The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Margaret Warner looks back on the life and legacy of King Hussein of Jordan; Terence Smith sorts through the scrap over "People" Magazine's Chelsea Clinton story; Mark Shields and Paul Gigot analyze the impeachment trial, and Jim Compton of KCTS Seattle chronicles tonight's return of pro basketball. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: King Hussein of Jordan was near death this evening. He remained on life-support systems at a hospital in the Jordanian capital of Amman. The 63-year-old king arrived back in Jordan early this morning. He had been undergoing cancer treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. We have a report from Julian Manyon of Independent Television News.

JULIAN MANYON, ITN: Cameramen were kept well away as the plane carrying King Hussein landed. At that stage, the king was said to be conscious and breathing, despite what doctors called "the failure of his internal organs." He was transferred to an ambulance and driven in a long convoy through the capital to the prestigious medical center, which bears his name. At the gates, a crowd gathered, expressing shock and grief. And shortly afterwards, a government official told western news agencies that the king is, in fact, clinically dead. He was said to be in coma, on a life-support system but Jordanians waiting anxiously for news have so far been told a slightly different and less painful story. State television informed them that the king is stable and being attended by a team of medical experts. At the central mosque, worshippers prayed for the king's recovery. They heard the country's chief cleric appeal to God to save him from death.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on King Hussein right after this news summary. The impeachment trial was in recess today, while House managers and the president's lawyers prepared for tomorrow. Each side will have three hours then to present their view of the evidence, including parts of the videotaped depositions of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. Today, some Republican and Democratic senators said they want to open senate deliberations to the public following final arguments on Monday.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, [R] Maine: The American people have the right to have a full understanding of how we reached our decisions on this very momentous matter. This should not be debated behind closed doors. It should not be debated in secret. It should be debated in the light of day so that the American people and future generations fully understand the reasons for our votes.

JIM LEHRER: The final up or down vote on the articles of impeachment is expected by next Friday. In economic news, the Labor Department reported the nation's unemployment rate last month remained at its 28-year low, 4.3 percent. On Wall Street, the NASDAQ Index was down again after yesterday's 83-point drop. It closed down 36 points at 2374. The Kosovo peace talks are scheduled to open in France tomorrow, but Serbian authorities today refused to let two ethnic Albanian rebel representatives fly out of Kosovo's capital Pristina because they didn't have passports. A U.S. official said the peace talks won't begin without them. The rebels said they'll try again tomorrow to leave. Back in this country, the National Basketball Association begins its shortened season this evening. Teams will each play 50 games over the next 13 weeks. A three-month labor dispute caused the delayed opening. We'll have more on the story at the end of the program tonight. Between now and then: King Hussein of Jordan; the Chelsea Clinton media story; and Shields and Gigot.

FOCUS - MAN OF PEACE

JIM LEHRER: The legacy of King Hussein. Phil Ponce begins.

PHIL PONCE: King Hussein ruled Jordan for 46 years, longer than any other modern leader in the Middle East. He gained wide acclaim for moving Jordan and its Arab neighbors toward peace with Israel. Jordan, a nation of about four million people, borders Israel, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Hussein was born in 1935 in Amman to the royal Hashemite family. He became king in 1953 at age 18, after his grandfather was assassinated, and his father, who suffered from schizophrenia, abdicated. Hussein spent his early years as king solidifying his base of power. He survived several coups and attempts on his life. In 1967, Jordan joined Egypt and Syria in an ill-fated attack against Israel in what became known as the Six Day War. Jordan suffered heavy casualties and lost control of the West Bank and the city of East Jerusalem.

KING HUSSEIN: The losses were tremendous, but the fact is that we are proud that we fought honorably and we are proud of our men, proud of the fact that despite all the odds, we were able to stand Israel.

PHIL PONCE: In the 1970's, Palestinian leader Yassar Arafat challenged the king's authority, but in later years, the two men forged an alliance and worked together for peace. In 1978, the king married for the fourth time. 26-year-old American Lisa Halaby came to be known as Queen Noor. The king had four children with her in addition to seven from previous marriages. Because of Jordan's history of good relations with northern neighbor Iraq, and because of Saddam Hussein's popularity with Jordanians, the king refused to condemn Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. After the Gulf War, Hussein was committed to a lasting peace in the Middle East. Now an elder statesman, he suffered a bout of cancer in 1992 and had a kidney removed. During a visit to the United States in 1993, he appeared on the NewsHour and explained what motivated him.

KING HUSSEIN: Well, peace, if it comes to that part of the world, will mean a great difference to a lot of people and the area's important to the rest of the world. It will mean peace between the followers of the three great religions. It will mean an entirely new future for that entire region, and it will mean the removal of the root cause of a lot of instability within the region and beyond. So isn't that worth the effort?

PHIL PONCE: In 1994, he and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed a peace treaty which formally ended 46 years of war between the two nations. When Rabin was killed in 1995, Hussein gave an emotional tribute to his one-time foe.

KING HUSSEIN: I had never thought that the moment would come like this when I would grieve the loss of a brother, a colleague, and a friend -- a man -- a soldier -- who met us on the opposite side of a divide. You lived as a soldier, you died as a soldier for peace. I commit before you, before my people in Jordan, before the world, myself to continue to do our utmost to ensure that we leave a similar legacy. And when my time comes, I hope it will be like my grandfather's, and like Yitzhak Rabin's.

PHIL PONCE: Last year, at the urging of President Clinton, Hussein came to the Wye Plantation in Maryland for another round of peace talks. He interrupted his chemotherapy at Minnesota's Mayo Clinic for another cancer, non-Hodkgins Lymphoma. Together with Netanyahu and Arafat, he helped forge another peace accord.

KING HUSSEIN: We quarrel, we agree, we are friendly, we are not friendly, but we have no right to dictate, through irresponsible action or narrow-mindedness, the future of our children and their children's children. There has been enough destruction -- enough death -- enough waste. And it's time that, together, we occupy a place beyond ourselves, our peoples, that is worthy of them under the sun, the descendants of the children of Abraham.

PHIL PONCE: Last month, he personally flew his jet for part of the journey home from the Mayo Clinic. He was met by jubilant crowds who thought he was cured. He surprised the country by naming his eldest son, Abdullah, crown prince. The king's brother, Hassan, had held that position since 1965. Then, just hours after making that switch, a weak Hussein flew back to Minnesota for yet another bone marrow transplant. The 37-year-old Abdullah is a political novice with little experience in international affairs. But he spent his first weeks as crown prince meeting world leaders including U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In Amman today, the Jordanian people have already begun to mourn the expected loss of their 63-year-old king.

JIM LEHRER: And to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, four views on King Hussein and his impact and influence. Edward Djerejian was assistant secretary of state for near-eastern affairs during the Bush administration. He was the number-two man at the U.S. embassy in Jordan from 1981 to 1984, and served as ambassador to Syria and Israel as well. He now runs the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. Nora Boustany is a reporter at the "Washington Post." She was the "Post's" bureau chief in Jordan's capital, Amman, from 1993 to 1995. Naseer Aruri is professor emeritus of Middle East politics at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. He's written a book about Jordan. And Robert Satloff is the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He's written widely on Jordanian politics. Nora, before we get into tonight's discussion, there's a wire story just moved half an hour ago saying that the family of Jordan's King Hussein has decided against disconnecting the life-support system keeping him alive. This is a Reuters report according to a source close to the palace. I know you've been talking to people there. What can you tell us about the situation?

NORA BOUSTANY, Washington Post: Well, the king has not been pronounced totally dead, but his liver is not functioning, his kidney is not functioning. I think his heart is still beating. He's in a coma. And members of the family left the hospital this afternoon Amman time, this morning our time, some were crying, dressed in black with the traditional white scarf, with the exception of Queen Noor.

MARGARET WARNER: The white scarf denoting -

NORA BOUSTANY: Denoting mourning. But there are religious complications. In Islam, you let a man die naturally, so they don't believe in pulling the plug. There is this, and once a man is pronounced dead, or a woman, there's a saying that you honor the dead by burying them. He has to be buried by sundown the next day after the announcement at the latest. So I don't think they can announce the death before all the preparations for the state funeral are in place.

MARGARET WARNER: Anything you want to add to that, Rob? I know you've been talking to people, also.

ROBERT SATLOFF, Washington Institute for Near East Policy: Just to add to what Nora said, it does seem as though there are different committees being formed, a committee of the family to deal with the issue in the hospital, a committee in parliament to deal with the eventual succession, and a committee of former prime ministers to deal with the funeral itself.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. How should we think of this man -- I mean in terms of his significance and his impact on his country, on his region?

ROBERT SATLOFF: I think it's fair to say that Hussein will go down, when he does pass, as one of the remarkable leaders of this half of the 20th century. And I think he'll be known for three things principally: First for being a survivor. He has risen survival to the level of statesmanship, and he's a statesman for many reasons, but one first and foremost is because he has been there so long -- secondly, for the way he made peace, not the fact that he made it, because Sadat had done that beforehand, but he infused humanity and substance into the making of peace; and thirdly, for what he did to Jordan. He made Jordan a real country, a country which you can -- from which you can take away the question mark, will it survive after Hussein? I think the answer is yes.

MARGARET WARNER: What would you add to that, Nora?

NORA BOUSTANY: Yes, I would agree with Rob. All his actions, if you look at his actions, there was always a motive of survival. He ruled by instinct, he ruled from the heart. But many Jordanians equate their survival with his, which is why that country now is going through this very painful existential question, will we survive without King Hussein.

MARGARET WARNER: Ed Djerejian, would you put him in the ranks of significant influential, historic, you apply the adjective, but rulers of that region?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN, Former State Department Official: Margaret, would I definitely put him into the ranks of a most significant leader in the Middle East. His -- he has marked a great deal of the history of the Middle East. He has magnified the role of Jordan in a way that it played a critical role in the whole context of Arab-Israeli peacemaking and in terms of the Arab-Israeli conflict itself in both terms of war and peace. He also was a key leader in regional politics in terms of regional security and stability and had to fend off many forces that were targeted against his regime, his policies, basically of moderation. And therefore, he has marked history. I think he will go down as a significant leader.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor Aruri, he was a controversial figure in the Arab world, was he not?

NASEER ARURI, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth: Yes, indeed, he was a controversial figure in the Arab world, and I think that has to do really with the circumstances under which he ruled. I mean he came to power in 1953 at a very young age, and only three years after that, he had his first real test when he rode a wave of nationalist feeling and fired his British commander-in-chief, who was actually a symbol of Jordanian dependency on the West, on Britain.

MARGARET WARNER: And this was the British general who was actually in charge of his military?

NASEER ARURI: The British general who was the commander-in-chief of his armed forces, but only to reverse himself after that and to establish really what came very close to a police state in Jordan. In 1967 of course there was the war-- and by the way, I think that your narrator in the beginning of the program said that he and Egypt attacked Israel. I just think that that ought to be corrected. But there were many people I think in the region who were not really exactly happy with the way he conducted diplomacy after 1976. There was also his attack against the Palestinians in 1970, what they called the Black September events when he clashed with the Palestinian guerrillas. I think that the Arab world was largely sympathetic to -

MARGARET WARNER: And you're speaking - let me just remind -- you're speaking there of when he kicked essentially kicked the PLO out of Jordan?

NASEER ARURI: Exactly. I mean, there was actually a dualism in Jordan in 1970. I mean, there was the authority of Arafat and that of Jordan - of King Hussein at the same time. But I think the outcome of that war was seen in the Arab world in a way that I think that the sympathies were largely really with the Palestinians and against King Hussein. I think this largely really has to do with the fact that Hussein tried to balance the -- his reliance on the West against trying to accommodate Arab public opinion and Jordanian public opinion. I think he succeeded in that fairly well.

MARGARET WARNER: Would you agree, Rob Satloff, that it was really a balancing act for him between those two imperatives?

ROBERT SATLOFF: Well, I think Hussein very much was an Arab patriot, but he also understood that Hashemite Jordan was different from the radical Arab regimes around it - Nassar's Egypt, radical Iraq, radical Syria, that Hashemite Jordan to survive this conservative ruling elite had to have alliances with the West and a strategic understanding at least with Israel, not that Hussein and Israel were ever allies. That's incorrect. But they had common interests, a fear of radicalism and a fear of Palestinian irredentism, and that did motivate a lot of what King Hussein did with the Israelis and with Arabs for 30/40 years.

NASEER ARURI: I think that they might not have been allies -- I agree with that view, but it seems to me that I think that Hussein understood really the raison d' tre of Jordan -- why Jordan was created back in the 1920's, in the early 1920's. I mean, it was created by Britain as a state to be a buffer between Palestine, where authority was vested in the British government, and the Arab world, particularly revolutionaries who were disgruntled because they were unable to set up a nationalist regime in Syria.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, Professor, let me -

NASEER ARURI: So I think he knew that quite well.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Let me get Nora Boustany in here. Do you agree with Professor Aruri that he did have this balancing act and that he did it successfully?

NORA BOUSTANY: I think he did it successfully. You know, I mean, you would see over the span of 46 years, King Hussein would commit one act and then would contradict himself by 180 degrees a few years later. I mean, he attacked the Fedayeen and he once announced,, "we are all Fedayeen." He called for free elections. He dissolved parliament. Everything he did he very was very sensitive to the forces that were threatening Jordan, this tiny, land-locked kingdom surrounded by greater Arab states and Israel, and he always did what he thought would further the viability of Jordan, and I think he succeeded.

MARGARET WARNER: Ed Djerejian, how would you explain -- or would this be the explanation for why, in 1967 he could be attacking Israel, and we saw him say he was proud then of what they had done, and 25 years later, he's really taking the lead in trying to build a peace with Israel?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Well, I think in 1967 he was urged by the Israelis not to attack. He attacked I think because he felt compelled to display solidarity with the Arab world. It was a very costly decision in terms of the loss of the West Bank and Jerusalem. But then King Hussein, I believe, and in my dealings with him, especially in Amman, was a man who realized that the only outcome could be an outcome through peaceful negotiations. And therefore, these private channels to the Israelis that date back decades, his total determination to establish through dialogue the possibilities of peace, and I think this culminated of course in 1994 when he directly, with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, negotiated the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty and I think that certainly is a great accomplishment. But I think it's very important to note now that this peace treaty, as important as it is between Israel and Jordan, needs to be consolidated. And it can only be consolidated, in my view, by the rest of the Arab-Israeli peace process moving forward, especially in terms of Jordan, the Israel-Palestinian negotiations, and also, very importantly, that the Israeli-Syrian-Israeli-Lebanese negotiations that have been moribund since '96 must move forward because Jordan's peace treaty cannot stand alone. And I think the successor to the throne in Jordan, this is going to be one of the greatest challenges that Abdullah's going to face, is the consolidation in peace.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me just ask the professor one other question about King Hussein before we talk about Abdullah briefly. Professor, why do you think, then -- I mean the other great break he had with the United States was, of course, not supporting the coalition against Iraq. How do you explain that?

NASEER ARURI: I'm sorry. I did not get your question.

MARGARET WARNER: In the Persian Gulf War,he did not support the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq, and -

NASEER ARURI: Yes.

MARGARET WARNER: -- that caused him real problems, not only with the U.S., but with the Saudis and others. And I just wondered if you wanted to comment on that.

NASEER ARURI: Yes, I mean I think that this was really typical of King Hussein. If you look at his life, I mean throughout, he was really zig zagging between positions, and that's what I meant by the equilibrium -- the balancing act -- just as he said we are all if a day even, once upon a time just as he kicked out General Glub, he also yielded to public opinion in Jordan, which was largely in favor of having a negotiated settlement and did not really think that the United States was interested in negotiations and that, in fact, a decision was made by the Bush administration to invade Iraq no matter what. I think that he yielded to that decision, and it is something that perhaps he regretted later on, and he made amends, and he was, you know, blessed again and brought back to the fold. But that's typical of the man.

MARGARET WARNER: Rob Satloff, finally, the point that Ed Djerejian just brought up, do you think that his designated heir, Prince Abdullah is going to continue in the same tradition, one, and is capable of doing it in the same way that the king was?

ROBERT SATLOFF: Well, we can only look to see whether he will he will pursue it. I think he will have a difficult time injecting the same creativity, enthusiasm, flexibility and iconoclasm that the king did. It's one thing to be committed to peace as a strategic option. It's another thing to infuse that peace with the humanity, with the warmth, with the notion of cooperation and normally sayings that the king did. That was unique. No one else in the Arab world has done that. And that will be a major challenge for Abdullah.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, well, thank you all four very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the "People" Magazine Chelsea Clinton flap; Shields and Gigot; and the return of pro basketball.

FOCUS - CROSSING THE LINE

JIM LEHRER: Our media correspondent Terence Smith has the "People" story.

TERENCE SMITH: On newsstands across the country today, Chelsea Clinton is on display. "People" magazine's six-page cover story, "Grace Under Fire," is billed as "an intimate look at the deep bond of love that sustains the Clinton women through their painful family ordeal." Chelsea Clinton has been in the public spotlight for seven years, but the media have generally honored the first family's request that they respect her privacy. Historian Carl Anthony, who's working on a book about first families, says Hillary Clinton is among the more protective first ladies.

CARL ANTHONY, Historian: You have to go back to people like Edith Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt's wife, or even back to Chester Arthur before you find a presidential parent who has been as rigorous in saying "this child is off limits."

TERENCE SMITH: With the advent of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, the off limits policy may be changing. Even before "People" Magazine hit the stands, the White House and Secret Service appealed to them not to publish. An unusual statement issued in the name of the president and the first lady read in part, "we deeply regret and are profoundly saddened by the decision of "People" Magazine to print a cover story featuring our daughter Chelsea. Other than at public situations where she is an integral part of our family, Chelsea has not taken on a public role." "People" Magazine's managing editor, Carol Wallace, replied on ABC's "World News Tonight."

CAROL WALLACE: We felt that Chelsea is 19 years old now, a young adult, and she's been an eyewitness to a very historical event.

TERENCE SMITH: At the White House press briefing yesterday, Spokesman Joe Lockhart tried to forestall further coverage.

JOE LOCKHART, White House Spokesman: Let me reiterate something that the president said in both his statement and what he said to me, which is he and the first lady very much appreciate everyone in this room who has respected their family's privacy on this issue. And it is their hope, as we move into the future, you will continue to do so.

TERENCE SMITH: Nonetheless, the Clintons have, on repeated occasions, included Chelsea in public appearances. In the 1992 presidential campaign, she was featured in the convention video, "A Man from Hope."

CHELSEA CLINTON: What I would like America to know about my mother and father is that they're great people and they're great parents.

TERENCE SMITH: Chelsea has also frequently accompanied her mother on overseas trips, and last August, on the day after her father admitted his inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, she was the symbolic and very public bridge between her parents.

TERENCE SMITH: Now we're joined by two reporters who have covered the White House for years. Elizabeth Drew, journalist and author, is currently working on a book on Washington, and Gene Gibbons, formerly chief White house correspondent for Reuters, and now managing editor of "Stateline," a new Internet publication focusing on government. Welcome to you both. Elizabeth, "People" Magazine says Chelsea Clinton is a valid journalistic subject. Is she?

ELIZABETH DREW: Well, I wouldn't say that the article was invalid. I would say it was unnecessary. I think one of the true -- one of the very few civilized arrangements that's been going on in Washington in the last decade, let's say, has been the press' acceptance of the Clintons' plea to just let her grow up and let her try to lead as normal a life as possible. People say she's now 19, but let's look at why they wrote the article and what the - there's almost a purulent interest now in how the family crisis has affected Mrs. Clinton and how it's affected Chelsea. I think she can do without that.

TERENCE SMITH: Gene Gibbons, is Chelsea Clinton fair game?

GENE GIBBONS: Me thinks the Clintons protest too much. I believe I probably am as well acquainted with Chelsea as most outsiders, and I underline outsiders, having covered three foreign trips with her and her mother and having been in her company on several other occasions. I know her to be a very warm, engaging, well-mannered young woman, a child any parent would be proud of. The article in "People" Magazine reflects that. I can't for the life of me understand why the Clintons would be upset about it, and I can't understand why they would create a commotion, what they would accomplish by that, other than sell more magazines.

TERENCE SMITH: Can you understand why the Clintons would be upset about it?

ELIZABETH DREW: I think they probably -- they didn't ask me, but I think they probably saw this as crossing a line. This is a benign article. I mean it's quite nice to Chelsea, but it asks some questions everybody wants to know about how she is feeling about this crisis in her family and how she is handling it. Once that starts, it'll keep going, and I think they were just trying to stop it from starting.

GENE GIBBON: But here we are in the seventh year of the Clinton presidency, Chelsea is 19 years old, she's not a little girl anymore, she's a grown-up young woman. The Clintons tend to try and have it both ways at times, I think. She was a part of a "People" Magazine piece that they cooperated with in '92 when her father was running. She campaigned by his side during his whistle-stop train trip to the Chicago convention in 1996. And there was the hand-in-hand photo walking to the helicopter after he admitted that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was more than casual. So I think that, you know, to want to focus the spotlight on Chelsea when it is in their interest and control it when they don't want that spotlight, I just don't think it works that way.

TERENCE SMITH: Are they trying to have it both ways, Elizabeth?

ELIZABETH DREW: Oh, sure, absolutely. Most first families do. They want us to see the happy moments and the joy together and all that. And then they want to draw a curtain. But the fact that the Clintons are being hypocritical about this doesn't mean that Chelsea should suffer at other people's hands.

TERENCE SMITH: Gene gibbons, for years you and others did observe a kind of hands-off policy. What's changed? Why is it different now?

GENE GIBBONS: Well, I think that a number of things have changed. And I'm not sure that it has changed all that much. There was this very flattering article and I must say I find myself wondering if there is part of the White House spin by focusing attention on this very flattering publicity at a time when the president is in a very unfavorable light. It works to their interest.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, it it's certainly a fact that it got the article more attention than it otherwise would. But issuing a statement, of protest, I mean that's a fairly aggressive and unusual act, is it not?

ELIZABETH DREW: Well, presidents have done everything from canceling subscriptions to having their press secretaries beat up on people.

TERENCE SMITH: They also sought in this case as you know to, block the article and even invoke the name of the Secret Service to suggest that this might in some way jeopardize her security.

ELIZABETH DREW: Well, without getting into exactly what methodology they did or didn't use, I still think the point is that Chelsea is the innocent in this whole story, she's at a college now, Kenneth Starr in his wisdom sent his daughter there, too, and I think she just deserves the privacy that can be given to her.

GENE GIBBONS: The injection of the Secret Service into this is what I find the most troubling aspect of the entire business. Fame creates risk as long; as there are mentally unstable people who are magnetized by it, that's going to be the case. Chelsea is better equipped than most people to handle that. We taxpayers pay to have her protected by a very efficient group of bodyguards, the U.S. Secret Service. For them to weigh in and try and head off a story I think is putting us on dangerous ground.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, I suppose the fundamental question I'd ask you both is: Is Chelsea Clinton news? Would you call this news?

ELIZABETH DREW: No, it's not news. It was curiosity, prurience, et cetera, into how she's handling this very difficult crisis. I don't think we need to know that all that much, and I don't know that we can know it, no matter how many reporters try.

TERENCE SMITH: Would you call it news?

GENE GIBBONS: I would call it news. I agree with Elizabeth, I don't know how we can know in detail how she's reacting to this family trauma. But the president and the White House has spun this whole year that we've gone through as a personal tragedy, rather than apolitical or official malfeasance, and so the spotlight focuses on the personal side and they're upset about it? I think that's being disingenuous.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, Chelsea Clinton may be the first presidential child to be in the focus in this supercharged atmosphere, but she's not going to be the last. Is it open season now?

ELIZABETH DREW: Oh, I think that the press, the media, are going to go through a lot of self-examination after this whole set of events. And I think it's a little hard to imagine a similar set of events where we would be asking the same questions, should the first daughter, son or whatever, should we try to be reading their minds about how they're feeling about their parents' problems. I don't think we're going to have to do that, but I think there will be a lot of -- there has to be, even before the presidential campaign. But to give the idea that the media is a monolith and everybody's going to come to the same conclusion is not realistic. That's why it was kind of amazing that the media did leave this young woman alone to grow up privately, and I thought it was great.

GENE GIBBONS: I think there will be a lot of introspection and I agree that the press I think has behaved request with remarkable responsibility and restraint in backing off Chelsea. And I hope that that would by and large continue. I wouldn't like to see the kind of paparazzi coverage that we've seen in some sensational coverage of things, and I don't think that'll happen here.

TERENCE SMITH: After all, Al Gore has daughters. George W. Bush, perhaps a candidate, has twin daughters, and we understand that his concern about them is part of his thought process in deciding on whether to run.

ELIZABETH DREW: Well, again, we understand. The Gore children have been pretty much left alone, and they've had some typical teenage problems. I just think that there is a way to do this and let them lead as normal a life as they can. We want normal people in the White House. It's hard enough to get them.

TERENCE SMITH: Final thought, gene?

GENE GIBBONS: I can't help but reflect that Clinton got very upset during the transition in '92 when some photographers lured the family cat "Socks" off the grounds of the governor's mansion with catnip and proceeded to make some photographs. Since then we've seen very, very invasive -- he felt that that was invading his right of zone of privacy. Well, you know, that zone has long since been demolished and a lot of it is his doing, quite frankly.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. We have to leave it there. Thank you both.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Now a week's end look at the senate impeachment trial with Shields and Gigot: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields, "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. Mark, the end game really does begin tomorrow, is that correct?

MARK SHIELDS: That's right, Jim. We're running out the clock now. The game is over. The verdict is in. Bill Clinton will not be impeached and removed from office, and now we're playing with more or less for history and for individual achievements. It's sort of like a team that's been mathematically eliminated during the baseball essential season, and now we're into individual averages and who has a good year and who's up for contract next year.

JIM LEHRER: As a practical matter, has anything changed since this trial began -- in terms of the influence and the outcome?

PAUL GIGOT: No, I don't think so, Jim. I think that the outcome was probably foreordained looking back once the contours of the trial were set in such a limited fashion. I think that had the House managers been able to make their case, say they given ten or 12 days right from the get-go, do whatever you want, call the witnesses you want, structure your case the way you want, they might have been able to engage the public again. Maybe not, but they might have been able to. As it was, they just were never able to do that.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think they could have, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: No. I think -- but I think what Paul speaks to is what is a sentiment and a broadly held view within many -- among many in the Republican party. And it's what I call the "Who lost China syndrome." In 1949 after Mao Tse Tung routed Chang Kaishek and communists took over China, the China lobby in the United States -- led by Henry Luce -- developed a question which held American foreign policy hostage for the last 25 years -- who lost China -- as though China was ours to lose. And it kind of became -- that became the cornerstone. You had to stand up and say you are ready to unleash Chang to reinvade the Mainland. I think there are certain Republicans who are going to say -- who let Clinton off the hook? There was a case to be made, and somehow it wasn't made.

PAUL GIGOT: I think that overstates the -- I don't think there are many Republicans who thought that they were necessarily going to remove Bill Clinton. I think there is a sense and I happen to agree with that sense of frustration that the House managers -- this was all about protecting the senators. This wasn't about really fairly looking at the evidence.

JIM LEHRER: All right, so let's take specifically yesterday's vote. 70-30 against calling live witnesses.

PAUL GIGOT: Right.

JIM LEHRER: One witness in particular, Monica Lewinsky was the only one the House managers finally asked for -- 25 Republicans voted with the Democrats to do that. Why did they do that?

PAUL GIGOT: They did that because they want it over as much as Democrats want it over right now. There are no Henry Hydes, Jim, in the Republican senate. There are no people who are willing to go against the polls and there aren't any Howard Bakers in the -- among the Democrats in the senate; that is, the Republican senator who stood against Richard Nixon in Watergate. And we haven't seen that kind of cross-party statesmanship.

JIM LEHRER: But what about the argument, Paul, that's been made from the very beginning, very publicly, is that the worst thing that could happen to the Republican Party and the worst thing that could happen to the senate of the United States was to put Monica Lewinsky in the well of the United States Senate. You don't feel that was correct?

PAUL GIGOT: Oh, no, not at all. I think that was an argument made by a lot of Republicans who -- in the senate -- who feared precisely that. I don't think that that was necessarily -- if you look at the videotape, for example, -- I haven't seen the videotape, but if you look at the transcript, there's nothing in there that's going to embarrass the senate. So I don't think that they had anything to be afraid of, but they have used that to try to -- as one reason, one excuse to try to protect themselves.

JIM LEHRER: That was an important vote, wasn't it, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: It was an important vote, and I think Paul is right many I mean I real do. I think that if you are really going to make the case against Bill Clinton and for his conviction and removal from office, you had to have Monica Lewinsky, you had to have Vernon Jordan, you had to have Betty Currie, you had to have Sidney Blumenthal. There are seven or eight other witnesses you probably should have had, too. So what they basically did, Jim was they made a good-fake effort. I mean, they went half way, well, bring in, we'll have a transcript, we'll have a little videotape, but let's not get too enthusiast about this, and that's really -- so they kind of covered their own area, as we used to say.

JIM LEHRER: So you agree with Paul, this was a senate operation?

MARK SHIELDS: And I think there are a lot of people -- the Republicans were concerned about the polls. I mean the polls have gone south on them, and they're saying, "gee, this is really hurting. We've got to get back to our issues." And Republican House members are meeting this week in Williamsburg and they got bad news. So the stampede to get this behind them -- the only people that are not involved in it are the Republican House managers, who have -- and some, like Jim Rogan of California probably at risk to his political future, I mean serious risk to his political future.

PAUL GIGOT: I mean there are some Republicans I think who stood out. Susan Collins of Maine has made a real good effort to try to look at the evidence and broker something on finding of fact. Mike DeWine of Ohio stood up early, got in there. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin resisted his party -

JIM LEHRER: The Democrat.

PAUL GIGOT: The Democrat resisted the party temptation or party command to dismiss the thing. But there are a lot of others who I think emerged from this thing diminished.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Let's go through some of these things. You mentioned finding of fact. Finding of fact you agree with the consensus that's gone, that's dead?

PAUL GIGOT: Over.

JIM LEHRER: Over, done.

PAUL GIGOT: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Now, one thing that still is alive, apparently, we reported it in the news summary, is that there is a growing coalition of senators who want to open the deliberations. We need to explain that, that under the old rules, the rules that were used and the only other time, the Andrew Johnson trial, they had everything in the open except the deliberations of the senators on the grounds that they were jurors. Now, in order to change that, they need 67 votes. Is that going to happen?

MARK SHIELDS: don't think it will, but political self-interest, Jim, is not limited to just the Republican side of the aisle. The Democrats, who are going to vote to acquit President Clinton, want to go on record that what he did was reprehensible, morally indefensible and whatever -- reckless, shameless, whatever other adjectives you want to use - they'd love to be able to do this on television all right -- in the 15 minutes -- and that's the way to do it.

JIM LEHRER: And each one gets 15 minutes.

MARK SHIELDS: Each one gets 15 minutes to stand up there and do it.

JIM LEHRER: Whether they do it on camera or whether they do it behind closed doors.

MARK SHIELDS: It's a great videotape for your next campaign. Of course, I said, it was reprehensible behavior. And I think that's part of it, and I think that's where you get the Republicans negotiating on the whole censure vote. Do they want to let the Democrats off? I mean, the Democrats are going to vote to acquit, some of whom have never even entertained the possibility that there was a conviction even remotely plausible. Should they have the censure vote, that kind of covers their political flank.

JIM LEHRER: And the Republicans would just soon stop the cameras right there, right, with that acquittal vote, if it's a Democrat, correct?

PAUL GIGOT: Sure. I mean, any Republican who votes for removal really doesn't need to vote for censure. And the problem for -- I think the problem -

JIM LEHRER: Because they've already got their -- they're looking good for their constituents?

PAUL GIGOT: From their point of view, you really took the big one. The problem is I think among -- a lot of the Democrats want this censure as cover, as Mark says, there's no question about it. But a lot of the -- the draft that I've seen is all adjectives and no verbs. I mean -

JIM LEHRER: Like what? What do you mean?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, like Diane Feinstein - it's all -- he's nasty, he's reprehensible, he did this, but it -

JIM LEHRER: He didn't do anything.

PAUL GIGOT: -- doesn't say he didn't do anything. It says he cheated on his wife and he didn't tell the truth about it. It doesn't have anything to do with the rule of law, which really is the essences of the case that the House managers have brought, and that's going to be what the fight is over.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking, finally, we went into this senate trial and we talked about it here endlessly, about all of the rap that was on the House for what they did and the way they conducted this thing. How would you compare the way the House -- however you feel about the end result, the way the House conducted it, versus the way the senate is now conducting it?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I don't think there's any question that the senate tried not to emulate the House. I mean the House was -- the House was really a leaderless institution when this process came through, you'll recall, where you had gone through Speaker Gingrich's resignation, Speaker Livingston designate had not taken over and there was sort of a -- it just seemed to be life of itself without any real planning. Trent Lott, the Republican senate majority leader, learned from that, and he was absolutely committed that it would not be the case. I think Tom Daschle, a Democratic leader, gives him high marks, gives Lott high marks for consulting, for being collegial and the all the rest of it. But I think what they're talking about now is history's judgment. I think that's what the House managers are talking about - I think that's what the senate is concerned about as well.

JIM LEHRER: How do you feel about the way the senate has done this, and particularly the way Trent Lott has handled this whole thing?

PAUL GIGOT: I don't think Trent Lott has handled it well, considering the herd of cats he had in his conference. I mean he had people right, left, and center basically saying from the get-go, "can we please get this over with? And do it in a way that doesn't embarrass me. Make it look like I really want this to go on, but I really don't want it to go on." That's been what he's heard time and again. And in that sense Trent Lott has probably brought this along further than a lot of his members wanted. So I think Lott emerges all right. But to think ahead to the Republican convention in the year 2000 -- when Henry Hyde gets on that stage, if he gets on that stage, they're going to tear the roof off, they're going to be so -- he's going to be a hero to an awful lot of Republicans, to most Republicans. I don't know that there's a single senator who is going to be anywhere close to that kind of a position.

JIM LEHRER: How do the Democrats look in the senate compare to the Democrats in the House?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean the Democrats overall just have to worry, Jim, whether in fact this is ever going to come back and bite them. I mean that's one of the reasons that the Monica Lewinsky live testimony was of concern to many Democrats, because in the testimony, she cameacross as a young and vulnerable and very much of a kid and a likable kid, and they didn't -- you know, they didn't want that on the floor, and I think the Democrats right now, they have profited from it politically because it's hurt the Republicans. The optimists on the republican side say, "this is only short-term damage." The pessimists say this is this will go into the 21 century sometime. And Democrats are essentially hoping that no other high heel drops from here on in.

JIM LEHRER: Well, we know it's going to drop tomorrow, which are going to be some videotape in this presentation of the evidence. We'll see what happens. Thank you both very much.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you.

FINALLY - TIP OFF

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, the return of professional basketball. Jim Compton of KCTS Seattle reports. [Organ playing dramatic music]

JIM COMPTON: Basketball is back, with all the smoke and spectacle it can muster, to launch, finally, the season that came within 40 hours of cancellation. The Seattle SuperSonics staged this free show as part of an aggressive strategy to woo fans back to games after an autumn without hoops. It may not have been necessary. Fans were lined up 50 deep two hours before the arena was open to see a free intersquad scrimmage. And inside, some got their first ever close-up look at an NBA. star, as players passed out coupons for free food.

PLAYER: Hey, little buddy. How are you?

JIM COMPTON: Owners announced that in the future, players will mingle more freely with fans, signing autographs and talking basketball. But sportswriters here said they were skeptical that players, faced with an exhausting season, could continue to hobnob with fans. The Sonics, who last season sold every ticket for every game, have renewals from 94 percent of season ticket holders, and management is working for another complete sellout.

JOHN DRESEL, President, Seattle SuperSoncis Marketing: And on opening night, we're going to be giving away 10,000 T-shirts, and we also are continuing only charging $7 in certain sections, and that's going to include a free hot dog and a coke, and a host of other things that we have planned for the city.

JIM COMPTON: If there was a common lament among fans, it was about the soaring cost of tickets. At box office prices, courtside seats now run from $100 to $650 at Sonics games.

FAN: The ones who really lost were the fans, because no matter how it ends up, you have this feeling that next year, we're all going to be paying for it. So now maybe if they can put a ceiling on ticket prices, the fans will be protected, too.

JIM COMPTON: In reality, this crowd is unlikely to see a regular season game.

WOMAN: Especially for families, I think it's very difficult and hard for them to get in. You know, for the whole family to go, we couldn't even begin to afford to bring our whole family here, so -

JIM COMPTON: In Seattle, sportswriters remarked that during the regular season, most fans of modest income can't afford to attend. "Seattle Times" columnist Steve Kelley.

STEVE KELLEY: The people in the seats aren't the real fans. They're the corporate people, they're the people who go to be seen and to see other people. In Seattle, for instance, it's going to be all Microsoft and Boeing and, you know, Weyerhaeuser and PAC-AR, and all those kind of people.

JIM COMPTON: Labor trouble had been brewing for the NBA since 1995. Mistrust had grown between owners and players over division of revenues, and new leadership in the players' union had grown more militant. When owners locked out players to forcethe union to accept limits on salaries, it was a high-stakes gamble that was to fundamentally alter the economics of the game.

STEVE KELLEY: The reason for the lockout, like all of these things, is that the owners were giving exorbitant amounts of money to their superstars and then saying, "we can't do this anymore, we can't help ourselves, we have to put it back on the players, the players have to be penalized for our profligacy."

TERENCE SMITH: So you're saying the owners' position was, "stop me before I give away another $10 million?"

STEVE KELLEY: Well, $100 million. I mean, you know, Kevin Garnett, Juwan Howard, those kind of guys, those kind of salaries.

TERENCE SMITH: Some recent salary deals were staggering. 20-year-old Kevin Garnett, an unproven player, signed a $126 million deal with Minnesota -- only Michael Jordan made more. Shaquille O'Neal had set the previous landmark with a $121 million contract in 1996. Future players, under the settlement, will be limited to $14 million a year. Seattle's "Post Intelligencer" columnist Art Thiel says the NBA settlement is a landmark for American sports.

ART THIEL, Columnist, Seattle Post Intelligencer: It's the first time a professional sports league in America has ever been able to achieve a maximum salary. The players were beaten back, but they are hardly suffering. The average salary will still escalate to the highest point in professional sports history.

TERENCE SMITH: But monster contracts are not ahead for future basketball stars.

ART THIEL: There will never be salaries like Michael Jordan's again. Shaquille O'neal, for example, will be -- will never make in the future what his current contract calls for now. Those are the kinds of restrictions they put on them. I think there's going to be some bitterness from some players toward the league, but there's also going to be some short-term bitterness between players.

JIM COMPTON: Hard feelings seemed to disappear quickly as practice started. Sonics center Jim Mcilvaine, who was on the player bargaining team, and the brunt of some harsh criticism from local media, was seemingly welcomed back without penalty.

SPOKESMAN: Are you all right?

JIM MCILVAINE:Yeah.

JIM COMPTON: The settlement precipitated a huge scramble to sign and trade players. Two days after this practice, the Sonics traded Mcilvaine and his $30 million contract to New Jersey for two other players. If there was joy at the end of the lockout, it was among the merchants in Seattle's Queen Anne neighborhood. Dale Carter was putting up the welcome signs as Seattle sports bars and restaurants gleefully prepared for the mob of fans on game night. This sports bar owner estimated his losses at $45,000, but said for once, parking was a little easier, and he had time to talk to other merchants.

BRIAN CURRY: I was surprised at how few people really cared about the lockout. And some diehard fans that we see, you know, in here on a regular basis were like, "I don't miss it a bit."

JIM COMPTON: The biggest single loser in dollars is the city of Seattle itself, which leases the newly remodeled Key Arena to the Sonics for about $900,000 a season. The city has not been paid for the 16 dates on which the arena was idle during the lockout, and it now says, "your prorated bill will be $390,000." Virginia Anderson, who oversees Seattle Center, which includes the basketball arena, says the bill presented to the Sonics won't come close to covering city losses during the lockout.

VIRGINIA ANDERSON, Director, Seattle Center: The $390,000 is related to an annual rent that they pay us on a prorated basis that they withheld, but really, our partnership shares in all revenue streams, so our losses are five times that amount for the lockout period.

JIM COMPTON: Will the Sonics pay rent for games missed? The president of the Sonics' marketing department said that's negotiable.

JOHN DRESEL: Now we've had a problem, obviously, a serious problem with this lockout, and it's up to good partners to work out good solutions, and we certainly plan to do that.

JIM COMPTON: Now the team will play 25 games at home, instead of 41, but in a concentrated season that will be an endurance test for players. Coach Paul Westphal says the compressed season ahead is daunting.

PAUL WESTPHAL, Coach, Seattle SuperSonics: Ordinarily, the NBA is a marathon. This is more like, you know, a 440 or a half mile. It's not really short, but at the same time, it's over before you know it, if you aren't ready.

JIM COMPTON: Now, I assume you're going to tell us the Sonics are a major contender this year.

PAUL WESTPHAL: I'm not saying that. I'm scared to death.

JIM COMPTON: The NBA deal should bring peace to professional basketball until the 2003 season. But now, baseball team owners, faced with multiple-year salary deals soaring over $100 million, are intrigued with the NBA's deal to put limits on paychecks.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Friday, King Hussein of Jordan was near death from cancer. He remained on life-support systems at a hospital in the Jordanian capital of Amman. We'll see you tomorrow at 10:00 A.M. Eastern Time on many PBS stations for our coverage of the senate impeachment trial, as well as online, and again here at our regular time Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.