The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

RAY SUAREZ: Good evening. I'm Ray Suarez. Jim Lehrer is off today. On the NewsHour tonight, Margaret Warner looks at the emergency summit in the Middle East, Terence Smith reports on how the foreign press sees the American election, we excerpt stump speeches by vice presidential candidates Cheney and Lieberman. Gwen Ifill examines the campaign with David Broder, David Brooks, and Tom Oliphant. And essayist Roger Rosenblatt offers some advice for those who are sick of politics. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.

NEWS SUMMARY

RAY SUAREZ: An emergency summit convened today to stop the violence in the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian leader Arafat met at the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheik. President Clinton and the others also attended. We have a report from Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News.

LINDSEY HILSUM: The leaders met for half an-hour this morning, the first time Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat have been together in the same room since violence erupted two-and-a-half weeks ago.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The future of the peace process, and the stability of the region, are at stake. We cannot afford to fail here. In order to succeed, though, once again we have a situation piled high with grievance. We have got to move beyond blame. We have got to focus on what we're going to do tomorrow.

LINDSEY HILSUM: The UN has one plan, the Palestinians and Egyptians have another, and the Israelis, entirely different demands. As Egyptian police guarded the building, foreign ministers tried to devise a document everyone could sign.

JAVIER SOLANA, European Union: The most important thing is to recuperate trust, and without a sense of trust in the leaders, it will be very difficult to move forward really.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Later, Mr. Barak looked more cheerful, but there was still no agreement on a commission of inquiry into the violence.

RAY SUAREZ: The summit continued late into the evening, but there was no word of any progress. As the summit began, the fighting continued. It was said to be the worst in four days. Another Palestinian was killed, dozens of others injured. Two Israeli soldiers were also wounded. This was the 19th day of clashes. At least 101 people have been killed, most of them Palestinians. Divers searched water-filled sections of the USS Cole in Yemen today. They were looking for more victims of last week's explosion. Officials said two bodies were visible. Ten others were still missing. In all, 17 sailors died in the apparent suicide bombing of the destroyer. Investigators today combed through mangled parts of the ship, looking for clues. The two major presidential candidates prepared today for their final debate tomorrow night in St. Louis. Governor Bush held a rally in Little Rock, Arkansas, en route to St. Louis. He told reporters he's comfortable with the town hall format of the final debate. He said the key is to know who you are and what you believe. Vice President Gore was already in St. Louis. He held a mock town hall meeting with his citizen advisers. And he promised that if he's elected, he'd hold such meetings across the country on a regular basis. Firestone will replace another 1.4 million tires. It's part of an agreement announced today by attorneys general in 48 states. Firestone recalled 6.5 million tires last August. They were linked to accidents involving at least 100 traffic deaths. Last month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a warning about additional tires. They're the ones involved in this new agreement. Consumers were advised to contact Firestone for more information. Thousands of people gathered on the National Mall in Washington today for the Million Family March. The event celebrated the strength and diversity of the American family. It was organized by nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Minister Farrakhan urged the gathering to make the march a beginning, not an end.

LOUIS FARRAKHAN, Nation of Islam: Marching only means the organized pitter-patter of feet that are moving at the command of a commander in strict obedience to his call. I'm not into marching, and if all this is a march for feeling good, then this is vanity. And we don't have time for vanity.

RAY SUAREZ: Later, Farrakhan helped preside or a mass sacred marriage blessing for already-married couples. There was a major oil merger today. Chevron announced it will buy Texaco in a stock swap worth $34 billion. The deal will create the world's fourth largest oil company, to be called Chevron/Texaco. It will likely have to sell several refineries and hundreds of gas stations, especially on the West Coast, in order to win federal approval. And the new company is expected to eliminate about 4,000 jobs. Longtime American communist leader Gus Hall died Friday. He passed away in Manhattan from diabetic complications. He was 90 years old. Hall was convicted in 1949 of conspiring to teach the overthrow of the federal government. He served eight-and-a-half years in jail. He also ran for president four times, the last time in 1984. He never repudiated his beliefs, even after the Soviet Union dissolved. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Middle East summit, foreign coverage of the campaign, candidate stump speeches, Broder, Brooks, and Oliphant, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay.

FOCUS - EMERGENCY SUMMIT

RAY SUAREZ: The Middle East summit. We begin with a report on what today was like in the west bank. The reporter is Gaby Rado of Independent Television News.

GABY RADO: As they talked of truces in Egypt, the Arabs and Israelis in the West Bank town of Hebron had other ideas. (Gunfire) We went to the Palestinian town of Ramallah and discovered the anatomy of a day of violence. Overlooking the town, preparations were made in the Israeli encampment, the very presence of which is seen as a provocation by local people. They were holding the funeral procession of a man who died yesterday of wounds received four days ago. But it clearly wasn't just the walk to the cemetery. The weapons on show were a clear message to Israel and to the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat that whatever he agreed to in Egypt, the fight would go on. The burial itself had the impact of heightening hysteria among the large crowd. Afterwards, the masked men with the high-powered rifles marched away looking purposeful. People began to talk of the clashes with the Israelis that would soon follow. And within half an hour of the funeral, the confrontation had started at the road juncture near the Israeli military encampment. Those active on the Palestinian side were not the masked men. Barricades were pushed one way, then the other. At this stage, the Israelis were responding only with stun grenades and the occasional batten round. For an hour or more, the two sides stood their ground, and their tactics didn't change. If it wasn't so serious, you'd think there's some kind of set piece theatrical quality about all this. Everyone knew there would be a standoff here between 2:00 and 4:00 this afternoon. Everyone knew that stones and rubber bullets would be exchanged. Be that as it may, the summit and its talk of cease-fires do seem a long way away. It was half an hour later, about 3:15, that an element of danger and uncertainty crept. Palestinian youths through Molotov cocktails at an Israeli jeep, and more stones hit their targets. Then live bullets began to fly. Jeeps retreated in a hurry after gunfire appeared to come from the Palestinian side. There was soon a response from the Israeli snipers, and a gunfight broke out across a piece of waste ground. Across the occupied territories, dozens of injuries and two deaths today, one of them on the Gaza Strip where these extraordinary pictures were taken of an Israeli soldier at bay, showing how quickly tables can be turned in this conflict.

RAY SUAREZ: Now to the summit in Egypt, and to Margaret Warner,

MARGARET WARNER: After more than 12 hours of meetings today, leaders gathered at an emergency Mideast summit in Egypt have not yet found a formula to end the eruption of violence. For analysis we turn to Khalil Jahshan, vice president of the American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee; and David Makovsky, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He's the former executive editor of the Jerusalem Post, and diplomatic correspondent for the Ha'aretz newspaper in Israel. Welcome gentlemen. Two weeks ago you both were here talking about the eruption of violence, and in that time, both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat refused to come to a summit. Now they're there. Why?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Because they had to. The situation has deteriorated to the point where it has become a cause for regional instability. It has raised the concern of the international community. And a lot of pressure, internal, regional, and external to the region has been placed on both leaders to come together.

DAVID MAKOVSKY: I agree with Khalil. Basically the violence could spin out of control. It has implications for beyond the Israeli-Palestinian arena, but for the whole region.

MARGARET WARNER: So what does Arafat want and need out of this summit?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: What the Palestinian side wants from this summit are four specific demands and one general one. The specific demands include, number one, an end to the Israeli military siege of the Palestinian territories, particularly the use of heavy equipment, the live ammunition and so on. Second, it wants the Israelis to draw the defense forces away from Palestinian town and villages since their presence basically continues provoke Palestinian attacks.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're talking about, for instance, encampments, such as we just saw in that tape?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: I have seen basically the presence of these troops -- in other words, the return of Israeli troops in a visible way to Palestinian centers of population. And third, I think the lifting of the closure, the Palestinian territory since the beginning of the violence two and a half weeks ago have been closed. In other words, the 120,000 Palestinians who work in Israel can't go to work. Fourth, a commission of inquiry. The Palestinian side has demanded that there has to be a credible international inquiry into what has happened, the reasons for the explosive situation; and fifth, a general demand that Israel, the government of Mr. Barak, should basically honor its earlier commitments to the Palestinians and return to the table and begin to implement those unfulfilled promises to the Palestinians.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And what do the Israelis need out of this?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: Well, first they need the halt to the violence. They don't want to reengage in the peace process unless they know that the violence has been stopped. They're willing to take the heavy equipment away from the flashpoints, but they want to do it only after they're sure the violence has stopped. They agreed to it in Paris, and yet they had to reintroduce it when the violence began again.

MARGARET WARNER: Is that the only demand?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: No. There's also the idea of the Hamas people. There are differing reports in which 25 or 40 Hamas people that were let out of jail, but clearly these are not Hamas Islamic militants, or politicos, but people who -- suicide bombers that plan for attacks and are now on the loose. Israel wants those people put back. And finally....

MARGARET WARNER: The Palestinian police had -- are in the position to arrest them is the belief?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: There are 40,000 Palestinian police, 13 security services. Israel says they're in a position to do that. And, finally, they're willing to agree to an inquiry to what happened, but they want to focus more on the future than the past. And the past experience with international inquiries at the UN is they've been heavily politicized. So they want to focus American-led effort. They don't mind having a couple countries, but in the case of the UN, they had a case where they had a resolution which condemned Israel and then said, now let's find out what happened. That sounds to Israel Orwellian.

MARGARET WARNER: So what problems does Arafat have with what Israel wants?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Arafat has a lot of problems in the sense that he has been weakened by the excessive use of violence by the Israelis. Remember, he entered this conflict with already a weakened popularity. As we said, the last time on this program, his popularity stood down at about 31%. And now his headquarters have been bombed, a security location next to his house. It showed the Palestinian people that he's impotent. So he needs to go back with some sense of reestablished, if you will, credibility. He needs to go back with an commission of inquiry established, a credible one, not one that is a fake inquiry, if you, will and the President, I think, was sensitive to say today that it needs to be a credible international inquiry. And he needs basically a visible pullout by the Israelis away from the population centers. He feels that if the soldiers are not visible to the demonstrators, there wouldn't be demonstrators and it would be then manageable for him basically to hold people back.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. What are Barak's problems with that?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: I think the feeling is, is that unless Arafat shows leadership and does... we talked on this program two weeks ago, go on Palestinian TV or Palestine radio or other public forums and say, "no more violence," if he doesn't do that and take the leadership role, then none of this is going to matter at all, and therefore, I think Israel's concern is that Arafat in their view has been invisible, that when you allow... at least the condemnation when holy places are desecrated or at least something to say, I have the security police - I'm going to make a 100% effort -- even if you don't get 100% results -- but it's malice or ineffectiveness. In either outlook, it doesn't bode well for the peace process.

MARGARET WARNER: But isn't Barak also under political pressure similar to the ones...

DAVID MAKOVSKY: I think there's political pressure in both cases - I mean, just to put polling numbers. After Camp David, Arafat's numbers when he seemed defiant of Camp David went up to 64%. This Friday's poll, Ehud Barak was down at 30%, his lowest. I would argue that he could be out of office by the end of this month.

MARGARET WARNER: So that raises the question whether either of these men came to Egypt, either ready to give a little, or in a position - able to give a little.

KHALIL JAHSHAN: I think they came ready to receive. I'm not sure they came ready to give. There is a compromise fatigue, particularly on the Palestinian side, especially when it's not recognized internationally. I mean, the Palestinians at Camp David felt that they went home without the shirt on their back. And they felt that this is the end, this is the limit. And therefore, you know, Arafat would find it very difficult to accept even though it was described as a magnanimous offer by Barak and certainly, I mean, I have no question that Barak is more giving than any other prime minister before him in Israel, but what he offered is not enough to meet the minimum demands on the Palestinian side. It was the equivalent of Saddam basically in '91 telling Kuwait, I'm willing to give you back 92% of Kuwait, but I'm keeping the oil.

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about the offers made at Camp David. But, for instance, I guess it's hard maybe for Americans to understand. If someone sat between the two of them and said, okay, we'll put these items down and these items down -- can't you both agree to do it all at the same time -- why that couldn't happen.

KHALIL JAHSHAN: It could happen. I think it could happen. We might be surprised, particularly with regards to basically cessation of violence. But it has to take some serious decisions on the part of the Israelis to pull their troops back. I think most of the Palestinian violence, justified or not justified, is a result of the provocations in terms of military presence facing them day in, day out.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And what problems does Barak have on just that one point, pulling back the Israeli troops?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: I think if he heard Yasser Arafat go on TV and radio and say, "I'm urging you, my Palestinian brethren, stay home. This peace process is about solving issues across the table, not on the street." Israeli troops would be out of there. I mean, that's the whole problem of this peace process, is that we've had it for seven years, and Israelis say it's - not land for peace, it's land for nothing. When they hear Barak wants to give up 90% of the West Bank, allow in thousands of refugees, share Jerusalem, this is stuff no Israeli has ever heard in 33 years, and now that this is met with instead of yes, yes, we'll end the conflict, but no, no, this isn't good enough, then I'm sorry, then I just think that you've got a real breakdown in trust. And unless you can restore the land-for-peace equation, not just saying I want 100% of the land and mumble on peace, but make sure that there's a balance between the land part and the peace part, in my view we're going nowhere.

MARGARET WARNER: So why - and this is the question asked over and over again -- why has Arafat been apparently unable or unwilling to say anything publicly about any of the violence at any time throughout this two weeks?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Mainly because I think Arafat feels betrayed. Maybe he has lost... the loss of confidence or trust that was referred to works both ways. Arafat in a statement that I remember recently from him in an inner circle basically stated, look, we sit with this man. It's like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- we sit with Barak. We go visit with him at home. We hear certain things. And when we come out of the room, we see the total opposite. He talks peace, but he doesn't practice it. So there... you know...they entered this whole confrontation with a significant loss of trust, and they ended with a total loss of trust. This is where they are today.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. What if this summit fails to come up with a resolution, so far as of tonight, as of right now, there is nothing?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: I shudder to think that we will descend into chaos, bloodshed. We'll bury more people and be stuck with the same problem. And so, therefore, what's not important is not what's said in private rooms; what's important is that there be speeches of reconciliation said to the people, that if our land issues are met, we talk about a new era of cooperation. And my fear is we're not getting that leadership. He has raised expectations; Arafat has gotten boxed in by the very expectations he's created, and I think we're in for a bad run unless there's a real change of direction.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And what if this -- Same question to you. What if this summit ends with nothing?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: It would signal the end of the Madrid process which began in 1991. It would be unfortunate. This is the 76th attempt at peacemaking in the Middle East. And it would be sad to see it join the cemetery of 75 other attempts that proceeded it.

MARGARET WARNER: But do you agree with David, that it could also really send the region into chaos?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Definitely. No doubt about it. The past two-and-a-half weeks have been the most serious deterioration in the history of this conflict. I have never seen what this type of depth and magnitude and deterioration again toward, again, a tribal, if you will, religious based conflict in 52 years.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, Khalil Jahshan, David Makovsky, thanks both very much. RAY SUAREZ: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the view from abroad, two stump speeches, plus notes from the campaign trail, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay.

FOCUS - A FOREIGN AFFAIR

RAY SUAREZ: Now to the presidential campaign. Media correspondent Terence Smith looks at how foreign journalists based in the United States are covering it.

TERENCE SMITH: For foreign news organizations, the US Elections are a big story.

MARTIN KETTLE, The Guardian: It is, in a sense, as though we have one foot in this election, as well as being our own independent country just about.

TERENCE SMITH: Collectively, they devote far more time to the American election than the US press ever does to theirs. For example, more than 200 foreign journalists showed up here at this press center to hear Vice President Al Gore debate Governor George W. Bush.

MARTIN KETTLE: I think the main reason that why people in Britain and the rest of the world are interested in American elections is because America rules the world, and it affects our lives.

TERENCE SMITH: Martin Kettle is US Bureau Chief for the British newspaper, the "Guardian." He says the US Elections often foreshadow political events in England.

MARTIN KETTLE: You had the Reagan era, we had the Thatcher era. Then you had the George Bush, Sr. Era; we had the John Major era. After that we got... You got Clinton, and we got Tony Blair. People in the Blair labor party are watching what is happening, watching how and whether Al Gore can reenergize that sort of progressive politics which was very attractive at one point, but seems to have gone slightly off the boil.

TERENCE SMITH: The United States' status as the world's only superpower means that the outcome of the presidential race can have a direct impact on foreign readers.

YOICHI KATO, Asahi Shimbun: It gets as much attention as election of governor of Tokyo, if not more.

TERENCE SMITH: Reporter: Political correspondent Yoichi Kato writes for the Japanese newspaper, "Asahi Shimbun."

YOICHI KATO: The United States is for us the only military ally and the biggest trade partner. Also, there is a strong and widely shared admiration for the American way of life.

TERENCE SMITH: The interest abroad is not only in substance, but in style.

EUGEN FREUND, ORF: Anything that happens here will eventually come to Europe, whether it's political, or it's economics, or it's technology.

TERENCE SMITH: Eugen Freund, Washington bureau chief for ORF, Austrian Television, says Austrian politicians take notice.

EUGEN FREUND: They are on the campaign trail and watching very carefully what are they handing out in terms of campaign gifts, how are the lobbies dealing with campaigns, how are the candidates presenting themselves on television, and how they are dressed. I mean, every single thing will be watched very carefully.

TERENCE SMITH: For nations less at home with democracy, there is a fascination with the process itself. Ana Baron is the US correspondent for "Clarin," Argentina's largest newspaper.

ANA BARON, Clarin: Argentina is a new democracy. We are very interested in how democracy works, you know. Democracy is not only going to vote, but it's also how it works daily, how people participate, or not, in the democratic process.

TERENCE SMITH: Like many foreign journalists, Baron finds the theatrics of American politics amusing.

ANA BARON: Everything is like a show. The convention, for example, it's incredible, it's like an opera. For me, it's amazing.

TERENCE SMITH: The circus atmosphere.

ANA BARON: The circus atmosphere, how everything is fabricated, how sometimes I am a little bit afraid; like, all of this is a product that you are trying to sell to people, and it's really, I don't know, scary sometimes.

TERENCE SMITH: The selling of a candidate?

ANA BARON: Yeah, like you are selling a soap.

MARTIN KETTLE: I think British viewers and British readers actually quite like being appalled by American political manners. There is what the Germans call schaudenfreude, a sort of joy at seeing things go quite as appallingly as they do.

TERENCE SMITH: Martin Kettle says his readers love what his colleagues call the exotica of American elections.

MARTIN KETTLE: For instance, the Al/Tipper kiss got every bit as much attention in the European media. I've had to write about politicians' kissing techniques, and I've had to write about where kisses haven't worked, and fortunately, that's far as I've had to go. Undoubtedly, everything that happens here is grist to the mill, that American politics is a very exotic jungle.

TERENCE SMITH: The domestic issues that have dominated the US campaign-- Social Security, prescription drugs, taxation-- have limited appeal overseas.

SPOKESMAN: This was an incredibly detailed debate, with the two them going through minutiae of policy.

TERENCE SMITH: But other issues, like the death penalty and intrigue, puzzle Europeans.

EUGEN FREUND: Almost every day, we get another call from our office in Vienna telling us, you know, "there is another execution in Texas. Can you do a story?" We don't even know about it because it is not covered in the American papers, which we have as our source.

CLAUS KLEBER: Germans are fascinated with the American culture of putting people to death, especially in Texas.

TERENCE SMITH: Claus Kleber is Washington bureau chief for ARD, a German television network. His office broadcasts 4,000 minutes a year of US News.

CLAUS KLEBER: George Bush, who has this tremendous record of executions, especially in this election year in Texas, somehow is the symbol for this American attitude and is not much liked by Germans.

TERENCE SMITH: Most of all, the foreign reader is curious about the candidates themselves. Yoichi Kato says of the 300 stories he has done on the US Elections, the candidate biographies were among the best received.

YOICHI KATO: Bush, being the black sheep of the Bush family and trying to live up to the expectation of the father, and also Gore being elite and sort of obliged from birth to be the president-- that kind of human interest gets a lot of attention in Japan. I think it shows how little known both of them are in Japan.

TERENCE SMITH: Martin Kettle says American defense policy is a paramount concern.

MARTIN KETTLE: There is this big surge of opinion, which is quite apprehensive about what a Bush presidency might mean in Europe, particularly in the national missile defense issue about which there are very intense feelings in Europe which are completely out of step with everything that Governor Bush is proposing to do.

TERENCE SMITH: And about which there is very little discussion in the campaign itself.

MARTIN KETTLE: About which there is absolutely no discussion at all.

TERENCE SMITH: Foreign issues did not get much attention in the campaign until the developments in Yugoslavia and the recent clashes in the Middle East.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: The first priority has to be on ending the violence.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Now, during this difficult period, we ought to be speaking with one voice.

TERENCE SMITH: More often, overseas audiences find themselves frustrated by the little attention given to international affairs. The Japanese, for example, want to know how a new president will deal with countries like Korea and China.

YOICHI KATO: Vice President Gore is well-experienced in foreign affairs, but he is not too much involved in Asian affairs. He does not have too many well known advisors around him in terms of Asian policy. So we are afraid that he may be more Euro centric than paying more attention to Asia.

TERENCE SMITH: Patrice de Beer, of the French newspaper "Le Monde," is not surprised by the lack of foreign focus.

PATRICE DE BEER: In the states, as in any other country, it is obvious that you don't win elections on foreign issues. You are not going to raise expectations of voters talking about Kosovo, for example, or talking about Colombia.

TERENCE SMITH: But Claus Kleber believes that this is in part the result of reduced coverage of the rest of the world by American television.

CLAUS KLEBER: I think the American audience over the last 20, 30 years, especially over the last ten, has been deprived by the large commercial networks from foreign news. If you ask me how dangerous that is for the country, because the American electorate, probably the most important electorate on the globe, should know more about world affairs than even people in Germany, and they don't -- and less and less.

TERENCE SMITH: Martin Kettle:

MARTIN KETTLE: The slightly worrying thing for the rest of the world is that America, because it is so powerful, doesn't actually seem to be discussing how best to deploy and use its power and influence internationally.

TERENCE SMITH: Nonetheless, on November 7, the foreign media will cover the US Vote like an important local story-- live continuously and through the night.

FOCUS - ON THE STUMP

RAY SUAREZ: Now, two more in our ongoing series of stump speeches; tonight we hear from the leading vice presidential candidates. First, Republican Dick Cheney. He spoke today at Evangel University in Springfield, Missouri.

DICK CHENEY: If you look at our proposals and the policies that are out there, the choice we're going to make on November 7 is very much that choice between the old, big government way of doing business, or an approach that we think works much better that relies upon the American people and empowers them to make decisions for themselves. If you look, for example, at the surplus, we now are anticipating a budget surplus over the course of the next ten years of about $4.6 trillion.

PERSON IN AUDIENCE: We want it back (laughter) (cheers and applause)

DICK CHENEY: You're going to get it back. (Cheers and applause) Al Gore's approach is very different. He has what he calls a tax bill. But it's a very, very different proposition. What it is is a series of what he calls targeted tax credits, some 29 new or expanded targeted tax credits. And if you belong to the group called, "the right people," it's a phrase he actually used, then you get some tax relief under his plan, if you fall into one of those categories. If you have a solar panel on your roof, you get a tax credit. If you drive a battery-powered automobile, you get a tax credit. If you have your kids taken care of outside the home at some commercial facility, you get a tax credit. but if you're a stay-at-home mom taking care of your own kids, you get zilch. (Boos) bottom line, bottom line is under the Gore plan, 50 million American taxpayers get absolutely nothing. And this comes back around again to that fundamental, philosophical difference, the fact that they basically believe in big government and higher taxes and a more intrusive bureaucracy. Bottom line is they can't wait to get their hands on that surplus because they want to spend it. Final point. I want to spend just a couple of minutes on this morning because it's so important-- and recent events I think are a reminder of how important this particular subject is -- and that's for all of us to pause for a moment and think about what happened last week in Yemen on board the USS Cole -- a US Navy warship, one of our most modern destroyer in port in Aden, attacked by terrorist with the ship badly damaged, some 17 of our sailors killed or missing and dozens more wounded. But as we think about the future, vitally important for us to remember that we are also choosing a commander in chief. There is no more solemn obligation, no more important responsibility when we pick a President of the United States than the fact that we are picking the individual who will, for the term of office, be in charge of the United States military, be given the responsibility to decide when to deploy the force, when to commit the force, when to go to war, and to make certain that our young people in uniform have the resources that they need to do the job we ask them to do for all of us. (Cheers and applause) our opponents in this campaign, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman have sometimes argued when I raise issues about the status of the US military today, they've sometimes argued we shouldn't talk about it. Shouldn't bring it up. Somehow it's unpatriotic to have this conversation. I think they're dead wrong. I can't think of a more important time to have this conversation than when we are making this decision. Missouri is a key state, a battleground state. The outcome of this national election is likely to be determined in a handful of states, and Missouri is one of them - that we badly, badly need your help, and if you will help us and support us on November 7, then governor Bush and I will, as we take the oath of office on January 20, pledge to give you the kind of government you can be proud of once again. Thank you very much.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. He spoke this morning at a senior citizen center in West Palm Beach, Florida.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: We're not going to say a negative word about our opponents. But we are going to talk about their records, and their recommendations for the future. Because that's what this is all about. I'll tell you, rather than building on our success, they want to tear it down and take us back. They want to fritter away the surplus on a giant tax cut that will give most of its benefits to those who need it least: The top 1%. We've got a very different vision here. And the greatest country on earth at the time of our greatest prosperity, no one who has worked hard all their life, this is the greatest generation, should be forced into poverty to pay for the prescription drugs your doctor tells you need to stay alive. Now that's just wrong. It's time we had a prescription drug benefit that covered all seniors and leaves nobody behind (applause). And our plan allows seniors the choice of doctors and guarantees that you can get the prescription the doctor recommends at the pharmacy of your choice. Half of the cost of prescription drugs and a catastrophic benefit which says to you if you're in the 5% or 10% that have really high drug costs every year, you will never pay in any one year more than $4,000 out of pocket for prescription drugs. That's a good plan, and one I think will really change your lives. Now, our opponents say they have a real plan, but believe me, there are differences. I'm just going to describe it to you briefly. In the first four years of the Bush/Cheney plan, they give grants to states that have prescription drug programs, but there's no guarantee of coverage for any middle class seniors. So if your income is over $14,700 a year, you're not covered by the Bush prescription drug benefit for the first four years. That in our calculation means that 1.3 million seniors in Florida will get no prescription drug coverage for the first four years under the Bush/Cheney plan. After that, they give you that voucher that I talked about and urge you to go out into the market and convince an HMO to give you coverage. Good luck. The HMO's, as a matter of fact, say they're not going to offer the plan because they don't think they can make money on it. Bottom line, if I could sum it up, I'd say the Bush/Cheney prescription drug plan for seniors, middle class seniors, comes down to this: Wait four years, and then call your HMO in the morning. And I hope they answer the phone. They don't always do that. All right. That's the difference. It's all about choice. Let me just say a word before I open up, I don't have to tell you, Florida is really battleground zero in this election. This is going to be the closest election in 40 years, since John F. Kennedy was elected. The polls, here, there, they're all within the margin of error. Effectively this is a dead heat. Now, six or nine months ago, a year ago, nobody would have guessed that Al Gore and I would have been even competitive in Florida. Thanks to you, thanks to the help that we received here, thank you -- you've made it happen. And three weeks from tomorrow is election day. We really need everybody to pour out and bring a change to America, to keep us going in the direction we want to go, keep us building on our dreams. If I can paraphrase Sinatra, I don't know if he was ever on this stage... (Laughter) okay. I'm not going to sing "My Way," but I'm going to say, if we win it here, we're going to win it everywhere. All right.

FOCUS - NOTES FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

RAY SUAREZ: Now, more on campaign 2000, and the countdown to tomorrow's presidential debate and to Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: Three veteran political reporters assess the state of play in the campaign, three weeks before the November 7 election and on the eve of the last presidential debate. Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe, David Brooks of the "Weekly Standard," and David Broder of the "Washington Post."

David Brooks, we just heard Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman in Florida, Missouri, talking about the tight race, the battleground, the dead heat. So is tomorrow night's debate going to be the lubricant that unsticks all of this?

DAVID BROOKS: I hope so. But one thinks probably not. It's sort of a mystical process the way this ebbs and flows. Right now one gets the sense, though it is a vague sense, that the fung shway is with Bush. The polls are slightly in his favor. The confidence oozing out of his crowd is just superior to the confidence oozing out of the Gore crowd. Meanwhile, on the Gore camp, Gore makes it look hard running for president. Is he too aggressive, is he not aggressive? Up on stage tomorrow night we're going to look for how hard is he doing. And this isn't only a superficial judgment of who is up and who's down; really it's a judgment of temperament, which the American people really are, it seems to be the key issue. They talk about FDR having a second-class ingoleth but a first-class temperament -- that's really the issue here, and right now Bush seems to be exuding positive vibes, positive temperament.

GWEN IFILL: David Broder, in the days since the last debate, what has changed if anything at all in this campaign two w these two candidates?

DAVID BRODER: I don't thinkvery much has changed. In a certain sense, Gwen, Vice President Gore was helped by the fact that we had the tragedy on our destroyer in Aden and then the outbreak of that terrible violence in the Middle East because it really cut off most of the discussion of what happened in the second debate very abruptly. I think if we had been able to focus on that for two or tree more days, as happened after the first debate, it would have worked to Governor Bush's advantage, because I thought it, and most of the polls suggested, that he came out of Winston-Salem with an advantage. But I think there's been so much focus now on the international scene that I don't think this race has moved very much in the last five or six days.

GWEN IFILL: Tom, is there any way to know whether voters have made a connection between what David talked about as happening on the international scene and this election?

TOM OLIPHANT: No, not at all. In fact, you know, it's entirely possible, just to pick a reverse hypothesis from what Dave Broder just said, that the events in the Middle East perhaps prevented Vice President Gore, who was the one who wanted to continue the debate after it occurred in Wake Forest, raising some topics that he felt Governor Bush misstated facts on, and that therefore he was blocked. But what keeps impressing me is how this campaign resists the efforts of people like us to either define pivotal events or define trends. My sense of the country right now is of a place where... that isn't ready to decide this election -- somewhat resents other people's attempts to discern trends that may not be there, and quite frankly, what advantage appeared for Bush going into the weekend, the only evidence we have since Sunday, is of the lines coming back together again.

DAVID BROOKS: I might say the argument they resist making up their mind is charitable. We talked last time we were together about the detachment. And what struck me, one saw that this week in reference to the Cole. You know, we went to war a hundred years ago because someone sunk a ship of ours. This time it seems to me the way that was described, it was almost as if there was an airplane crash. People talked about the technical issues of the Cole and the size of the boat. People felt sorry for the victims. But it seemed to me almost an amazing absence of indignation, and an absence of, let's get these guys-you know, let's really get fired up about this, which seemed to be the complacency which is of a peace or the complacency that has surrounded the whole race.

GWEN IFILL: Dave Broder, I know you've been listening to what the two candidates have been saying, Gore and Bush, in the past few days. Have you noticed that they have seemed to both be playing more and more to their base?

DAVID BRODER: Yes. And I think we may see that as a continuing trend, Gwen, because unless something dramatic happens tomorrow evening, that gives one or the other an advantage with the independent voters, this election may very well come down to the kind of old-fashioned tug-of-war, depending on which side can turn out more of its base vote. It could be an old-fashioned kind of an organization struggle in which the mass media, the debates, and the ads play a secondary role. And that would be a really remarkable transformation in our politics.

GWEN IFILL: Go ahead, Tom.

TOM OLIPHANT: This weekend in particular, David, I noticed that Governor Bush... it's something he's advertising very heavily on, this theme that he wants to empower individuals. Gore wants to empower government. This is music to the ear of a conservative. I'm not quite sure how it will play in a larger setting, but there is no question that is turnout related. I think the Gore people have not yet gone to just the old-time religion. I still think you can hear the new Democrat in Gore and Lieberman as they - as they campaign. But I think this is also a reflection on the campaign, because if they're emphasizing turnout now, there's almost an acknowledgement, you can't quite get people to say it, that this campaign hasn't done very well by the American people. Every indication I'm aware of is that the turnout may approach the abysmal numbers of 1996. And generally speaking, we blame the candidates for that, not the voters.

DAVID BROOKS: It's interesting the way Bush is trying to roll us back pre Clinton, pre new Democrat, saying he's an old Democrat, I'm an old Republican; I'm tax cuts - he's big spending; let's have a fight. And Gore, it seems to me, has been ambivalent about how new Democrat he wants to be, as he's been ambivalent about how Clinton Ian he wants to be.

TOM OLIPHANT: In the debate at one point I think he even referred to it somewhat disparagingly as this love fest, as if he wanted to mix it up.

DAVID BROOKS: Tomorrow - we ain't nothing yet, because this is a town hall meeting. And in town hall meetings, it's very hard to get tough and aggressive because the audience will actually groan and boo.

GWEN IFILL: David Broder?

DAVID BRODER: In the sound bite we just heard from Senator Lieberman, who after all is the current chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, the home of third-way modern Democrats -- that sounded to me like a speech that any Democratic candidate could have been making to a group of senior citizens any time in the last 68 years, saying, "we're going to do more for you than they will, and that's why you ought to vote for us."

GWEN IFILL: But David, which states are actually in play? We saw Lieberman in Florida. We saw Cheney in Missouri. Are there states coming in and out of play in the last weeks that tell us a little bit about how this campaign is being fought on the ground?

DAVID BRODER: Well, I spent the last part of as week up in a tiny state of Maine, which has been in play, although I think now it's probably tipping in Vice President Gore's direction. But the battlefield is now expanding simply because neither side knows where they're going to get 270 electoral votes. And they're looking around almost to every possible place to put that combination together.

GWEN IFILL: So, Tom, is there such a thing as momentum at this late date in the campaign that seems as if it's been stuck for so long, and can a town hall-type debate tomorrow night kick it into overdrive?

TOM OLIPHANT: Always the potential. The thing is I think the mistake we've been making since Labor Day is declaring its existence when it hasn't appeared yet. It is entirely possible that once again one on the other of these two people could sort of dominate tomorrow night, but the public could take an entirely different lesson from it than what we attempt to impose on it. And I think after two big mistakes on our part, we ought to be more cognizant of that tomorrow night.

GWEN IFILL: We ought to just shut up about it. What do you think about that, David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, if Toms right, it should be a humility lesson for us, but I ain't learning. I have to think, you know, all the essentials are for Gore to walk away with this thing. The country is in relatively good shape. With the issues the Democrats - or the people seem to side with the Democrats. It has to be that people just are hunger or looking for an excuse to vote against Gore personally. And If tomorrow's debate turns out to be a love fest, which I expect it to be, where they both do better than the past two time, it seems to me the net advantage goes to Bush because people just become more comfortable seeing him in the presidential arena.

GWEN IFILL: Dave Broder, a love fest at the debate - attack on the stump?

DAVID BRODER: Well, Gwen, one of the constants in this campaign has been the finding in the polls that when you ask people, do you want to continue the way we've been going or do you want a new direction in Washington, country splits persistently almost 50/50. And as long as that basic question is unresolved, I think this election campaign is unresolved.

GWEN IFILL: Do you agree?

TOM OLIPHANT: Oh, absolutely. That's the whole point about what's not been happening in the last three months, is that it's been clear that the question is there and the answer is not forthcoming yet.

GWEN IFILL: Do voters have to listen for these guys? Are they finding their voices? Is there something that some way they haven't punched through yet that they still can, or is it just too late for either of them to change?

DAVID BROOKS: I'd go back to the word temperament. If you're for tax cuts or for some of the Gore health care plans, you've made up your mind. But I think people are relatively bad at judging intellectual balance between the two candidates but very, very good at seeing who is in touch with the times, who temperamentally meets... is the kind of guy they trust -- they think can be a good leader. And that's why these debates are really expositions of temperament. So in that sense, they matter. But not for what they're talking about, but what it reveals about them.

GWEN IFILL: Briefly, you mentioned the word priority in your column, Tom.

TOM OLIPHANT: Well, that makes it personal -- in other words, for the voter. What do you want to happen? What comes closest to what you want to happen? It's a complicated time. A lot of the issues are complicated. The White House is open. I've always felt, why is it any surprise that this decision is difficult for a lot of people.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Oliphant, Mr. Brooks, and Mr. Broder, thank you all very much.

ESSAY - AVOIDING POLITICS

RAY SUAREZ: Finally, tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt has some advice for the non- political among us.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: These are difficult times for those of us who are not intoxicated by politics. Where everyone turns candidates on the march, speeches, debates, analyses of debates, tarmacs, analyses of tarmacs, political ads, political talk, the body politics. Still, it is not impossible to avoid these events if one concentrates and husbands one's time carefully until the next few weeks pass. Some advice then for apolitical junkies, and don't worry about being out of things. The whole point of this message is to be out of things. Meditation is one sure way to sweep the election from your mind. Until the first week in November is history, one may pass the time meditating on any number of matters. For instance, now that she has left Regis, what will become of Kathie Lee? Will Brittany Spears and 'Nsync retain their popularity? What are Uncle Lazaro and Mara Slaysas as up to now that Elian is back in Cuba? How is the fisherman doing? If so inclined, you might wish to dwell on the significance of John Rocker in the modern world. Or you might contemplate the state of journalism. That could occupy a minute or two. When all else fails, you could consider the state of your soul. No politician does that. You'd have an open field. Reading is another good way to stay out of the political scene. One might work one's way down the best-seller list and absorb such works as the "Art of Happiness" by the Dalai Lama. It's nice to be happy. Hello Dalai. And there is the switch by Sandra Brown. The "New York Times" offers a synopsis of the plot. A woman serving as a legendary astronaut's media escort searches for her identical twin sister's killer. Try to keep me from that one. Finally, there is Harold Bloom's book, "How to Read and Why." I don't know about the how, but listen to the rhetorical qualities of any of the candidates speeches, and you'll definitely know why. One may even watch television in this season, but it must be done selectively so as to avoid the networks, the cable news channels, and, forgive me, Lord, PBS. There is more to TV than politics if one but looks. Between 3:00 and 4:30 A.M., for example, it is always easy to find a movie starring Eric Roberts, Gary Busey or Peter Coyote. They're the sex channels, of course, though sometimes they come uncomfortably close to politics. There's the Shopping Channel, in case one would care to buy a purse made of rubies or an autographed picture of Babe Ruth's bartender. The Animal Planet channel is good for a chase scene involving a lion chewing on an antelope -- and the passion of the daytime soaps, of course. The Weather Channel will let you know that it's gusting in Bismarck. There's a savannah in Savannah. So you want to be a millionaire. George W. Bush and Al Gore are running for, a, dogcatcher, b, their lives, c, glory, d, the presidency? And you can always call a friend. So many possible diversions -- a baseball game where the con tenders only run from base to base, a museum where the dinosaurs really are dinosaurs, a library, not the presidential sort, with readable books. Go for a bike ride, go for a walk, go far drink, make that a double. Go visit Washington, D.C.. This is the time of year when no political candidate's visit Washington because they want to stay clear of inside-the-beltway thinking. Actually, if you listen carefully, no candidate has ever been to Washington, so the city is free. See the National Gallery, the Smithsonian, the Air and Space Museum. See the Kennedy Center, see the houses of Congress and the White House. Beautiful architecture, lovely buildings, empty. I'm Roger Rosenblatt.

RECAP

RAY SUAREZ: Again, the major stories of this Monday: an emergency summit convened in Egypt to stop the fighting between Israelis and Palestinians. And divers searched for bodies in water-filled sections of the USS Cole; it was hit by an apparent suicide bombing last week in Yemen. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Ray Suarez. Thanks and good night.