he killed his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

MS. WARNER: Astronauts on the space shuttle Atlantis today released a German science satellite into the atmosphere. The satellite developed star tracking problems shortly after being launched, but NASA said this afternoon that it was confident that it could correct the problem. The satellite will orbit for eight days before being recaptured by the shuttle's crew. During that time it will gather information about disturbances in the Earth's middle atmosphere. Atlantis is due back on Earth November 14th.

MR. MAC NEIL: The United Nations Security Council today voted unanimously to end the mission in Somalia by March 31, 1995. It was initiated by the U.S. in December, 1992, to help end the famine that was ravaging the African country. About 17,000 U.N. troops remain there. Meanwhile, the General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia's Muslims but only if the Serbs continue to reject an international peace plan. That came as the Muslims' recent offensive against the Serbs gained momentum. The Serb-held town of Kupres fell to the Muslim-Croat coalition. It was the first time in the two and a half year war that government forces recaptured a Serb-held region. We'll have more on the situation in Bosnia later in the program. Next it's on to a party leader's election forecast, Shields & Gigot, and voting by mail. FOCUS - PARTY LINES

MS. WARNER: Campaign '94 is our main focus tonight. With election day next Tuesday, candidates all around the country are gearing up for the final push this weekend. In the balance, partisan control of the Senate and House of Representatives and 36 governorships as well. With stakes this high, President Clinton launched a cross- country campaign marathon designed to roust the Democratic Party faithful. Kwame Holman has our report.

MR. HOLMAN: This week, the President looked like the Bill Clinton of two years ago, hustling from one campaign event to another, trying to drive home his message and stir the electorate. Faced with the possibility of Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress but bolstered by opinion polls that show his popularity on the rise, President Clinton on Monday jumped into Campaign '94 with both feet, trying to bolster troubled Democratic candidates along the way and vowing to stay with it right up until the votes are cast.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Don't miss a chance, don't miss a lick, don't leave a stone unturned. Go out there now between now and Tuesday and say, look at me, I represent America, hope and tomorrow, help me go forward. God bless you all. [crowd sheering]

MR. HOLMAN: The President's campaign swing this week already has taken him to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cleveland, Pawtucket and Providence, Rhode Island; Albany, New York; Des Moines, Iowa; and Duluth, Minnesota. Today he's in Los Angeles, tomorrow in San Francisco, and in Seattle on Sunday.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You know, Harris Wofford doesn't always vote with me but he always votes for you, and you ought to keep him here.

MR. HOLMAN: It was Pennsylvania Sen. Harris Wofford who in the midst of an uphill re-election fight warmly welcomed the President to Philadelphia. But just a few weeks ago, with President Clinton's popularity sagging, few Democrats wanted to risk an appearance with him. One of those reluctant Democrats was Michigan's Senate Bob Carr, but finding himself locked in a toss-up race to succeed retiring Donald Riegle, there was Carr this week with the President in Detroit. And Carr embraced him emphatically.

BOB CARR: Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States!

MR. HOLMAN: The President's new found popularity is credited to his recent foreign policy successes in Haiti and the Middle East, but in Detroit, the President talked mostly of his domestic achievements.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: In 21 months, we have cut the deficit three years in a row for the first time since Truman was President, we have shrunk the federal government, but we have invested more in your jobs, your future, and we have 4.6 million new jobs in America!

MR. HOLMAN: In Albany, while campaigning for New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, the focus again was on the administration's domestic successes.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: New York lost 1/2 million jobs in the four years before I took office. New York has gained over 110,000 jobs in just 21 months. We're going forward, not backward!

MR. HOLMAN: Campaigning in Cleveland for Ohio Democrats, the President warned voters about the promises made by many of the Republican candidates when they signed their contract with America.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: They say, oh, we're going to give everybody a tax cut. They don't tell you almost all of it goes to very wealthy people, give everybody a tax cut, and we're going to increase defense, and we're going to increase Star Wars, we're going to bring that back, and we're going to balance the budget. It sounds great. How are you going to pay for it? We'll tell you that after the election.

MR. HOLMAN: And in Rhode Island, while campaigning for two House hopefuls, the President charged that those Republicans would fulfill their promises on the backs of senior citizens.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And I can tell some of you find it hard to believe that anybody, even the most conservative Republican, wouldpropose a plan that would cut Social Security benefits. They have one Senate candidate saying Social Security ought to be voluntary, which means bankrupt the system. They have another saying that he wishes the retirement age were above 70, above 70.

MR. HOLMAN: The President has repeated those same messages at every campaign appearance he's made this week, but the President admits he's been preaching to strictly Democratic crowds.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Will you help us? Will you do it?

MR. HOLMAN: And the President has stayed away from the Rocky Mountain and Southern states, areas of the country where his popularity remains low, areas where he could do more harm for a candidate than good.

MS. WARNER: Now, the midterm elections as seen from the perspective of the two parties. Joining us are Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and David Wilhelm, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Welcome, gentlemen.

MR. WILHELM: Thanks for having us.

MR. BARBOUR: Thanks for having us.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Wilhelm, let me start with you. Do you have evidence that the President's campaigning out there is specifically helping specific candidates?

MR. WILHELM: Oh, I think absolutely. In Rhode Island, Merle York, the Democratic nominee for governor, was 15 points down. Last night she was a point ahead. In Pennsylvania, Harris Wofford has real momentum right now because of the President's visit and because of the focus on the issue of Rick Santorum's call for an increase in the retirement age to over 70. I think he's had a positive effect in Michigan. I think he's going to have a positive effect where he was today in Minnesota. He is helping, and he's helping draw the clear contrast between a Democratic approach that has led to the creation of 5 million new jobs, and a Republican approach that would take us back to the trickle-down policies of the 1980's.

MS. WARNER: Do you agree, Mr. Barbour, is the President helping the Democratic candidates?

MR. BARBOUR: If you look at the polling, Margaret, now that President Clinton is back home, he's out campaigning for Teddy Kennedy and Mario Cuomo and Harris Wofford, and he's reminding people of the Clinton tax bill, the largest tax increase in American history, of his plan for a government-run health care system, how his pledge to end welfare as we know it became a proposal to spend billions more for welfare as we know it, and you see Clinton's job approval going down.

MS. WARNER: Well, what about the candidates, what about the people who are up for election?

MR. BARBOUR: You see no improvement in any of the polls. In fact, Ridge went up in the polls after the President was there, and it's for a very simple reason, that once he's out of the Middle East in this very nice atmosphere where some people are signing a very wonderful treaty that we're all very proud of, now he's back talking about taxes and spending, and people know, Margaret, government's already too big for its britches, and he's not helping himself reminding folks he's trying to make it bigger.

MS. WARNER: You're trying to get in here. Go ahead.

MR. WILHELM: I've got to get in here. First of all, it is a bunch of bunk and nonsense that last year's deficit reduction package included the largest tax increase in America history. The only people paying a dime of higher federal income tax are people that earned in excess of $180,000 a year. Now, thank goodness, we had a President and a Congress that had the guts to take on the deficit and had the courage to ask the rich to pay a little more in tax. Let Republicans defend that 1 percent of the American population that are paying a little higher tax. We have created 5 million new jobs. We have cut the deficit, and the Republicans want to go back to trickle-down economics and Newt Gingrich and all his pals have called for a tax cut for the rich, a tax cut for big companies. That's the choice that this election presents.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you, Mr. Wilhelm, the President is out there saying now the Republicans want to cut Social Security, your candidates are out there saying, the Democrats have horrible plans about raising taxes. How can either party govern after a campaign like this?

MR. BARBOUR: Well, look, the President has been out taking the lead in the Democrats' big lie campaign, falsely claiming that the Republicans want to cut Social Security. Today a reporter, after President Clinton attacked me by name, a reporter said, Mr. President, are you telling the truth about the Republicans? His response was just to repeat the big lie. He did not -- when he was asked about his truthfulness, he ducked the question, and I'm not surprised from the man whose middle class tax cut became the largest tax increase in history and who assured us that he didn't inhale.

MR. WILHELM: Well, let's talk about what Republicans have said during this campaign. Ollie North said he wants to make Social Security voluntary. I didn't make that up. He said it. Rick Santorum said to an audience in Pennsylvania, "If it were up to me, I'd raise the retirement age above 70." I didn't say that; Rick Santorum said it. And this is an important point. This is very important, because politics is about real stuff. Newt Gingrich proposed a contract for America that would cut taxes, it would increase defense spending, and he has no plan, no statement about where the cuts would come because it's --

MR. BARBOUR: Margaret, if I could participate in the filibuster here --

MR. WILHELM: -- you would have to cut.

MS. WARNER: All right. But let me ask you both --

MR. WILHELM: You would have to cut.

MS. WARNER: In the end, both your parties have to sit down and govern, however many seats either of your parties win. My question is: Could either party deal honestly with Social Security, which is going to run out of money in about the year 2010, after a campaign like this where both sides say, oh, no, no, we won't touch this, we won't touch this?

MR. BARBOUR: Margaret, we've very plainly set out in writing that you can balance the budget by the year 2002, the Republicans claim, without touching Social Security. Yesterday, CNN did an analysis of this. Bill Schneider, who's their chief political analyst, he's not a Republican, he said to Bernie Shaw, yes, the Republicans are right, you can balance the budget by the year 2002 without touching Social Security doing what the Republicans say on defense, and federal spending for other programs which still go up 21 percent. It's just the Democrats think a 21 percent increase is not big enough. They want it to go up more than that. The truth is you can do this today but the Democrats want to use the big lie campaign to change the subject.

MR. WILHELM: No.

MS. WARNER: All right. Answer my --

MR. WILHELM: Go ahead.

MS. WARNER: Can the Democrats deal honestly with Social Security and its funding problems down the road after a campaign like this?

MR. WILHELM: The Democrats can deal honestly with it, they have. It was Sen. Moynihan that took the lead in 1983 to find a solution, but let's look, look to this. The Democrats initiated Social Security. The Democrats are committed to preserving the integrity of Social Security. The kind of analysis that Haley just went through just is -- talk about a big lie, talk about misleading, if you left Social Security off the table, the cuts would have to come somewhere, and they would come in dramatic cuts in programs like Medicare or maybe farm subsidies.

MR. BARBOUR: Let's look at this analytically.

MR. WILHELM: Politics is about real stuff, and it matters, and the Republicans, they did in the 1980's, they promised a bunch of hot checks, they run up the deficit, and they're ready to do it again, and the American people should look at the fine print in the contract for America.

MR. BARBOUR: The Democrats say over and over, you can't do this. The only people who've analyzed it said, yes, you can do it. The truth about the big lie campaign that the Republicans are going to cut Social Security, it is a desperate Democrat effort to change the subject. The real issue in this campaign is: Do you like the direction Bill Clinton's taking our country? Do you approve of his tax bill? Do you favor his proposal for a government-run health care system? Do you like business as usual in Washington? Well, if you like what Clinton's doing, you ought to vote for the Democrats. But if you don't like the way he's taking our country, if you think government's already too big, if you think they're already taking too much of your taxes and you're not getting your money's worth, if you want to change the direction, then that's simple too. Change the Clinton Congress by voting for the Republicans, and that's the issue, even though they want to throw up dust with just made-up stuff about Social Security, just made up.

MR. WILHELM: Here's the real issue. Here's the real issue. The issue is whether the American people see the following: After 12 years of soaring deficits, after 12 years of trickle-down economics, after 12 years of the middle class squeeze, we finally turned a corner in this country. We've made a solid beginning. Do you want to continue, or do you want to go with Republicans like Newt Gingrich, like a Rick Santorum, like an Ollie North, that would take us back to the very policies that put the middle class in the vise that they were in throughout the 1980's? That's the question.

MS. WARNER: Okay. You both mentioned the deficit. Let me bring up another thing that's happened in this campaign and which I think many people would say neither party was honest with the voters. The OMB chief, Alice Rivlin, wrote a memo for the President which was leaked to the Republicans outlining steps that would have to be taken to reduce the deficit further. Immediately, the Republicans jumped on it, Mr. Barbour, and said, this is outrageous, all these ideas, these are outrageous, prompting the Democrats to then disclaim, or the White House to disclaim any intention to do this. One Clinton aide said to me, the problem with having to beat back the Rivlin memo is we had to take all kinds of things off the table that we should keep on the table. Now, again, don't you think voters know that?

MR. BARBOUR: Margaret, the Republicans attack the White House for hypocrisy. The Republicans at the very time Alice Rivlin and you talked to this White House aide, said now we have to take this off the table, at the very time they put astronomical tax increases and huge spending cuts on the table, they were falsely attacking the Republicans in paid TV out of the President's own mouth, saying, the Republicans are going to cut Social Security, the Republicans are for demonstrating cuts in Medicare. We were not, but at the very time they were running those spots, everybody in the country found it, it was really that who were secretly looking at it. It's the blatant hypocrisy, Margaret, not the fact that they're looking. President Clinton has appointed an entitlements commission. I strongly approve of him doing it. We've got to get control of government spending, but don't make up something about me on Social Security, while you're looking at it secretly in the White House, and then attack me.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Wilhelm, don't you think -- do you think that the White House will now feel that there are certain steps it cannot take because in the heat of this campaign it had to disavow any interest in any kind of tax increase?

MR. WILHELM: We have cut the deficit. After 12 years of a run-up in the deficit, this President and this Congress has cut the deficit. They've done it fairly. They've made the tough choices that the Republicans were never willing to make.

MS. WARNER: Are you saying the choices are over?

MR. WILHELM: No. We. The President made this kind of choice. He said I am going to limit, limit any pain or any suffering that anybody in the middle class would feel, I'm going to ask the wealthy among us to contribute a little bit more. The Republican first choice in last year's debate, and their first choice in this year's debate was to cut the kind of spending that older Americans benefit. I did not come up with Ollie North's call for voluntary Social Security. I did not come up with a contract for America that Newt Gingrich did that would require these very cuts. So the question is: Where do you put your priorities? This President -- this President puts his priorities with hard working, middle class families. The Republicans protect the privileged few, they have always done it, and that's what this debate is all about.

MS. WARNER: So are you both saying to me that you think this campaign has been honest with voters?

MR. BARBOUR: Well, I think the Republicans have tried very hard to run issue-oriented campaigns, and the American people identify with us because they agree that spending is too high, taxes are too high, and they're not getting their money's worth. So the Democrats throw the big lie out there. But, Margaret, let me just factually respond to something David said. The Republicans propose cutting the deficit every bit as much as Clinton without raising anybody's taxes all by cutting spending. Next year, next year the deficit starts going back up by Clinton's own numbers, it doubles in four more years because they didn't cut spending. They relied on a $260 billion tax increase as the way to reduce the deficit.

MR. WILHELM: Because we didn't do anything on health care cost containment, but that is a typical, typical line. The Republican - -

MS. WARNER: Do you think this election has been honest with voters, the campaigns?

MR. WILHELM: Yes. I think, I think the contract for America draws the line in the sand precisely where it should be drawn.

MS. WARNER: The Republican contract.

MR. WILHELM: The Republican contract for America provides a stark contrast in the approaches of the two parties. The Republicans would run up the deficit; they would write hot checks; they would require --

MR. BARBOUR: That's because the contract for America calls for a balanced budget amendment. It outlaws the deficit.

MR. WILHELM: Okay. Go with the balanced budget amendment. If you're serious about it, it would require huge, huge cuts. You can --

MR. BARBOUR: CNN just did a study yesterday that says it won't deny -- it will not require the cuts that -- CNN did the study --

MS. WARNER: Gentlemen, one at a time. All right. Before we close, let me ask you, Haley Barbour, the Republicans, how many seats will you gain in the House of Representatives?

MR. BARBOUR: There will be probably 60 close elections. If they split 50/50, we'll win control of the House. If we win all of the close ones, we'll win a big majority. If they win all of the close ones, we'll probably win twenty or twenty-five seats net.

MS. WARNER: What's your prediction on the House?

MR. WILHELM: The average midterm loss is 25 per midterm since World War II. I think it's going to be in that area. But I'll say this. There are an extraordinary, extraordinary number of races that are within the margin of error. I think that may be the one thing Haley and I agree on tonight. The electorate is still very much in flux. This -- there are a lot of races in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, and for the governorships of this country that are going to be decided over this weekend on election day, so get out and vote.

MS. WARNER: And do you want to -- either of you -- hazard a prediction on the Senate, where a switch of seven seats would switch control?

MR. WILHELM: I would say this. I would say anybody who's predicting that right now has taken a huge risk because there are extraordinarily tight races in states like Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, states that are going to determine whether or not we retain control of the Senate.

MR. BARBOUR: We'd win control of the Senate today, but they are a lot of close races. The big advantage we have is our voters are enthusiastic and optimistic, and you can see the Democrats are having to use scare tactics to go out and try to stir up their voters, and that's why we have something of an advantage of the close races.

MS. WARNER: Well, you both look pretty enthusiastic and committed tonight. Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. BARBOUR: Thank you, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Robin. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. MAC NEIL: We look further at election politics this week with our regular Friday analysts, Shields & Gigot. Mark Shields is a syndicated columnist. Paul Gigot is a columnist with the Wall Street Journal. Mark, listening to the two chairmen, whose analysis of the prospects would you go with?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think the analysis was so objective and impartial I really couldn't detect a tilt either way, Robin. I do think that perhaps Mr. Barbour's optimism is well placed this time, and Chairman Wilhelm's exhortations to his people to get out and vote are very badly needed and I think basically going unheeded at this point.

MR. MAC NEIL: Paul, what do you make of the latest, what seems to me a contradiction in the poll numbers? The CBS-New York Times Poll has the Republicans ahead of the Democrats by four points. The AP Poll has the Democrats ahead of the Republicans by seven points. What do you make of these polls on voter intentions, voting intentions?

MR. GIGOT: Well, one of the messages is that the voters are still in flux, as the two chairmen said, but I think one way -- one place that the polls, all of the polls have been consistent on all along, is that when you look at likely voters, i.e., the people who really want to get out and vote this time, the Republicans have an edge. And when they compare, do you want to vote for a Republican or Democrat for Congress on a sort of national generic level, the Republican advantage is almost at twenty or thirty even forty year highs. So that suggests a pretty good year.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you agree with that, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't disagree, Robin. As I've pointed out, the Democrats going into 1992 had a 10-point advantage generically in the question you posed and ended up losing 14 seats, so the Democrats based upon turnout -- turnout is a product, i.e., who turns up at the polls is a product of three factors, age, income, and education. The older you are, the richer you are, the longer you are in school, the more likely you are to vote. That is not the Democratic base. It's also the more likely you are to vote Republican. So when turnout drops, it hurts the Democrats. So the Democrats have to have a bigger edge going into an election like this one in the poll numbers in order to do well on election day.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, clearly, part of President Clinton's effort this week has been to ginger up the Democrats. You heard the two chairmen disagreeing totally on what effect it was having. What effect is he having, Mark, do you think?

MR. SHIELDS: I think the President is -- like any president -- is enormously helpful any place he goes where his own party thinks he's going to be helpful. I mean, it's as simple as that. They don't want him in Oklahoma. They haven't asked for him in Tennessee, but in a state like Minnesota, where his job rating is high, it came up through Massachusetts this week, he's two to one favorable, he can be helpful there. Plus, a President could do something that nobody else in politics can do, and that is he can raise money. I don't care who the President is, and oftentimes you don't like to know where the money is raised from, but it might be people trying to sell staples or Xeroxes to the government or something of that sort or parking meters to the local mayor, but they always do show up at such events. So in that sense, I think Bill Clinton has been helpful to the Democrats for whom he's campaigned. In a national sense, I don't think that the dialogue of the race has been dramatically affected by his presidency.

MR. MAC NEIL: Paul, sorry, what do you think of the Clinton effect?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think he was doing a lot better in Damascus, Syria, than he was in Detroit, and I think that that's particularly true if you look at what happened in a lot of states like Ohio, which is -- you've got three, four House seats really up for grabs, and the President went to Cleveland this week, and what he tried to do is to gin up the base, get the base, get the inner-city voters, get the unions out. That's where the Democrats are right now. But the problem is that when he did that, he was also sending a message to some of the voters in those suburban seats held by Democrats like Eric Fingerhut who are desperately trying to hang on, and their numbers didn't go very well when the President came out, because the President is very popular in those districts. So there's a real dilemma that the President has and the Democrats have when he tries to get the base out, he sends a message, a different message to the suburban voters, the Perot voters who are already unhappy. He reminds them of why they weren't happy in the first place.

MR. MAC NEIL: Paul, an analyst in the Associated Press wrote today, "In many ways, Clinton's presidency is on the ballot." Do you agree with that?

MR. GIGOT: I think a midterm election the incumbent usually loses some, although 25, as David Wilhelm said, is a little high for recent elections. I think it is a referendum typically on the party and government and especially --

MR. MAC NEIL: Especially this year.

MR. GIGOT: Especially this year, because what happened in 1992 was something that hadn't happened in a long time, and that is one party was given all the keys to the kingdom. I mean, they were given the White House, they kept the Senate and the House, and the American people said, all right, now produce, let's see what you can do. I think the public is going to render a verdict on that production or a lack of it, and right now it doesn't look like they're happy with the outcome.

MR. MAC NEIL: How much has Clinton, the President, got riding on this election Tuesday, Mark, would you say?

MR. SHIELDS: He's got as much riding on it as Ronald Reagan did in 1982. It's the first time in twelve years that anybody in the out party, the party opposing the President's candidates, has characterized the candidates of the President's party as either Clinton clones or Reagan robots. And that is -- I think it's no question -- it is a referendum on Bill Clinton and on his policies and will be seen that way. I mean, as you go across the country, Robin, in district after district, you'll see Bill Clinton's face morphing by, you know, some magic of television. And I wonder, I wonder if they really had it in mind when the medium was created, but they -- it morphs Bill Clinton -- I saw in Ohio yesterday a black woman state treasurer's face, Democrat, morph into Bill Clinton's, into a white Southern male's.

MR. MAC NEIL: What does this verb "morph" mean?

MR. SHIELDS: What does it -- it's some sort of a damn technical term, and I don't know, Paul could explain it because his paper does that sort of thing, but it does -- in other words, it just melts away. It's like some sort of a computerized thing, and all of a sudden, Bill Clinton appears, and the message is: Do you really want Bill Clinton's state political director as your state treasurer? I mean it's -- and that is -- I don't see many Democrats, quite frankly, running Bill Clinton standing next to them in their ads. So there's no question he's been the means by which the Republicans have cast this as an up or down race.

MR. MAC NEIL: Paul, what do you think this election is really about now? William Krystol, the Republican strategist, claims that a major shift is underway in the way Americans see government. Is that too big a claim?

MR. GIGOT: I think it's a shift. Whether it's a major shift I think we'll have to see on Tuesday. But I think there's no question that it's a shift, been a shift in the last two years in the perception the public has and the trust they have in government. We have an electorate out here that I think has not been as skeptical of government as it is now for any time, maybe 1978 or '9, even more maybe in the heyday of the Reagan era, which was supposed to be so anti-government. There's a sense that President Clinton came in and rather than disciplining government, he came in and he expanded it. His health care plan wasn't possible because the anti-government -- wasn't popular because the anti-government message stuck. And if you look at a campaign like Tom Foley's say versus George Nethercutt, the speaker of the House in Seattle, one of the main issues there is Tom Foley goes in and says like most politicians have for many, many years, I can deliver for you, I am powerful enough to deliver back to the district, and George Nethercutt responds and says, maybe we don't want to do that anymore, maybe we want to break that cycle and keep the money here. And that's a real fault line in American politics and I think a big change.

MR. MAC NEIL: Not evidently the voters in West Virginia who are about to send Robert Byrd back unopposed, Mark, isn't that right?

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. And we'll find out whether the people of the 5th District of Washington share that same perspective, but I do think, quite frankly, that Paul is on to something.

MR. MAC NEIL: You agree with this idea about shift in the attitudes towards government across the spectrum?

MR. SHIELDS: I really do. I think we are seeing, those of us who grew up with the belief and the faith that government was and could be at its best an instrument of social justice and economy progress, I think the consensus in the country has expired on that or is in danger of expiring. I don't think there's any question about it. I think there is a sense that government is no longer part of the answer overall or the solution that is increasingly part of the problem. And I think that any time that happens that's a problem for the Democrats, who are the party of government and are the pro-politics party.

MR. MAC NEIL: Or is there a different consensus emerging? Paul's newspaper says in an editorial today that all the Democrats, almost all of them, are sounding like Republicans at the Houston convention, talking about fighting crime, family values, individual responsibility. Do you agree with that, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: No, I don't agree with that, but that's no exception to most of the things I read in Paul's editorial page, except Paul, and of course, Al Heiman and a few others, but, no, I don't -- I think that there's no question, Robin, in a macro sense this election is run about on issues that work against the Democrats and for the Republicans. Crime has been historically and traditionally a Republican issue, in spite of Bill Clinton's initiatives and accomplishments in that area. Welfare reform has been a Republican issue in spite of Bill Clinton's initiatives in that area. And so you have that sense of dissatisfaction and anxiety in the country. I think that is the overriding emotion in the United States in 1994. It's one of anxiety. It's an uncertainty. America is not optimistic. America is uncertain about the future. It's no more confident that the Republicans have the answer than it is the Democrats have the answers. But there is a sense that the change that they voted for in 1992 has not been forthcoming or satisfactory to them.

MR. MAC NEIL: Paul, one person who harnessed so much of that energy or similar energy a couple of years ago, Ross Perot, has come out with a series of late and sort of eccentric endorsements. What effect is that having? I mean, for instance, he's gone for the independent gubernatorial candidate in New York State and may act as a spoiler there. What effect is he having?

MR. GIGOT: I think eccentric is putting it generously, Robin. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the endorsements in any philosophical sense, other than Ross Perot seems to like them, maybe as people, maybe he knows their people, I don't know. I think the warning here is to the Republicans, because there are a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill who have looked at the voting coalitions in 1992 and said, all we need to do is get Ross Perot back under the tent, and we'll win in 1996. He's so unpredictable, he's so hard to please, you really -- if you go courting Ross Perot, you can go courting trouble. What you have to do is you have to go after his voters with policies, and then Ross Perot will end up following you.

MR. MAC NEIL: Another one of his endorsements was another slam at George Bush indirectly, Mark, in Texas.

MR. SHIELDS: He endorsed Ann Richards,the Democratic candidate for governor and candidate for re-election, and I -- I think by doing so, he, Ross Perot, has probably blown his last chance to spend a long weekend at Kenny Bunkport at the Bush family compound over Labor Day. There's no question that -- there is the appearance that he's into intergenerational mayhem with the Bush family. But I mean, he did endorse the Democratic governor of Colorado, Roy Romer, in addition to Ann Richards. But he's asked his supporters to support Republicans across the board. I don't think endorsements, quite frankly, even though they're intriguing and Perot, I think, is a fascinating figure, we don't deliver groceries in the United States anymore in 1994. We don't deliver milk. We barely deliver the newspapers and mail, and nobody really delivers votes in that sense. If a primary family member or a spouse of one candidate endorses the other, then that's probably newsworthy, but there aren't -- given the number of information sources available to voters, there aren't a lot of people waiting around, saying, gee, I wonder how the old lieutenant governor is going to say I should vote in the Senate race.

MR. MAC NEIL: I was going to ask you both to stick your necks out and tell us what's going to happen on Tuesday, but we haven't got time to do that. I'm sorry.

MR. GIGOT: Just as well.

MR. MAC NEIL: Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Still ahead, voting by mail, and the war in Bosnia. FOCUS - VOTE BY MAIL

MS. WARNER: Next, getting out the vote. If voting patterns hold true, more than half of the nation's voters will stay home next Tuesday. In Washington State, election officials have been trying a new way to increase voter participation. Correspondent Gregg Hirakawa from public station KCTS-TV in Seattle reports on an experiment that's showing some promise.

MR. HIRAKAWA: It is two weeks before the November election, and Sue Frause, in Island County, Washington, is about to cast her vote. She is taking part in the county's first attempt to conduct its November general election entirely by mail. She may never have to vote in a conventional polling booth again.

SUE FRAUSE, Island County Resident: I have a feeling it's here to stay. You know, we should be quite proud that we're on the cutting edge of this kind of voting.

MR. HIRAKAWA: The vote by mail in rural Island County is part of a two-year experiment to increase voter participation in Washington State. Seven Washington counties volunteered to conduct the experiment during the state's September primary election. So far, election officials are calling the test a success. In counties where residents voted by mail, 52 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots. The rest of the state averaged a 32 percent turnout. Ralph Munro is Washington's secretary of state.

RALPH MUNRO, Secretary of State, Washington: Oh, it's gone -- they've gone way up. We're, we're so excited we can hardly describe it. We saw counties that used to have a ten or a fifteen or twenty percent turnout go up to fifty, sixty, seventy percent, because they conducted the entire primary by mail. It's incredible.

MR. HIRAKAWA: In addition to higher participation, election officials say a vote by mail election is less expensive to run than a conventional one. Gone is the army of temporary precinct workers needed to supervise and tabulate election returns. Island County auditor Art Hyland has become enthusiastic about vote by mail elections, although he concedes conducting one was more difficult than he initially thought.

ART HYLAND, Island County Auditor: Well, the first time around it's not easy. There's a lot of problems associated with stuffing the envelopes with the correct ballot guides and ballots, themselves. It's a -- at first, it seemed like a real nightmare, trying to deal with in our case 34,000 registered voters, because each of whom receives one, but once the return is, is down, it gets easier, and this time for the general election, it's going to be - - it's already easier.

MR. HIRAKAWA: Island County art gallery owners Richard Proctor and Ron Childers say mail-in voting is no different than voting by absentee ballot, something they have been doing for years. They say they have no fears their ballots will be lost in the mail, and they like the convenience of voting at home.

RICHARD PROCTOR, Island County Resident: Well, I like to be able to spread out the voter pamphlets, I like to be able to look at the mail that I've gotten -- I keep it all in one place -- and read the articles in our local paper, interviews with the candidates. I feel that I can -- that I vote more carefully that way.

MR. HIRAKAWA: But despite the higher overall voter participation in the seven test counties, only two Washington counties were willing to proceed with vote by mail for the general election. Officials in the other five counties say the short seven-week period between the primary and general elections makes it difficult to prepare and get out ballots in time for the November vote. Along with logistics is the prospect of fraud. While all ballots must be signed and checked against voter registration cards, mail-in ballots are largely out of the hands of election workers. Campaign officials worry ballots could be tampered with, votes could be bought, or that ballots could even be stolen out of mailboxes.

TODD MYERS, Washington States Republican Party: The signatures are required, but what you could do is you could simply go to an area that you knew was going to vote 70 or 80 percent for your opponent and collect those ballots and preventing people from voting for your opponent.

MR. HIRAKAWA: Island County election officials say so far they have no reason to believe fraud has been a problem because voting patterns in the primary have been consistent with previous elections. The main opposition to vote-by-mail has come from local school districts. The Stanwood School District is located North of Seattle. Half of the district is in a county which conducts elections the old-fashioned way; the other half is located across Puget Sound in vote-by-mail Island County. Ray Reid is the Stanwood School District's superintendent.

RAY REID, Stanwood School Superintendent: One of the major questions, at least in my mind, is: Does increasing the number of people voting really increase the quality of the vote? In other words, if I am required to go to the poll, I've probably taken the time to study the issue, and I'm making an informed vote. If something is just in the convenience of my living room and whether or not I decide to vote or not is determined whether it's convenient, then I'm not sure I have as informed a vote.

MR. HIRAKAWA: In Washington State, tax measures put before voters must receive a 60 percent super majority in order to pass. In September, the Stanwood School District asked voters for money to buy new school buses. The measure received a passing 67 percent "yes" vote in the county where people went to the polls but received a failing 59 percent "yes" vote in Island County, where residents voted by mail. School administrators say converting to a vote-by-mail system statewide may make it impossible for districts to pass future tax levies and bond measures. They contend low turnouts in levy election helps school districts because motivated parents with school-age children are most likely to go to the polls. Increasing voter participation through mail balloting, they believe, increases the number of voters who will oppose school levies simply to avoid paying higher taxes.

RAY REID: We find out that we give up about 9 percent of the "yes" vote. Schools are one of the only areas that you get to vote on your taxes, and so they become kind of the -- let's say the whipping post for the frustration of high taxes. And it's really the wrong, the wrong place to choose to lower your taxes.

MR. HIRAKAWA: Advocates dismiss school administrators' claims voting by mail would mean more uninformed voters are likely to vote.

RALPH MUNRO: What they're really saying is if you don't have the initiative to walk 20 miles through the snow, than you're not as good an American as I am. That's baloney!

ART HYLAND: The concept that this actually increases the number of uninformed voters is, I think, just not, not true. If you put a ballot in someone's hand, even if they're not aware of a lot of the candidates or of the issues, they might just take the time -- I think they had -- our experience is that they did take the time -- they sort of looked into it.

MR. HIRAKAWA: Voting by mail has complicated campaigns for many local politicians. During Washington State's September primary, candidates in mail-in counties were forced to get out to voters early and often.

CHARLES ROLLAND, Washington State Democratic Party: One of our best targets is mailed directly into the home, to the voters, particular to issues that those voters are caring about. Now we're sending them out two and a half weeks earlier than that last minute barrage. We're starting our television earlier, rather than in the last two weeks when people usually make up their minds, we're having to start it out a month, a month and a half, two months in advance to influence that electorate. So it's stretching out when we do things.

ART HYLAND: It was tougher on the campaigns. I think it really was. But I don't think anyone is going to feel sorry for the campaigning -- for the campaigns or the candidates.

MR. HIRAKAWA: Despite its initial success in small, rural counties, mail-in voting still presents a procedural nightmare for places like Seattle. King County, which includes Washington's largest city, has almost 1 million registered voters, more than 2600 voting precincts, and almost 200 separate taxing districts. Election officials say the job of sorting ballots and verifying an estimated 600,000 signatures would be enormous.

RALPH MUNRO: You don't have just one big election. You have on your ballot, you've got this crazy bed sheet ballot with squares and squares of races and then all kinds of overlapping districts that relate to metro and sewers and water and fire and everything. So you might have a different ballot than your neighbor has right down the street, you know, a half block away.

MR. HIRAKAWA: Even supporters of voting-by-mail in Island County say they have mixed feelings about not being able to go to the polls this November.

RICHARD CHILDERS, Island County Resident: Well, my first impression was that I thought it was sort of un-American. You vote since you was 21 years -- since I was 21 years old, I voted in the polls, and it just seemed like the natural thing to do.

SUE FRAUSE: I kind of sound like I'm one of the old-timers around here, but I really do look at going to vote as a privilege and one of our rights and also it's kind of a social thing in a small community, and it was just one more thing on Whidbey Island that's changing.

MR. HIRAKAWA: Despite some voter ambivalence, election officials say it is difficult to take issue with the increased voter participation in counties which have experimented with vote-by- mail. Voter participation in Island County has averaged 62 percent in past off-year general elections. This year, county officials believe participation may reach as high as 80 percent. UPDATE - BATTLEFRONT

MS. WARNER: Next, an update on the war in Bosnia. Last night, the U.N. General Assembly voted to lift the ban on weapon sales to the Bosnian government if the Serbs continue to reject an international peace plan, but a new offensive by the Muslim-led government and their Croat allies makes Serb acceptance of the plan unlikely. Correspondent Nik Gowing of Independent Television News reports.

MR. GOWING: Croat forces entering the virtually deserted Central Bosnian town of Kupres, the first Serb-held town regained by government forces in two and a half years of war. There is suddenly a new self-confidence among the mainly Muslim forces, who've now begun fighting alongside Croat troops as part of the new Croat- Muslim alliance engineered earlier this year by the United States. In the outskirts of Kupres, there was hand-to-hand fighting before the town fell. For several days, Bosnian forces had made little progress, until they were joined by Croat artillery that first shelled the town from three directions. This was a significant seizure by the Croats, as much as the government forces. This was a mainly Croat town before Serb forces captured it. The Bosnian capture of Kupres is more than just the seizure of a Serb-held town. In taking Kupres, government and Croat forces have now secured the Kupres Heights, which give them a commanding strategic position in Central Bosnia. They are pushing Serb forces Northwest at the same time as Bosnian forces working out of the Bihac pocket are continuing to push Southeast. Earlier this week, Bosnian infantry captured some 100 square miles of rugged Serb-held territory, catching ill-equipped Serb forces here off their guard, although today the Serbs claimed to have recaptured Kulen Vakuf with rocket attacks into Bihac as well. And today from South of Sarajevo come further reports that Bosnian forces could be close to reopening a corridor to the enclave of Foca and maybe Gorazde eventually. United Nations officials have long said that this kind of light infantry operation is what the Bosnian forces are good at, and intelligence sources say Bosnian forces have new portable weapons, some locally manufactured, others imported through Croat and even Serb middlemen. Serb heavy weapons have always found it difficult to stop such Bosnian operations, and usually they have been overwhelmed when they tried. After all, this kind of terrain in Bosnia is not tank country. And the Bosnian president, Alia Izetbegovic is capitalizing on these modest successes, like here against a Serb tank position South of Sarajevo yesterday. These successes have apparently been achieved because of crucial support reorganizing and remotivating the Bosnian forces, which has helped build a new joint Muslim-Croat military framework.

ALIA IZETBEGOVIC, Bosnian President: [speaking through interpreter] I think we shall have more, similar victories. This is a huge step forward in equipping our army. Our army was equipped nicely, thanks to our war seizures. We produced a certain quantity by ourselves, however, the major source of our supply in weapons and equipment is what we seized from the aggressor.

MR. GOWING: Twenty miles away in the Bosnian Serb headquarters at Parle, these Bosnian successes are being seen as reason enough to declare a new war.

RADOVAN KARADZIC, Bosnian Serb Leader: Bigger part of the international community is backing Muslim offensives, so we are going to declare the state of war in our assembly and to proclaim general mobilization and to fight to the final victory, because the international community is not treating us equally and because somebody in the international community is planning our defeat.

MR. GOWING: Peace conference chairman Lord Owen in Zagreb today said the reasons for the apparent new Bosnian Serb declaration of war were totally unjustified.

LORD OWEN, EU Peace Negotiator: I do hope that Dr. Karadzic remembers that people are losing their lives for battles over territory, which in every map that I've seen for the last 18 months is actually going to be given back to the Bosnian government. It's land which the Serbs have already been ready to give up.

MR. GOWING: The declaration of war may therefore signal serious problems among the Bosnian Serbs. The mood of the Bosnian Serb military commanders led by Gen. Mladic may seem self- confident, but even Serb analysts in Belgrade are starting to claim that recent defeats signal a fundamental fall in morale and fighting strength. A growing fuel shortage means that crack troops no longer have the instant mobility to rush to help overstretched Serb forces under attack or to counter government assaults, as they once did. If Bosnian claims are to be believed, then Bosnian Serb resistance is not what it was.

SOLDIER: [speaking through interpreter] They left five tanks, a motorized gun, two armored anti-aircraft guns, three armored personnel carriers, ten trucks, and one bus.

MR. GOWING: So what seems to be taking place is a new important shift in the military balance in Bosnia. Using figures which give more a sense of proportion than precise numerical accuracy, it's estimated that Bosnian Serbs have some 80,000 troops with some 330 tanks, 800 artillery pieces, 400 personnel carriers, plus missiles and mortars. The Serbs fought usually on their own terms, where they chose. They would have been overstretched, though, in more than one main fighting area. In comparison, the Bosnian government forces number may be 100,000, but with just 40 or so tanks, almost no artillery and 30 personnel carriers. As these numbers show, the Serbs' strength has always been in heavy army, the Bosnian strength in adequately armed infantry. Now add the Croat figures, and the strength of the new Bosnian-Croat alliance is clear. The Croat forces add up to 50,000 troops, 75 tanks, 200 artillery pieces, along with missiles and helicopters. These Croat weapons are the ones which used to shell Bosnian forces. Now they're being used alongside them as a joint assault on the Serbs. In addition, new heavy weapons are being bought in the international arms market. History may show the Serb-defeated Kupres to be a turning point, but in raising Bosnian morale, it seems set to re-ignite fighting, not bring closer a peace settlement. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major stories of this Friday, Susan Smith was charged with the murders of her two young sons, the Union, South Carolina woman had earlier set off a nationwide search after claiming that her children were kidnapped by a carjacker. And the nation's unemployment rate fell to afour-year low of 5.8 percent in October. Good night, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Good night, Robin. That's it for the NewsHour for tonight. We'll see you Monday night. I'm Margaret Warner. Good night.