MR. MacNEIL: Our political analysts, Gergen & Shields, are with us again tonight. David Gergen is editor at large of U.S. News & World Report. Syndicated columnist Mark Shields is in Portland, Oregon.

David, how do you feel about the reaction of our voters? I'd just like to remind you and our viewers at home that those voters reacted immediately after the debate. They hadn't heard any spin or any commentary or read any newspapers.

MR. GERGEN: Well, maybe it's time that Shields and I look for new work. Those voters are really good. They really -- they had a lot of insights into that. I was impressed with the quality of their comments and how closely they listened. The other thing that impressed me, Robin, was how few people changed their minds. Clearly, the Bush supporters felt energized by the debate. This - - unlike the first debate, when the president was more passive, the aggressive stance by Dan Quayle helped to rally the Republican troops. And I think that has given the Republicans more hope now as they approach the next debate. On the other hand, the Clinton people haven't moved. They've stuck with Clinton. And there's some softness on the edges. People are not quite certain, so I think once again we have a debate which has helped to reinforce views, hasn't clarified for a lot of people. I must say there were some people in that group tonight from last night who were embarrassed by what they saw last night. And I happen to share that view. I think that as much as -- occasionally there were issues discussed. Frequently the throwing of mud and so forth sort of splattered around, but it made you wonder whether this was a civilized -- a democracy, as we sometimes like to think we are.

MR. MacNEIL: Mark, what did you feel about our -- our viewers', our voters' reactions?

MR. SHIELDS: Thoughtful, insightful, disappointed, and just encouraging. I mean, encouraging in the sense that it's a reminder to all of us who cover politics, who try and understand it, and occasionally pontificate about it, that voters are not fools. Voters are thoughtful, they care. They may not -- the decision they make eventually or ultimately may not be one that we agree with, but it's one that's made after, after reflection, after considerable insight. And I was quite impressed by that. I thought there was a tone of embarrassment and disappointment. They were disappointed in what they saw last night.

MR. MacNEIL: The Associated Press quoted a Republican pollster today, Mark, Neil Newhouse, saying this, "If Dan Quayle didn't light a fire under George Bush, there's nobody or nothing that can." What do you think of the effect of this on George Bush and looking to tomorrow night?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think that one has to put the vice presidential debates in perspective. They are the preliminary bout before the semi-main event tomorrow night in Richmond. And there's no question, David is right. Dan Quayle raised the Republicans to their peak adrenalin moment of this campaign. He energized and he - - instead of being the enthusiastic advocate and champion of George Bush, because George Bush had failed to make the case against Bill Clinton on Sunday night, it fell to Dan Quayle to do it, and he - - he made the case, or he sought to make the case on the basis of Bill Clinton's character, and he certainly, his words were welcome to a dispirited Republican Party.

MR. MacNEIL: How do you think about -- what do you think, David, about this business of lighting the fire under George Bush? I mean, is there a fire to be lit, and the President come on tomorrow night in anything like that tone and still seem -- what do you think?

MR. GERGEN: Well, Robin, you know, one of the questions that a lot of Republicans have been asking themselves over the course of the year is how much did George Bush really want to win this election? There's been this very peculiar tone to this campaign from the beginning. He didn't want to jump in. He didn't want to be too aggressive. Then he got into it. It really was very, very aggressive, and then in that debate, of course, coming back he was more presidential. So people are not quite sure what to predict. There are a lot of Republicans in the White House who were saying today that Dan Quayle set the tone for the debate Thursday night, that this is -- we now see how we have to go, it's going to get really rough out there, but I must tell you that I think what's going to change in that circumstance is that I think if the president does pursue that line of attack, as we all are led to believe, then I think Bill Clinton's going to counterpunch a lot more than we saw last night from the Democrat side. Al Gore was more presidential last night. He was -- he was a little aloof in some of the fighting. There's some Democrats who were disappointed he -- he didn't slug back occasionally. I don't think there's any doubt that Bill Clinton will slug back.

MR. MacNEIL: The Clinton campaign's saying that was all deliberate. At least they're saying today that Gore's restraint was deliberate, that -- and that Quayle saying that Gore never defending Clinton doesn't matter, they wanted him to look dignified and presidential.

MR. GERGEN: Well, I can understand that, but I do not think that Bill Clinton will let many jabs go -- pass by. We saw in the first debate as soon as, you know, the president went after him on the question of Vietnam and Moscow and that sort of thing, he came right back with that Prescott Bush, with the most effective line of the night from Bill Clinton. I would expect he's got four or five zingers waiting.

MR. MacNEIL: Mark, how aggressive can the president be? We know the polls haven't changed much for him. Time is running out. How aggressive can he actually be and not hurt himself by being it -- and yet help himself by being it?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't think he can worry about the down side. I think that Dan Quayle really made the case last night for whatever evidence George Bush is going to introduce tomorrow night. I mean, Eddie Williams on our post-debate show last night compared it to a volleyball game and getting the ball up to the net for a spike by George Bush if, in fact, it's to come. I -- I would say -- a couple of Democrats have said to me today they thought that perhaps Quayle was making the case that Bush was going to present some evidence tomorrow of indiscretions of a civic or of a public nature by -- by Bill Clinton earlier, and he was going to actually confront him. I think short of that, the Quayle performance last night will have been in vain. I think George Bush has to make the case against Bill Clinton tomorrow night. If he fails to do it, I think Ann Richards, the governor of Texas, may not have spoken prematurely when she said of George Bush after Sunday night, he's done, stick a fork in him.

MR. MacNEIL: Let's -- let's not leave Quayle for a moment. William Crystal, his chief aide, said today about Quayle, "Personally this was a vindication, and I feel good for him for that, win or lose." I mean, what about just what Dan Quayle did for himself, and within the Republican Party, and for the future, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Oh, I think he helped himself within the Republican Party. I think the expectations -- I mean, the office of vice president is an office that has been in the purview of every citizen to ridicule always and Dan Quayle kind of raised that to a different level by his performance in 1988, and I thought that he did a long way toward redeeming himself last night. I don't want to confuse him at this point with, you know, great American leaders. He's no Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, but I think --

MR. MacNEIL: And you knew Henry Clay and Daniel Webster.

MR. SHIELDS: I knew -- Henry Clay was not a friend of mine. He was a friend of David's.

MR. GERGEN: No, Ronald Reagan knew Henry Clay.

MR. SHIELDS: He didn't -- he didn't -- he did a lot better than his public reputation, and I think that those of us who have covered him knew -- were confident he would do that. I think he helped himself within the Republican Party.

MR. GERGEN: I tell you this, Robin. Not only did he set up the spike, but I think that many people had assumed prior to last night that if George Bush lost, Dan Quayle was finished in American politics, he had no future in the Republican Party.

MR. MacNEIL: That's what I was wondering.

MR. GERGEN: And I really feel he's now put himself -- he made it clear last night he will be a force to reckon with. Conservatives will rally behind now. They will look at that and say that's the kind of fellow we need, somebody who's willing to fight.

MR. MacNEIL: Finally, one James Baker. The president in the debate Sunday night announced -- announced -- he let it come out that Baker was going to return to the White House if he's re-elected and run domestic affairs. Baker and others then put it out that he was going to make a big speech this week explaining it all. Today it said, well, it'll be next week, and then Fitzwater said, the White House spokesman, "if there's going to be a speech." What is going on there?

MR. GERGEN: I -- I'm confused by that, as you are. It seems to me they've had this story so jumbled up they haven't gotten this out properly, don't know quite what they're doing. It was always peculiar that Baker was going to come on and make this speech tomorrow, setting himself up as domestic czar. Let the president try to explain -- the whole thing -- I don't think they know what they're doing, frankly. I think they're very confused, and I think they're sending out confusing signals. And they ought to just quiet it down, but I think they made a mistake saying they're going to fire their economic team if he's re-elected. The reason I think that's a mistake is it gives Clinton an opening to say, well, you, yourself, are going to fire your economic team, that's what you think of how well you've run the economy in the last four years, don't fire the team, fire the coach. I mean, you know -- so I -- I think that they've been very confused and this has not been their finest hour.

MR. MacNEIL: Mark, any comment on that?

MR. SHIELDS: Yes, Robin, I think that this is the only presidential campaign I've ever seen where the campaign manager makes the policy statements and the candidate's expected to be -- the presidential candidate is expected to be the attack dog. And that's just -- that's just a total role reversal. They scheduled it on the night -- on the day of the debate, to step on their own story. And it's interesting, Jim Baker last Sunday night said that he was not to be confused, he was the chief of staff and not the campaign chairman when asked if his own reputation, culpability would be involved if George Bush went down. It's interesting. What Dan Quayle did last night, unlike I think Dick Darman, whose fingerprints were all over the Bob Woodward piece last week in the Washington Post, a series saying that actually Darman had been the savior of Bush's economic plan, but agreed that there was a savior, a good guy, and Jim Baker distanced himself. Dan Quayle stepped in last night and didn't run, didn't cut. He stepped up and took the heat and he's loyal.

MR. MacNEIL: Then Dan Quayle also said this morning in one of his interviews on television that raising taxes by the President was an act of courage --

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. MacNEIL: This is a new line.

MR. SHIELDS: Well, it's a changing line. That position has been - - been modified by the president and those around him several times, and this is probably trying to put the best face on it, so Dan Quayle said in 1988 he was going to be his own spin doctor, and he was today.

MR. MacNEIL: Okay. Well, Mark and David, thank you both.