Universal Pictures Newsreel "Washington, DC" (Feb. 1967) (B&W, narration) MS exterior acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark giving press conference in front of White House, Dan Rather is next to him; MS Clark at podium, VO: he is a supporter of civil rights and civil liberties.
Interview with Mitchell Bard pt 3
Interview with Mitchell Bard about the history of the Israeli Palestinian situation and negotiations.,INTERVIEWER:,What conditions have to be in place before you feel there can be hope for peace? ,02:52:02>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,Before there can be serious negotiations between Israel and Palestinians, there are going to have to be reforms in Palestinian authority. I think President Bush has got it exactly right. There has to be an end to the violence, you have to have a change in leadership, you have to have Democratic elections, transparent institutions, and a way that the moderate voices can come forward and have some real power in decision making. Whether the problem is that the moderate voices that you see and hear on American TV all the time, are not the people who have any authority in the Palestinian authority, itself. So, until there is that kind of reform, which the president has called for in his June speech, it's really unlikely that Israel will have anybody to negotiate, in terms of getting peace in - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,02:53:09>>>,The President of The United States has it exactly right in his proposals for moving the peace process forward, and calling for the reform of the Palestinian authority, a change in leadership. Until that happens, until you have transparent institutions, until you have democratic elections, the opportunity for moderate voices to be heard and to have positions of power, it's really unlikely that there will be a negotiating partner for the Israelis. To have a broader peace in the Middle East, is a much more difficult undertaking, because you are going to need a reform of Islam; a change in the views of the radical members of the fundamentalist community who believe in this motion of a Jihad, the end of the Jewish State, and the reconstitution of an Islamic Empire. Unless the most authentic versions of Islam, where this isn't viewed as the end goal are the more common place, are the ones that are supported in the Arab communities, it's going to be very difficult to have a comprehensive peace in the region. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,02:55:35>>>,Frequently you hear the charge that Israel is an expansionist power. Well it's remarkable that it's probably the only expansionist power in history that's consistently withdrawing from territory, and tried to reduce the size of its borders, which we saw with the 56' war, when Israel withdrew from territory captured from Egypt. We saw it again in 1967, after the war when Israel withdrew from the Sinai exchange for peace with Egypt. We saw it after the peace with Jordan, when Israel gave up some of the territory in Jordan. And, in fact, if you look at the territories were captured after the 67 war, roughly 92% of that territory has already been returned to Arab Partners For Peace. So that really, even if Israel were to withdraw from 100% territory, we're talking about only a small percentage, about 8% that's still in dispute. So, there really is a lot of territory involved in the negotiating process. , ,INTERVIEWER:,The Palestinians claim, hey, nine years after Oslo and still no state, and there's settlements abound. So maybe war is the only hope.,02:56:56>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,The Palestinians had a great opportunity through Oslo, to create an independent Palestinian state. They had certain obligations which they agreed to in a treat that they signed. And the problem is they failed to live up to them. That they didn't renounce terror, they didn't stop the violence, they didn't collect the illegal weapons, they didn't take a number of steps that were required, that they agreed to. They promised, themselves, in the Oslo Report, to make it possible to create an independent Palestinian state. And even half of that, they were given other opportunities in subsequent agreements, and in particular in negotiations with President Clinton, and Israeli Prime Minister Barak, to have a Palestinian state which would have been on at least 95% of the West Bank, 100% of The Gaza Strip. It would have given them a capitol in East Jerusalem. It would have lead to the dismantling of more than a hundred settlements in the West Bank. All of the things that most Israelis thought that the Palestinians were fighting for. But they rejected those proposals. So, there are other options. ,02:58:11>>>,You hear frequently, people saying, they are turning to terror because of poverty, or because they have no other option. Well, the fact is they have other options. Here's one, negotiations. Go back to the negotiating table, end the violence. Another option is, nonviolence. It worked for Martin Luther King, it worked for Gandhi. Why haven't the Palestinians chosen that option? They simply made the strategic decision that terror would be their best opportunity for advancing their agenda to - at the very minimum, creating the Palestinian state in the West Bank. But ultimately, many of them hope to create one that replaces Israel. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] , , INTERVIEWER:,Let's talk about the Intifada. Was - what was the catalyst for that? Was there a catalyst? ,02:59:47>>> ,MITCHELL BARD:,There was no particular catalyst for the latest uprising in the Palestinians, in terms of a single incident. It was a strategic decision that the Palestinians made over the course of many months. And really crystallized after the negotiations failed between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, and Bill Clinton, to use violence in a more extreme and prolific manner to try to move their agenda forward. The Palestinians have blamed the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, for the violence. But, in fact, the violence had started before this. ,And there really was no reason why a visit by an Israeli, during normal visiting hours, should have lead to an uprising which now has lasted more than two years. In fact, an independent commission led by an American, George Mitchell, found that Sharon's visit was not the cause of the uprising. It's really been a prolonged campaign, by the Palestinian authority, to try to force Israel to make concessions that they couldn't win at the bargaining table. , INTERVIEWER:,Why has this Intifada become so much more violent than the previous one in the 80's? They were, by and large - they were just throwing rocks. Now they're blowing, blowing people up. It's much become snipers and drive-by shootings, and all sorts of ways it escalated. ,03:01:32>>>, MITCHELL BARD:,The uprising, in the last two years, has been more violent than the earlier uprising in the 80's, for a number of reasons. First of all, the original uprising was pretty violent and there were suicide bombings back - as far back as that original uprising. But what's changed is the growing influence of the Islamic fundamentalists and their terror groups, which have placed a premium on martyrdom and the belief that by committing terrorist attacks, suicide bombings, you can go to paradise; a wonderful place in the hereafter. That, that wasn't as much the case in the earlier uprising. Also, the Palestinians believe that a precedent had been set when the - his ball of terrorists in Lebanon had mounted sufficient terrorist attacks on the Israeli military forces in Southern Lebanon to, in their view, force Israel to unilaterally withdraw. And that was seen as a precedent, and, by most of the Arab world, as a sign of Israeli weakness. That if you simply inflicted high enough casualties on Israel, that it would withdraw. ,03:02:40>>>,And there has been a belief, up till now, that if the Palestinian terrorist could inflict sufficient casualties on the Israeli civilian population, that the Israeli government would also unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank, and give the Palestinians everything that they wanted. They miscalculated because the West Bank isn't the same as Southern Lebanon. The Israeli citizens aren't willing to, simply, unilaterally withdraw with nothing to gain by it. And that they are willing to fight the terror wherever it is, and from whomever it comes, and despite the belief of the Palestinians that they're weak. , ,INTERVIEWER:,In some people, some of the peace - the peace mix in Israel, feel that, that's what should happen. Israelis should just pull out unilaterally. What do you think would happen? ,03:03:59>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,One option for Israel, to unilaterally withdraw, has become increasingly popular among the public. Not only with the left in Israel, but increasingly with the right. As the recognition has set in that there is no Palestinian partners to negotiate with, the unilateral withdraw is risky. Because it would involve sending a message to the Arab world that Israel may be driven back by violence, and it also would give the Palestinians a state on their side of the border, which would now be closer to the population of the industrial centers of Israel to threaten them. Israel wouldn't have its forces, in the territories, in place in order to perform counter intelligence, counter terrorism operations. ,03:04:54>>>,On the other hand, Israel isn't weak. Israel currently controls much of the West Bank, in an effort to protect the population. And if it chose to withdraw in the future, it wouldn't be doing so because it was driven out by terror, it would be doing so because it chose to do so, because it was in its own best interest. And it may be that once a fence is built along the new border, that Israel will be able to defend it, to use whatever measures are necessary to fight whatever terror might remain. But the hope would be that once Israel withdrew, to some new line, that a Palestinian state would emerge, and then it would be in their interest to keep the peace, then, rather than provoke Israel to return to the West Bank. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,03:05:56>>>,If the opportunity presented itself to, simply, place peace on their referendum, and ask Palestinians what they would like to do, if they would be prepared to live in peace next to Israel, I think, in all likelihood, you would see a majority vote to do just that; to have a Palestinian state living in peace beside Israel. But I think you would find the same on the Israeli side. In fact, that's been the case in Public Opinion Polls for years, in Israel. That there's a willingness to accept a Palestinian state that would live in peace beside Israel. The divisions come when you start getting into more of the details of what the state would look like, where it would be, what would happen to Jews living on one side of the border. But, Palestinian people, I believe, as is the case with the Israeli people, would really like to have peaceful lives. The problem on the Palestinian side has been a leadership that hasn't had the courage to make compromises and to be willing to accept a Palestinian state that would be in a part of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, living next to Israel instead of replacing Israel. , , INTERVIEWER:, Speculate, for a moment, if you will, if there was some analogous situation in a Western country, the United States, or England, or France, or Italy, or Spain - if there was the kind of civil unrest and disobedience that was going on, and the scale of what was going on in the Middle East, what would happen? ,03:07:34>>> ,MITCHELL BARD:,If the United States or another western power was faced with a kind of terrorism and unrest that Israel has been faced with over the last two years, I think you would expect a very harsh response. Much more serious, probably, than even Israel has been forced to use to protect its population. You've seen it already in the United States, since September 11th, when we were attacked just once on a single day. Albeit it was a very horrible day. The United States went to war against a country thousands of miles away. And we launched repeated attacks against terrorist targets as far away as Yamen, when we thought that we had the opportunity to kill, either people prepared to commit terrorist attacks against us, or who were in the past involved in terrorist attacks. ,So, for Israel, which is suffering, at least on a casualty basis, the equivalent of September 11th, almost every few weeks, the pressure is enormous to take very harsh measures to try to protect the civilian population. You sometimes hear people try to compare Israel's counter terrorist attacks with the Palestinian's acts of terror. And it's a really obscene kind of analogy, as though you were comparing an arsonist with a firefighter. When the arsonist, like a terrorist, sets the fire and then the firefighter comes in to put out the fire, you wouldn't say that the firefighter was morally equivalent to the arsonist. And yet, people have tried to suggest that when Israel fights against terror, it somehow is doing a similar kind of act as the terrorist themselves. It's simply not the case. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,You often have this game played, of numbers, where people say that more Palestinians have been killed, than Israelis, and therefore the Palestinian side is suffering more. Or that Israel is doing the same types of things as the Palestinians. And it's really not a question of numbers. It's a question of acts and intentions. That Israel doesn't set out to intentionally kill any civilians. In fact, it goes out of its way to try to prevent civilian casualties. There are numerous examples of how Israel has taken extreme measures, in some cases, to put its own soldiers at risk, rather than put more civilians in danger. And it's a tragedy when civilians are killed in any kind of counter terrorist attack. And Israel does everything possible to avoid it. ,On the other side, Palestinians are intentionally targeting civilians. That's the whole purpose of the terrorist, to try to kill as many civilians as possible. So it's a very difficult situation for Israel to defend itself against, because the terrorist, themselves, purposely hide among civilian populations. The civilians, themselves, are willing to shield terrorists, often. And the United States, and other countries have faced similar problems. The United States went after terrorists in Afghanistan, and inadvertently bombed a wedding, and killed dozens of civilians. It wasn't their intent, but no one is trying to compare the U.S. action, in going after the Al Qaeda, with the Al Qaeda terrorist, themselves. , INTERVIEWER:, Why is Israel, or the Israelis being held for such a double standard, when (Inaudible)? ,03:11:33>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,Israel sometimes seem to be held to a double standard. And Israelis, themselves, hold themselves to a higher standard. They do not want to kill any civilians. They believe in what they call the purity of arms, to have an army that operates in as moral a way as possible. And, unfortunately, especially in the media, there's a tendency to find fault with every Israeli action, not to make the kinds of distinctions between the act of terror and the counter terrorist. And you see, over and over again, a reference to Israel killing people when they are not setting out to kill anyone, whereas, the Palestinians, the terrorists, are deliberately targeting civilians. That's their whole purpose of their attacks. But it's very difficult for a liberal democracy, an open democracy like Israeli, to use the kinds of methods that might be more effective in a totalitarian state. ,For example, in Syria, when the president, then of Syria in 1982, had a problem with Moslem Fundamentalist Terrorists, he didn't arrest anybody, he didn't just kill the terrorists, he destroyed an entire city. He killed 20,000 people to put an end to his problems. Yasser Arafat has his own way of dealing with terrorism, or at least his opponent. And that is to arrest them, try them, and kill them. Sometimes he skips the first two steps and just strings them up on lamp posts. Israel doesn't do that. Israel seeks to arrest people and to try them. And there's a very big difference between that approach and that pursued by the Palestinians. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] , , INTERVIEWER:,The notion of a suicide bomber is unfathomable and unheard of in history. You know, the kamikazes, and suicide bombers (Inaudible). Kamikazes, you know, they go after military targets and so forth. How does this kind of thing happen? ,03:13:20>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,I wish there was a good explanation for suicide bombing. I don't think there is. It's an immoral and inexcusable act. We want to try to come to some analysis, understanding of why this might happen becomes, in part, from the belief of fundamentalist Moslems. And if they commit these acts in the name of Allah, that this will bring them some reward in the hereafter. That there are some people who, simply, are doing it because they believe it will advance their political cause. And by killing as many Israelis as possible, and especially civilians, it will inflict such a high cost on Israeli public. That they will demand their - that their leaders make some political concessions. And (Inaudible) seriously miscalculated, because Israeli people had just the opposite reaction that they, they hardened by these, these atrocities, and have supported their leader's efforts to take very tough measures to prevent these kinds of terrorist attacks. , , INTERVIEWER:,It's been said that Yasser Arafat is not a partner for peace. Is Ariel Sharon a partner for peace? Is he capable of making peace in Palestine? ,03:14:37>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,You often hear people criticize Ariel Sharon, and suggest that he is an obstacle, that he's unwilling and uninterested in peace. I think the basic answer is to test it. Test it. If you believe he is the butcher, the bake, the candlestick make who has done all of these terrible things, you have to put him to the test and say, we're going to stop the violence on the Palestinian side, we're going to sit at the negotiating table, we're going to talk about ways for us to live side by side in peace. ,And if Sharon does not respond to that, if Sharon does not present a peace proposal in response, everybody in the world will agree that he's an obstacle of peace. He will be criticized by everyone. And the people who will be most critical will be the Israeli public, themselves. And they'd throw him out of office in a second. Because the Israeli public is desperately seeking peace. And they're looking for a sign, on the Palestinian side, that they are committed to peace. So that if there is a genuine effort to live in peace, to end the violence, you're going to see, I believe, Ariel Sharon, respond with a positive response as he has already in presenting peace proposals in advance of the end of violence. Simply saying that, we can't negotiate those proposals until the terror stops. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,03:16:35>>>,The United States has a key role to play. The United States has a key role to play in the Middle East, in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, in particular. And it is the only country that is respected by both sides. Other nations like the Europeans and the UN, really have little to contribute, because they've historically been so one-sided in their support of the Palestinians, and in opposition to Israel, that it's very difficult for them to play kind of a positive role in Israel. The United States is always seen, by both sides, as an honest broker. And its main role is to support the negotiations between the two parties, so that they can directly negotiate between themselves. The United States can't come up with a peace plan that will be acceptable to all. In fact, the history is that whenever the United States proposes its own plan, it's rejected usually by both sides. So, the United States has to support the direct negotiation between the parties. It has to provide the diplomatic and financial, economic support, to allow Israel to feel that it can take risks for peace. That involves economic aide, it involves military aide, in terms of political support, so that Israelis will feel that when they sit down at the bargaining table, they can afford to make tough choices like withdrawing to parts of a territory, and not put their society at risk. , INTERVIEWER:,Why aren't the Arab governments, in their vast (Inaudible) resources to approve the, the plight of the Palestinians - ,03:19:38>>>, MITCHELL BARD:,The Arab states have long paid lip service to the Palestinian cause, but if you look, historically, at what they've actually done, it's been very little. They've confined Palestinian refugees to camps, they've often deported them from their borders, as in the case of Kuwait, after the Gulf War - deported hundred's of thousands of Palestinians, and hardly a word was said by anyone. The fact is that a Palestinian cannot become a citizen of any Arab state, except for Jordan. And even Jordan doesn't allow it anymore. There is very little sympathy for the Palestinians, beyond the politic rhetoric. There is support, however, for terrorist attacks. Saudi Arabia held a telethon to support the Palestinian terrorists, earlier in 2002. And Saddam Hussein, we know, supports the Palestinian terrorists by providing up to $25,000 for their families. So, in terms of providing financial incentives to terrorists, in terms of political statements, they've been very supportive. But in terms of doing anything to actually help their plight, they've done very little. , , INTERVIEWER:,The Palestinians say that the media is run by the Jewish ____ Establishment, and the - a lot of Jews, or some Jews say that the media is biased, pro-Palestinian. ,03:21:06>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,If there's one subject on which, probably, Palestinians and Israelis, and American Jews, and Arab Americans all agree, it's that the media is biased. Although each side thinks it's more biased against them. I think that if you look, objectively, at it, there's certainly a bias. And it would be, most likely, toward the Palestinian and Arab side, and for some good reasons. The main reason is that Israel is an open, liberal democracy. ,And if you want to read criticism of Israel, all you have to do is open any Israeli newspaper, any day of the week, and you'll read criticism galore of Israeli policies. But you won't read similar kinds of criticism of the Arab countries, because those are all totalitarian dictatorship's, that mostly control their own press. Or you won't see a Peter Jennings, or a Dan Rather, or a Tom Brokaw reporting Live from Riydah, Saudi Arabia, or Damascus, Syria, or Cairo, Egypt. Those societies aren't talking to them. So that, you're not going to see the negative side of most of the Arab states in the media. Whereas, in Israel it's very easy for a reporter to get negative information, or to give a negative report. So, to that degree, there is a built in kind of biased that makes it very difficult for Israel to get even handed coverage. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,03:23:21>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,The United States has a unique relationship with Israel, that goes back many decades, even before the State of Israel existed, to relationship between the American people and political leaders, and early Zionists. Because of the belief in the return of the Jewish people to their homeland, because of values that the two nations share, democracy, openness, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and other freedoms, a shared Judeo, Christian heritage, also a shared interest. That the United States and Israel share a view of the importance of Middle East stability, and a fight against those forces that are opposing western democracy, such as communism, during the days of the Cold War, and radical fundamentalism, today. Also, threats like Saddam Hussein, who pose a danger, not just to Israel but to the region and to the United States, by extension, because of its weapons of mass destruction. So that there is a longstanding and important alliance that cements the peoples of the United States and Israel, and helps guide the relationships between them, through good times and in bad. , , INTERVIEWER:,Please go through your myths and facts, your top ten, as it relates to this (Inaudible). [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,03:25:33>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,We often hear people say that the Jews suddenly showed up one day in Palestinian and stole the land from the native population. There's a misunderstanding about the long history of the Jewish people, with the land of Israel, dating back to the view of observant Jews, and promised by God to Abraham, and simply historical, political terms, the presence of the Jewish people for a ____ the land of Israeli. And in political terms, in the existence of a Jewish state, that existed for hundred's of years, before foreign conquerors drove the Jews out of the territory. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] , , INTERVIEWER:,The notion of refugee, I mean the term refugee, to my understanding, was redefined solely for the Palestinians, and for their status which doesn't apply to any other refugees before, you know, 1948 and since. Is that true? ,03:27:32>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,I don't know the answer. I know what you're talking about, but I can't answer it. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] One of the key issues in the negotiations is the status of Jerusalem. And it's important to look at Jerusalem from a variety of perspectives. If you think about it, this really demonstrates how the Arab/Israeli conflict is not about politics, alone, it's really geography, it's politics, it's history, it's religion. It's all of those things wrapped up into one. And it really is a microcosm of the entire Arab/Israeli conflict, because in Jerusalem, if it was just a political issue, you would simply say, most of the Jews live on one side, and most of the Arabs live in East Jerusalem, we draw a line in between, that's it, we're done, we settle it. But you can't do that. Why? , Well, because the Pope in Rome says, I want to sit in Jerusalem because of the trip to the Holy Sepulchre, and Christian holy sites. And you have the Mullahs in Iran, saying, no we want to stay in Jerusalem because of the Al AksaMosque (Inaudible). You have Jews in Chevy Chase, Maryland, say, no we want to stay in Jerusalem because of the western wall, the holiest spot in Judaism. All of those places are literally on top of each other. The Temple Mounts literally on top of them, the Western Wall, and the Church of The Holy Sepulchre around the corner. How do you divide those up? You can't really do it. There's also the history involved. Israel saw what happened when foreign powers controlled Jerusalem. From 48', to 1967, Jordan controlled Jerusalem. They desecrated the Jewish holy places, Jews weren't allowed to visit the Western Wall, or the other holy places. Even Israeli Christians weren't allowed to visit. The Jordanians desecrated the Mount Olive Cemetery, and other holy spots, and Israelis aren't going to allow that to happen again. You hear all the time, people say, well Jerusalem has to be free and accessible to people of all faiths. Well, that's only been true once in history, since Israel captured the city in 1967. Now it is free and accessible to all. ,03:29:47>>>,So, the question is, can you reach a solution in which Jerusalem is shared? Where Palestinians can have their demand for Jerusalem as a capitol, and Israel can have its demand ____ its own unified capitol. Perhaps, Ehud Barak offered one solution, that is to give Arab East Jerusalem to the Palestinian state. But most Israelis, as well as the Palestinians themselves, rejected that idea. Most Israelis thought that was going too far, and Palestinians thought it didn't go far enough. Another proposal was to give a suburb of Jerusalem, called Abu Dis, to the Palestinians and make that their capitol. They could say, our capitol is in Jerusalem. They wouldn't have to say Abu Dis. And the Israelis would keep the rest of Jerusalem for themselves. It's not perfect but it's a compromise; that the Israelis would keep what they really care about, the old city and the new city, the Palestinians would still have a capitol in Jerusalem. It's risky though, because even though Abu Dis is a suburb and it's not far from Jerusalem, it's literally a stone throw away, and would be threatening. , From the Palestinian perspective, it's not perfect either, because they prefer to see the flag of Palestinian flying over the Temple Mount in the Old City. But it's a conceivable compromise. So, Jerusalem is one issue of which all of the various aspects of the conflict all come together as one, and show how difficult it is to resolve peacefully.[OFF CAMERA COMMENTS RE: WATER] [END OF INTERVIEW
TF1 20 hours: [broadcast of October 18, 2001]
TF1 News (Private - August 1982 ->)
Universal Pictures Newsreel "Washington, DC" (Feb. 1967) (B&W, narration) MS exterior acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark giving press conference in front of White House, Dan Rather is next to him; MS Clark at podium, VO: he is a supporter of civil rights and civil liberties.
[Reaction of the Palestinians to the Israeli ultimatum]
TF1 News (Private - August 1982 ->)
Home - Birth - or - Hospital
AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT THE PROS AND CONS OF HOME BIRTHS
Geneva: face to face for peace?
RTF / ORTF
DANIEL SCHORR FILM TRANSFER
FILM XFER OF B37314 450 SOF/MAG CS: VS JOURNALIST DANIEL SCHORR ADDRESSING THE WHISTLEBLOWERS CONFERENCE. SCHORR SPEAKS ABOUT FIRST AMENDMENT MATTERS, PROTECTING NEWS SOURCES, ETC. SCHORR GOES ON TO DISCUSS THE ESPIONAGE ACT AND ITS EFFECT ON FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS. CUTAWAYS OF PEOPLE EATING. MORE OF SCHORR ON THE JOURNALIST'S DILEMMA IN THESE MATTERS. CI: PERSONALITIES: SCHORR, DANIEL. MANKIND: EATING. CIVIL RIGHTS: MISCELLANEOUS. GOVERNMENT, BILLS: ESPIONAGE ACT. JOURNALISM: NEWSPAPERS. FILM XFER OF B37314 RIG COLOR 1050 SOF / MAG / SIL. CUTWAYS P.C. IN SUPPORT OF JOURNALISTS DANIEL SCHORR & THE " FRESNO ( CALIF ) 4 " PETTITIONS TO HSE COMM ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT ( ETHICS COMM E TO STOP BADGERING SCHORR TO RELEASE NAME OF PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING SCHORR W / COJFIDENTIAL HSE SELECT COMM. ON INTELLIGENCE REPORT, BEING DELIVERED TO COMM, ROOM V.S. SCHORR SUPPORT P.C. STATEMENTS BY JOURNALISTS & OTHERS INCL. CBS CORRESPONDANT DAN RATHER, SEN. ALAN CRANSTON (D-GA), CONG. MAN H; JOHN HEINZ 3RD (R-PA), WASH, POST REPORTER CARL BERNSTEIN, I.F. STONE. CI: GOVERNMENT: COMMITTEES HOUSE ETHICS. PERSONALITIES: SCHORR, DANIEL (ABOUT). PERSONALITIES: RATHER, DAN. PERSONALITIES: CRANSTON, ALAN. PERSONALITIES: HEINZ, JOHN H. PERSONALITIES: BERSTEIN, CARL. PERSONALITIES: STONE, I. F.
PRESIDENT BUSH NEWS CONFERENCE PT. 1 (1991)
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH HOLDING NEWS CONFERENCE.
PRESIDENT BUSH NEWS CONFERENCE PT. #1 (1992)
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH HOLDS NEWS CONFERENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
US Lockerbie - State Dept briefs families on developments in Lockerbie case
TAPE: EF03/0227 IN_TIME: 04:30:17 DURATION: 2:28 SOURCES: APTN RESTRICTIONS: DATELINE: Washington DC, 12 March 2003 SHOTLIST: 1. Wide view of Dan Cohen speaking outside of State Department, other families walk behind him 2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Dan Cohen, Family member of Lockerbie victim "My ... Ambassador Burns talked to about 25 family members and told us that the meetings went very well and he's not going to tell you people about what is going on ... and he didn't tell us an awful lot more about what is going on. But the very strong feeling, in fact the overwhelming feeling one can get out of this is yes there is some sort of a statement which has been, if not agreed to, at least its certainly been passed around and this whole thing may be settled within a matter of weeks or months or anything like that." 3. Wide view of Cohen speaking 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Dan Cohen, Family member of Lockerbie victim "The idea of this sort of ... taking only civil responsibility rather than criminal responsibility is not on the table and, you know, we really don't know an awful lot more than we did when we walked in to be honest with you. Except that yeah, if anybody thinks that it is moving very quickly now, yes it is moving very quickly now." 5. Cutaway reporters 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Dan Cohen, Family member of Lockerbie victim "I can also tell you however that our lawyers are going to Paris next week to start setting up escrow agreement, so I think they think that something is done right there and right now. As far as further relations with Libya are concerned, the Ambassador said they are very concerned about the weapons of mass destruction issue and that is something that is going to come up later with the Libyans, but it has not been part of the discussions they have had regarding Pan Am 103." 7. Close-up other family members 8. Close-up Cohen holding photograph of his daughter Theo who died in crash 9. SOUNDBITE: (English) Rosemary Wolfe, Family member of Lockerbie victim "Basically we were told today is that it is now in Gadhafi's ball park as it always has been. He must forward a letter to the UN accepting responsibility, renouncing terrorism and until that is done nothing has really happened." 10. Close-up Wolfe and other family members 11. Close-up Cohen speaking on cell phone STORYLINE: The U.S. State Department told Lockerbie families on Wednesday that talks between the U.S., U.K. and Libya were going well and that there is some progress towards the lifting of U.N. sanctions against the country. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State William Burns met some families of the 270 victims of Pan Am flight 103 at the State Department to brief them on developments in talks about Libya accepting responsibility for the terrorist attack. While U.S. officials have said it may be some time before a final agreement is signed, sealed and announced, Britain says the talks in London were useful. But officials are playing down reports that Libya has accepted responsibility for the 1988 bombing and agreed to compensate the families of the 270 victims. After the talks, Dan Cohen whose 20-year old daughter, Theo, died aboard Pan Am Flight 103, said many families received an overwhelming feeling that a statement was being prepared and the matter may be settled within weeks. Britain and the United States are pressuring Libya to comply with U.N. Security Council requirements to accept responsibility and offer compensation for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over Scotland in December 1988 killing 270 people. Another family member, Rosemary Wolfe said the ball was once again in the Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's ball park and that until he took action nothing further would happen. According to Wolfe, Libya also has to renounce terrorism and disclose all information it has about the downing of the jet over Lockerbie, Scotland. Only then will the U.N. lift sanctions. A former Libyan intelligence agent is serving a life sentence for his role in the bombing.
CLIMATE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA/COLORADO
[TAPE 12] [OCCASIONALLY INAUDIBLE DUE TO BACKGROUND NOISE] MAN [12:00:21:11] All right so, so the story here is that, uh, Europeans are not energy spoiled in the way we are. Energy is much more expensive there, and the countries in Europe don't have nearly the. [INAUDIBLE] .we have here. So the. [INAUDIBLE] .is they need. [INAUDIBLE] .hot water, heat this building, and to keep the pool warm. [12;00;52;06] What's really important, uh, you know, in terms of this building, reducing the. [INAUDIBLE] .are sort of the, this is the heart, the heart of the whole building in terms of its mechanical infrastructure. [12;01;10;05] So we're using a lot of electricity here, and we're using a lot of. [INAUDIBLE] [12;01;41;06] .more heat out of every hundred. [INAUDIBLE] .emissions, you need to reduce your energy bill. [12;02;06;04] So, doing one doesn't-[BREAK IN AUDIO] .energy is the original source of wealth, so why piss it away? Why waste it? [INAUDIBLE] .five billion dollars in the last year. So, so, you know, we can. INTERVIEWER That's. [UNCLEAR] [BREAK IN AUDIO] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER [12:08:53:07] OK, so show, show us that, various parts of it, and tell us about the. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] MAN [12;08;56;23] This, this is a representation of our boiler room. You have your two boilers and our micro-gym here, and it'll, gives you the read out of the temperatures coming into the boiler, and what they are going back into the boiler. Up here it gives you, uh, what the relative humidity is, and the outside temperature. Um, from there you can go to the air handlers, and this is an air handler that serves the family, uh, pool upstairs. [12;09;27;08] And so right now it is bringing in seventy-five percent outside air to dehumidify the pool. I just got an alarm that, uh, exhaust fan three is, is off. So, I acknowledge that, and go back to our graphic scene, and um, this tells us that this valve, this heating valve is only seven percent open. [12;09;59;10] Um, the ice plant is also here, and this gives us our electrical consumption, and what our peak kilowatt hours is. Um, there's exhaust fans everywhere, and it just gives us statuses. This is our domestic hot water system. Uh, we have two boilers that actually heat domestic hot water. [12;10;22;14] These three are storage, uh, tanks, and they get preheated with the heat, the excess heat from the ice skid compressors, so uh, and then two large, um, storage tanks for on demand. INTERVIEWER [12;10;43;08] Does having it all computerized like this with all these sensor readings coming in from everywhere make it possible for you to be more energy efficient? MAN [12:10:52:12] It, uh, allows you to know when a, uh, a system is down, and so yes it would aid in energy efficiency in that way. It also has night time set-backs, and uh, different sensors that turn parts of the building off when they're not occupied. INTERVIEWER [12;11;10;05] So, in other words, it, it turns, the whole computer system helps turn things off when they're not being used? MAN Absolutely. INTERVIEWER Tell us about that, it turns off lights and all kinds of, just, just tell us all about that. MAN [12;11;19;25] Uh, it tells us, well the, uh, the air handlers, for instance, don't need to run for fresh air if there's nobody in the building, uh, so the, they don't bring fresh air in, they don't heat the air, the heat, the air isn't needed to be heated, so you save energy that way. [12;11;42;19] Um, the night time set backs for, uh, the ice rink, for instance, they keep the ice at, uh, twenty-eight to twenty-four degrees, and at night they let that temperature come back up, and so they're not using the energy to keep the ice at a, at a certain temperature all night long. INTERVIEWER [12;12;09;02] So basically you've got everything set to use the minimum amount of energy needed? MAN Absolutely, yes. INTERVIEWER OK, cool, cool. Any figures on how much money you save by, oh. [UNCLEAR] MAN [12;12;23;29] It was from the get, it was initiated, so I don't have a base point from when it was, uh, if we didn't have it. So, you know, we're trying to, I mean, one of the big challenges in, in all of this is to substitute intelligence and ingenuity for energy. [12;12;43;16] When energy is cheap, and you're, and you're thinking of the atmosphere as a dumping ground for CO2, then you can waste energy. As energy becomes more expensive-[BREAK IN AUDIO] MAN [12;12;56;21] Exterior of the, uh, recreation center. [BACKGROUND NOISE, MUSIC] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] DAN RICHARDSON [12;14;27;12] So, the unique thing about this structure is that they're using less wood than the conventional structure, so that by using less wood there's more room for insulation, there's less waste, and they're able to reinvest that money into efficient equipment, efficient windows, uh. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] DAN RICHARDSON [12;14;51;01] So, these units use much less wood than the conventional unit. By using less wood they're able to fit more insulation into the walls, they have less waste, so that savings can then be reinvested into more efficient equipment, uh, more efficient windows, uh, better insulation, the list goes on and on. [12;15;10;12] Uh, also this unit is, or this complex is more efficient from a transportation perspective as well, because it's close to a transit corridor, uh, there's a high, higher likelihood of them using mass transportation. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER [12:15:22:00] So just repeat everything you just said. DAN RICHARDSON So, one of the unique features of these buildings is they use a lot less wood than conventional construction. By using less wood they save money, uh, they, they use less waste, and they're able to fit more insulation in the wall. They can then take that money and reinvest it in more efficient equipment, more efficient windows, more insulation in the cavities. [12:15:47:15] So, by using the same amount of construction costs they're able to come up with a much more efficient structure. INTERVIEWER Efficient in what sense? DAN RICHARDSON [12;15;51;15] Energy efficient. So uh, they're saving the utility bills for the owners. This is affordable housing that's publicly subsidized and, and by doing this they're able to save on long, long term ongoing operation costs for these home owners. INTERVIEWER [12;16;07;02] So it'll just cost, cost less to heat them in the winter? DAN RICHARDSON Much less, about fifty percent less than the conventional house. INTERVIEWER Tell us that from the beginning, it'll cost them less, and, and tell us why. DAN RICHARDSON [12;16;15;18] OK, um, so start over? INTERVIEWER Yes, no, no, start with, uh, these buildings will cost fifty percent less than the, you know- DAN RICHARDSON OK. INTERVIEWER Just start with it so you're saying the whole thing without my question in it. DAN RICHARDSON [12;16;25;08] OK, the city of Aspen, uh, has invested heavily in affordable housing. Well, they think that energy efficiency is a vital component of that, um, affordable housing. So, what they did was they came up with a design that's much more efficient, is going to save the homeowners, uh, utility costs in the long run so that they're saving money from here forward. INTERVIEWER [12:16:43:27] Yeah, but the, tell us about just the specific thing of these buildings are, are, will use fifty percent less- DAN RICHARDSON OK. INTERVIEWER .energy because of. DAN RICHARDSON OK. INTERVIEWER Start that. DAN RICHARDSON [12;16;51;11] So, these, these units, various designs, they have a much more efficient foundation, they have less wood, uh, they're going to use about fifty percent of the energy of a conventional house, and that will translate into energy, uh, efficiency and, and dollars savings for the homeowners. INTERVIEWER What are some of the specific things that mean that they use less, fifty percent less energy, specifically? DAN RICHARDSON [12:17:05:00] OK, uh, in these units they use, for example, what's called advanced framing. So, they use less wood in, in the structure. Less wood means they can fit more insulation in the wall, they have less, uh, sorry, um, they have less waste. [12;17;24;17] And also the mechanical systems, they're able to invest in very efficient, uh, boiler systems to run the heating system, they have passive solar gain, they're going to have solar hot water systems to pre-heat the water, all this contributes to fifty percent more efficiency. INTERVIEWER [12;17;37;09] Tell us all about the, the transportation route, and why that means it's also part of, uh, saving energy. DAN RICHARDSON Sure, it was important for the city of Aspen to have, uh, this, this particular, uh, unit be on a transit route, so this, they're within a quarter mile from a bus stop, so uh, they can ride their bike, they can walk, or they can take the bus into town, whether it's the grocery store or their place of business, what have you. [12;18;00;12] Uh, just the transportation impact from this development will be much less, fewer emissions. INTERVIEWER [12:18:07:06] Terrific. Anything else specifically, you want to take it from the global, what does this have to do with global warming? DAN RICHARDSON [12:18:12:20] Sure, well, we all have to live somewhere, and uh, what they decided to do with this particular unit is, let's see how we can create the same kind of lifestyle, but reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from that lifestyle. So, what they've done is they said, let's lower the transportation impacts by making it on a, by putting it on a transportation route. Let's make the units much more efficient so they can still have a nice place to live, good quality of life, but with much fewer emissions. INTERVIEWER [12;18;36;05] Terrific. Um, that's great, just turn back around just for one, just say your name and how you spell it so it's on there for the transcriber. DAN RICHARDSON [12;18;43;16] OK, Dan Richardson, uh, DAN RICHARD- INTERVIEWER And your title- DAN RICHARDSON .SON. INTERVIEWER .with regard to this project? DAN RICHARDSON I'm the global warming project manager for the city of Aspen. INTERVIEWER [12;18;52;03] So you're, you're a public employee? DAN RICHARDSON Yes. INTERVIEWER Right, that's your job? DAN RICHARDSON That's my job. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER [12:19:11:26] We've got one more statistic we need to hear from you. DAN RICHARDSON Go. INTERVIEWER OK, go ahead. DAN RICHARDSON OK, so these homes- MAN Why don't you ask a question. INTERVIEWER OK. MAN [12:19:42:19] Put it in, put it into perspective, what does this- INTERVIEWER Yeah, yeah. [12:19:45:12] So, put it, so could you put it into perspective? DAN RICHARDSON [12;19;47;10] Sure. The typical US home will emit about ten to twelve tons of CO2 per year. These units here will emit about three tons per year. What does that translate for utility bills? Well, the average American will spend about two thousand dollars to power and heat their homes, these folks are going to spend about five to six hundred dollars a year. INTERVIEWER [12;20;04;14] Double win. DAN RICHARDSON Double win. INTERVIEWER Wow, great. DAN RICHARDSON Cool. I just need to be spoon fed. [12;20;16;08] And this, I mean, that's not really, it's a little bit of energy, but it's more. They, they have foam in between, usually the corners are packed solid with lumber, but they framed the corners differently. Usually there's a trimmer stud right here to support this, and they said-[BREAK IN AUDIO] DAN RICHARDSON [12;20;36;09] So this is a heat recovery ventilator. When you build an efficient house you try and built it as tight as possible, stop all the leaks. Well, then what you need to do is bring in fresh air and circulate it. Well, what this does is pre-heat that air with the existing air, and it allows for a more efficient way to bring fresh air into a building. INTERVIEWER [12:20:53:19] So, the fresh air gets heated with the existing air? DAN RICHARDSON Yeah, so rather than bring thirty degree air in from the outside, you're mixing it with seventy degree air, and you might get, you know, fifty degree air. INTERVIEWER [12;21;06;05] Does, does it cost a lot of energy to mix it together? DAN RICHARDSON Uh, these, these fans are very efficient, so the energy pay back is great. INTERVIEWER Terrific. DAN RICHARDSON It's insignificant. INTERVIEWER While he's doing that-[BREAK IN AUDIO] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] DAN RICHARDSON [12;21;16;03] So this is what's known as advanced framing. The concept is, use less wood, make more room for insulation. [12;21;22;04] So instead of sixteen inch on center framing, they have twenty-four inch on center framing. Instead of using two studs next to the window, they use one with a hanger. Instead of packing the, uh, structural framing member above the window full of wood, uh, they've minimized that and allowed more room for insulation. All this translates into savings, and uh, better, better energy efficiency. INTERVIEWER [12;21;41;23] Can you do that one more time for me. DAN RICHARDSON Sure. INTERVIEWER It was sort of neat when you went along and touched them, because we don't know, when you say, when you, when you went along, what you just did now, you, you went along and said, instead of every sixteen. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] DAN RICHARDSON [12;22;00;09] So this is what's known as advanced framing. Uh, they use less wood to create the same structure. So, instead of sixteen inch on center studs, they've got twenty-four inch on center studs. Instead of-[BREAK IN AUDIO] INTERVIEWER OK, try it one more time. DAN RICHARDSON [12;22;12;05] So, this is what's known as advanced framing. They use less wood, and therefore use, spend less money to build the same structure. Instead of using sixteen inch on center framing they use twenty-four inch center on framing. Uh, instead of using three or four studs in the corner, they're able to use two. Instead of using two, uh, framing members next to the window, they're able to use one. [12;22;32;23] Uh, they've minimized the, the structure above the window to allow for more insulation. All this translates into less waste, less cost, and again, they're able to reinvest that money into efficient, energy efficiency. INTERVIEWER [12:22:45:22] You know, I was going to ask if you could say, instead of, I don't know what it means, sixteen inch on- DAN RICHARDSON OK. INTERVIEWER Instead of having a, a piece of lumber every sixteen inches. DAN RICHARDSON [12:22:53:06] OK. INTERVIEWER Instead of having a piece of lumber every sixteen inches, and touch it, you know- DAN RICHARDSON OK. INTERVIEWER Sort of, sort of, you know, that there would be one here, instead of having it every sixteen inches, every twenty-four inches. DAN RICHARDSON [12;23;00;16] OK. INTERVIEWER Because I don't, otherwise it's jargon. MAN OK, go ahead. DAN RICHARDSON [12:23:06:15] OK, this is what's known as advanced framing. They use less wood to create the same structure. So, in this four foot space instead of having, uh, four studs, which is usual, they use three studs. In the corner over there, instead of having three or four studs, they're able to get away with two. Uh, next to that window over there, they're able to use just one framing member, and an efficient, uh, framing clip, again, minimizing the amount of wood. [12;23;28;24] Above the window you see a, a header, a framing member, they've minimized the structure to allow more room for insulation by having-[BREAK IN AUDIO] [PAUSE] INTERVIEWER [12:33:45:02] So up here is where it all happens, huh? MAN Yeah, well. [BACKGROUND NOISE, VOICES] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] TOM GOLEC [12;34;28;03] So, has it been working out pretty good for you? INTERVIEWER Yeah it has, it's been real, real productive. Lots of interviews, lots of pretty pictures, should be a nice, nice story. TOM GOLEC [12;34;39;00] I wish, I wish we could have had a nicer day for you up here. The other month we saw the leaves come out- INTERVIEWER Oh yeah. TOM GOLEC [12;34;48;23] You can tell the difference up here, this is that eight to seven hundred feet. [UNCLEAR] .everything is a lot greener, the leaves are out. It's a long winter up here. INTERVIEWER It's gorgeous, though. TOM GOLEC [12;35;05;10] Yeah, we have our heyday in the summer when everybody else is. [UNCLEAR] .we get an eighty-five degree day. INTERVIEWER [12;35;24;04] And what, what part of the system are we driving to right now? TOM GOLEC Well the, it would be the, uh, where I take the water. [UNCLEAR] INTERVIEWER Uh-huh? TOM GOLEC [12;35;33;17] And basically put it. [UNCLEAR] .where you were just shooting, that's where it goes into the hydro-house, and back into the creek. So we're not consuming any water, so nobody seems to mind that it's. [UNCLEAR] .it's when you start taking water out and not putting it back in that you get a little nervous out west. INTERVIEWER [12;35;59;18] Yeah. How many years have you been doing this? TOM GOLEC Well, I've been up here for about twenty years, but I started out, I got this small little project from a spring that I use way up on the hillside up there, so I've been powering my house for about twenty years from that. [12:32:19:06] But this larger project was, uh, basically probably been running now for four and five years. INTERVIEWER OK. TOM GOLEC [12;36;33;11] But it all started with this smaller project to get, uh, that's where my enthusiasm came for a larger project. [BREAK IN AUDIO] TOM GOLEC [12:36:47:10] Yogi, you behave, you behave, huh? Eli? These are my wife's babies. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER Where's you get the idea of doing this? TOM GOLEC [12;37;59;04] Well, I have this small plant that I've been using for twenty years to power the house, but it comes from a spring way up on the hillside up there, and I've always used, wanted to use the water out of the creek, because it just had more potential to make a bigger impact, you know. So-[BREAK IN AUDIO] INTERVIEWER [12:38:76:30] Just tell me the story and just walk right past him. [BACKGROUND VOICE] OK, so what happened? TOM GOLEC [12;38;23;20] So, I had this idea to use the, uh, the water out of the creek and make, make a larger hydro-electric project, and basically Randy, I told Randy about it, and he thought it was a good idea, so we presented it to the, uh- INTERVIEWER That's not going to work. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] TOM GOLEC [12;38;49;26] So, so basically I talked to, uh, to Randy about this, and Randy thought it was a good idea, and we brought it to the utility, well the utility, by the way their concerns were safety, and nobody had done it before-[BREAK IN AUDIO] TOM GOLEC OK, go ahead. INTERVIEWER [12:39:06:01] Start again, so I got this idea to take the water up and do my own power. TOM GOLEC OK. INTERVIEWER So tell me that story. TOM GOLEC [12;39;08;19] So we brought the, uh, we brought the idea to the utility, and the utility at first was, since nobody had done it before they had some concerns, mostly safety issues, and uh, some other concerns, and legal issues and so forth. [12;39;27;08] And we just, the process was, you know, a few months, and sitting down at the big mahogany table to address their-[BREAK IN AUDIO] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] TOM GOLEC [12;39;43;09] Well this is, this is our intake structure, and this is basically where we take the water out of the creek and put it into a pipe and we drop it two hundred and thirty vertical feet down onto where the, the hydro-plant is. So, it starts up here, we had to have a, just a divergent structure where the, uh, you know, we could take the water out, and we're able to screen it right in here. INTERVIEWER [12;40;13;17] Oh, so you split the stream in two? TOM GOLEC Yeah, but basically we want to keep the main force of the, uh, the whole thing with these hydro-projects is you've got to have some, you've got to have some kind of social consciousness. [12;40;25;04] If you, when the stream goes down, when there's not enough water, I don't want to be taking all the water out of the stream. So, you gotta allow enough water to go down so we don't effect the ecology of the stream or anything. But you can see, I'm only taking a small portion of what the, uh, stream is producing now. INTERVIEWER [12;40;43;22] And it goes right in there into the pipe? TOM GOLEC Right, there's a, there's a whole screening process right here, so we don't carry all kinds of debris. [12;40;50;04] Because another two or three weeks where we're standing the water is going to be this deep, I mean, it just roars through here. INTERVIEWER With all the spring melt? TOM GOLEC [12;40;59;00] With all the spring, with all, you know, up in the mountains, all the spring melt off, and when it does come down here, it brings rocks, and you know, sticks and, and everything else. You gotta have a way of screening it so we're not running it through, and the screening also acts, there aren't any fish in here to speak of, but you know, screening also acts to keep the fish out, the uh, debris out, and basically it's a maintenance type of thing. So. INTERVIEWER [12;41;25;14] [INAUDIBLE] .can also ________ back out that way? TOM GOLEC Yeah, and it's, you know, like I say, pretty soon we'll be, we'd be standing knee deep in water, because that, there's going to be that much water coming down- INTERVIEWER [12;41;35;13] Wow. TOM GOLEC So uh, like I say, on these, especially on these small projects like this, there's gotta be a balance of how much water you take out for power. [12;41;46;01] Although we put it back in down there, in the stream- INTERVIEWER All right. TOM GOLEC [12;41;49;27] We're still kind of over the course of a thousand feet or so, we definitely effect the, um, the environmental, it has an environmental impact. So, we gotta balance that on these small projects. INTERVIEWER Great. And you built all this yourself? TOM GOLEC Yeah, this is, I just laid up rocks, basically, and, and uh, it's, it's all done by hand work basically. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] TOM GOLEC [12:42:35:27] [INAUDIBLE] .they called it white gold. We got to put the white gold. [INAUDIBLE] Yeah, this, that's what I mean, like I said, another two or three weeks this will just be all white, you can't hardly see any. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] [BREAK IN AUDIO] INTERVIEWER [12;44;30;14] OK, but first say your name and how you spell it, and what the name of this creek is so we have it on tape for the transcriber. TOM GOLEC [12:44:39:27] OK, my name is Tom Golec, that's GOLEC, and we're on, uh, Luddite Creek [PH], um, in Eagle County. INTERVIEWER OK, and have you lived here a long time? TOM GOLEC [12;44;52;26] I've lived up here on this property for about twenty years. And it's up around eighty-seven hundred feet, so we have long winters, and you can't grow much, but one thing I do have is I have a lot of water resource, and I've always wanted to do something with the water, and five, six years ago, I have, I have a small spring way up on the mountains that I basically use for domestic water. [12;45;23;10] And I've been using that small spring for twenty years to power the house with my electrical needs. But I've always wanted to use the water in the creek here. Um, and have a bigger impact and make more electricity, if you will. So, I had the resource, and it was just a matter of timing. [12;45;43;29] So, my neighbor and I got together and, uh, we approached the local utility about doing a larger, it was a twenty-five kilowatt hydro-electric project, um, we approached the, uh, utility, and they, they had somewhat open ears, but since nobody ever did it they had a lot of concerns. [12;46;08;25] And I was lucky that, uh, Randy thought this was a good idea, Randy ________ thought this was a good idea, and he represented ________, and they had a relationship with the local utility, so it was six months at the big mahogany table, they would, they wanted to know about licensing, the legal things, and you know, we addressed each concern. [12:46:31:12] But basically it was, their concerns were, were uh, safety issues. In other words, putting that electricity back onto the grid and not electrocuting any of their linemen or anything like that. But as we addressed each one of their concerns, they kept nodding, saying yeah, but what about this? And we'd go back and address that. [12;46;58;01] Anyways, after about six months they said, OK, you know, go ahead, we'll, we'll work with you on it. And it took about, my neighbor and I worked on the water line, so that took six months. But after that we worked on it another six months, so it was about a year's project, cost about sixty thousand dollars to, to put this, uh, system in, and this is, right now the water is running, it's, the water in the creek is starting to run up. Pretty soon it'll be spring run off, and all it'll be is just white, white water all the way down. [12;47;36;14] The old, uh, miners used to call that white gold, because they used that for, for, uh, or white coal rather, and they used to use that for power years and years ago. So, it was, uh, you know, it was just something I wanted to do, and, and at this point we had the utility's blessing, and after about a year we had the project in, and the project has worked out real good. [12;48;00;22] The utility really likes the project, they're trying to encourage more, more projects like this for, by giving out incentives, financial incentives, and it, it's just been a, a really good project. And I, form my point of view, basically there's a feel good factor here, because I produced now, over the last four and a half years almost, nine hundred thousand kilowatt hours of, uh, electricity. [12;48;30;18] And that's the equivalent of, of um, maybe two and a half million pounds less of carbon dioxide that would be in the atmosphere if we were generating that electricity with coal. So that's the feel good factor, you know. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER [12;48;56;09] All right, so just tell us the little thing about the miners. And, and also when you tell it to us, if you put it in a sentence, explain how they managed to get power out of it. Just tell us that story. TOM GOLEC [12;49;08;08] Well, hydro-electric power is really, it's an old technology, and it's been used for a hundred years, more than a hundred years, more than a hundred years. So, the old, the old miners used to call it white coal, because uh, they could extract power out of the, uh, the streams, the mountain streams and so forth. [12;49;29;24] And that was, that was one, uh, one aspect of putting together this project that I really liked was, you know, it was, it's been around for a long time, and the resources were old resources, and it's not a new technology, it's old technology. INTERVIEWER [12;49;44;02] The miners would get their own little old turbines flowing? TOM GOLEC They'd have their own little old turbines, and you can go out anywhere in the mountains out here in Colorado and find out, uh, old hydro plants that have been running a hundred years. [12:50:01:20] So um, they run a long time, and they'll, hopefully they'll run a long time into the future, too. INTERVIEWER But now tell us about what you're selling to the utility, and how they, you know, whether they're, you know, how they can work that out. TOM GOLEC [12;50;13;06] OK, so Holy Cross Electric, basically they buy the power that I produce, um, at a kind of a wholesale rate, but they've been good enough to put me into a local, um, a renewable energy pool. [12:50:35:10] In other words. [BREAK IN AUDIO] [12:50:42:08] They put me into a local renewable energy pool where they pay, or our membership in our local electrical cooperative pay a premium for, um, renewable energy, energy that's produced by wind power, solar power, and in my case, uh, water power. So, they pay me a premium for the electricity that I produce here. INTERVIEWER [12:51:12:01] How much, can you give us a sense of how much you're making from it? TOM GOLEC Well, I average about twelve thousand dollars a year, about a thousand dollars a month, uh, that the utility pays me for my, my plant, of my production. INTERVIEWER [12:51:25:28] Terrific. And, and the idea is catching on, the utility. You were sort of teaching the utility company a new approach. TOM GOLEC Well, I just demonstrated that it's, it's a technology that, that actually works well, they don't have to worry about any significant problems, and uh, they've accepted it, and they're encouraging it right now. INTERVIEWER [12:51:51:14] So in other words, they took your idea, and they're now looking for it elsewhere? TOM GOLEC That's right, and there are plenty of opportunities here in the mountains for, for this type of technology. Municipal water supplies that take their water up high and drop it down to the cities, they actually have to reduce the pressure in these municipal water lines. [12:52:12:28] And any time that you have to reduce the pressure in a water line, that's an opportunity to put in a turbine and actually capture that power. So there's municipal, uh, opportunities. The ski areas, uh, Snowmass Ski Area has a project where, where basically they have pipelines in, in the ground, and they're, they're producing electricity from spring water, run off when they don't need the water. [12;52;37;20] So, there are a lot of, um, a lot of different, there are big ranches that have water coming down for irrigation systems, and you know, a lot of these ranchers love the idea of actually irrigating their property and producing electricity. It's, there's a, there's a feel good factor in all of this. So. INTERVIEWER [12;53;00;16] And also, it feels good to be more independent, I suppose. TOM GOLEC Absolutely, absolutely, I mean, it's a, uh, it's good for the environment, it's, you know, it helps, helps, helps us keep the clean air that we enjoy out here in the west out in the mountains out here, so. INTERVIEWER [12;53;16;22] And self-reliant. TOM GOLEC That's correct, that's correct. My little, my little power plant up there is a plant I've been using for twenty years and when the utility power goes down, I don't even see it, I'm still up. And uh, my neighbors look to my house, they still see lights on, and they get a little bit confused that the utility really has gone down. [12:53:42:01] But, you know, it's, there are a lot of different reasons that I like water power. I like being up in the creek and just dealing with the whole thing. INTERVIEWER [12;53;49;20] Great, terrific. OK? Got it. Any other questions you want to ask? I think we've got it, any other questions? [BACKGROUND VOICE] [12:54:09:04] Have you heard about global warming? TOM GOLEC [12;54;11;26] I've certainly heard about global warming. And this, using hydro power like this is a, um, a perfect opportunity to mitigate global warming. I mean, it's, we're out west, and there's a lot of coal-fired plants, and the reliance on these coal-fired plants, actually impact even the areas up here in the, uh, we think there's pristine mountain conditions, but you know, there's, there's lakes that they're actually seeing that have, you know, there's a lot of, uh, the acid balance in the lakes are actually turned. [12:54:45:01] But this is a chance to actually help in that respect, is actually produce clean power. INTERVIEWER Terrific. That's great. All right, now let's- [BREAK IN AUDIO] [BACKGROUND VOICE] INTERVIEWER So, you were saying something before about.[UNCLEAR] ? RANDY UDALL [12;54;58;20] Right. INTERVIEWER Start from the beginning and tell us about that. RANDY UDALL [12;55;01;28] OK, so one thing we're trying to do here is begin using flows of energy rather than fuels. The old miners used to call hydro-power white coal. Uh, flows of energy are different than fuels, they're forever, they're perpetual, they're everlasting. [12;55;20;10] And we can use them for a long, long time, many centuries. So, the challenge right now is that about eighty-five percent of our energy comes from fuel, coal, and natural gas, and oil. But the flows of energy, water running down a creek like this, and sunlight hitting my face, they're enormous, and we're just beginning to tape them here in the United States. [12;55;44;09] But for many thousands of years people ran their entire civilization off flows of energy, wind power, water power, wood, and sunlight. So that's inevitably how we're going to have to run our civilization in the future. INTERVIEWER [12:56:02:03] What about the utility companies, they're making money off of selling people what they get out of fuels? RANDY UDALL [12;56;07;05] So, fuels are nice, you dig them out of the ground, and nature's done a million years worth of work to make them very dense forms of energy. But all of the fossil fuels contain carbon. So, when we burn a pound of coal, the carbon in the coal combines with oxygen in the air to produce two pounds of carbon dioxide, the cheap greenhouse gas. [12;56;28;24] Here when we make electricity using this running water, there's no greenhouse gasses associated with it. And we can do this for the next ten years, we can do it for the next hundred years, we can do it for the next thousand years. INTERVIEWER [12;56;50;06] Are utility companies, nonetheless, going to be resisting this or not? RANDY UDALL [12;56;53;01] So, our local utility companies have said to people here, if you can make electricity on your roof or in your backyard, if you have a creek like this, we want you to do it. So, for the first time in our area the local utilities are saying yes. INTERVIEWER What's in it for them? RANDY UDALL [12;57;11;17] What's in it for them? They want us to be more energy independent, they want to produce more electricity closer to home. Why do we need to bring power in from many hundreds of miles away if we can make it here on our own. INTERVIEWER [12:57:27:18] So the utility companies don't need to lose money on this? RANDY UDALL No, actually some of the renewable energy flows, some of the flows of energy, like wind and water power, are cheaper now than fossil fuel energies. INTERVIEWER [12;57;41;22] So, in other words, for the utility companies, it's not a problem of using fuels, as long as they're getting paid, or as long as they're, as long as they're, as long as they're getting paid, they don't care whether they buy it from local folks, or from oil companies? RANDY UDALL [12;57;55;17] No, they, our utility companies have, I'm trying to think what's a good answer to that one. Uh. INTERVIEWER [12;58;05;23] I mean, all I want is a sense that the utility, let me put it this way, you know, some people are saying, boy, getting off of fuels is going to cost us a change over, is going to cost our economy trillions of dollars. RANDY UDALL Right. [12:58:20:03] So, fossil fuels are convenient, and historically they've been very cheap. But, the prices of fossil fuel energy are going up dramatically. Natural gas prices have tripled in the last four years. Oil prices have quadrupled since 1998. This stuff, you know what this is going to cost, this is free. [12;58;37;28] Your fuel here is free. It'll be free for the next thousand years. INTERVIEWER And to the point about the economy, people who claim that, well, utility companies and the economy, uh, have to be afraid here, you're telling us that's not how the economics works? RANDY UDALL [12;58;54;28] We, we actually think in the long run that tapping flows of energy, sunlight, wind power, and water power, that those are going to be the cheapest forms of electricity and energy going ahead. INTERVIEWER [12;59;08;01] So utility companies don't need to lose money on this? RANDY UDALL These, our utility company is on the cutting edge, they can see the writing on the wall, we want inexpensive energy, but we've got to get the carbon out, we've got to get the greenhouse gasses out. [12;59;22;13] So, it's not just, cheap and dirty doesn't work anymore, we need inexpensive and clean. INTERVIEWER [12;59;27;13] And the one kind of company that will have to face some kind of financial adjustment then are those who sell fossil fuels, right? RANDY UDALL [12;59;34;28] Right, I mean, there will be a continuing demand for fossil fuels far into the future. We can't immediately overnight go away from them. But, the task of our generation is to begin using more energy from flows. [12;59;49;07] [BACKGROUND VOICE] INTERVIEWER [12;59;51;27] Can you give us the, just, just so we have it once more for the camera- RANDY UDALL Right, INTERVIEWER .fuel versus flow, the very basic thing. RANDY UDALL [12;59;59;11] OK, uh. INTERVIEWER Just like you did at the beginning. RANDY UDALL [13;00;01;29] Right, so many people don't understand the difference between a flow of energy like we have in this creek, and a fuel. A fuel is like coal or oil or natural gas, these things that are a hundred million years old, and nature's done a lot of work, and you take them out of the ground, and you burn them. [13;00;22;11] But you can only burn them once. If I have a lump of coal and I burn it, it's gone. This you can use forever. This will be here next spring, it'll be here next summer, it'll be here a century from now. [13:00:37:01] So flows last forever, fuels are a one time thing. And we've been in an orgy of burning fuels for the last two hundred years, but it's inevitable that we will go back to flows, because that's what human beings have always run their civilizations on. INTERVIEWER [13;00;52;02] Thank you. [BREAK IN AUDIO] [END TAPE 12]
CLIMATE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA/COLORADO
[TAPE 12] [OCCASIONALLY INAUDIBLE DUE TO BACKGROUND NOISE] MAN [12:00:21:11] All right so, so the story here is that, uh, Europeans are not energy spoiled in the way we are. Energy is much more expensive there, and the countries in Europe don't have nearly the. [INAUDIBLE] .we have here. So the. [INAUDIBLE] .is they need. [INAUDIBLE] .hot water, heat this building, and to keep the pool warm. [12;00;52;06] What's really important, uh, you know, in terms of this building, reducing the. [INAUDIBLE] .are sort of the, this is the heart, the heart of the whole building in terms of its mechanical infrastructure. [12;01;10;05] So we're using a lot of electricity here, and we're using a lot of. [INAUDIBLE] [12;01;41;06] .more heat out of every hundred. [INAUDIBLE] .emissions, you need to reduce your energy bill. [12;02;06;04] So, doing one doesn't-[BREAK IN AUDIO] .energy is the original source of wealth, so why piss it away? Why waste it? [INAUDIBLE] .five billion dollars in the last year. So, so, you know, we can. INTERVIEWER That's. [UNCLEAR] [BREAK IN AUDIO] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER [12:08:53:07] OK, so show, show us that, various parts of it, and tell us about the. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] MAN [12;08;56;23] This, this is a representation of our boiler room. You have your two boilers and our micro-gym here, and it'll, gives you the read out of the temperatures coming into the boiler, and what they are going back into the boiler. Up here it gives you, uh, what the relative humidity is, and the outside temperature. Um, from there you can go to the air handlers, and this is an air handler that serves the family, uh, pool upstairs. [12;09;27;08] And so right now it is bringing in seventy-five percent outside air to dehumidify the pool. I just got an alarm that, uh, exhaust fan three is, is off. So, I acknowledge that, and go back to our graphic scene, and um, this tells us that this valve, this heating valve is only seven percent open. [12;09;59;10] Um, the ice plant is also here, and this gives us our electrical consumption, and what our peak kilowatt hours is. Um, there's exhaust fans everywhere, and it just gives us statuses. This is our domestic hot water system. Uh, we have two boilers that actually heat domestic hot water. [12;10;22;14] These three are storage, uh, tanks, and they get preheated with the heat, the excess heat from the ice skid compressors, so uh, and then two large, um, storage tanks for on demand. INTERVIEWER [12;10;43;08] Does having it all computerized like this with all these sensor readings coming in from everywhere make it possible for you to be more energy efficient? MAN [12:10:52:12] It, uh, allows you to know when a, uh, a system is down, and so yes it would aid in energy efficiency in that way. It also has night time set-backs, and uh, different sensors that turn parts of the building off when they're not occupied. INTERVIEWER [12;11;10;05] So, in other words, it, it turns, the whole computer system helps turn things off when they're not being used? MAN Absolutely. INTERVIEWER Tell us about that, it turns off lights and all kinds of, just, just tell us all about that. MAN [12;11;19;25] Uh, it tells us, well the, uh, the air handlers, for instance, don't need to run for fresh air if there's nobody in the building, uh, so the, they don't bring fresh air in, they don't heat the air, the heat, the air isn't needed to be heated, so you save energy that way. [12;11;42;19] Um, the night time set backs for, uh, the ice rink, for instance, they keep the ice at, uh, twenty-eight to twenty-four degrees, and at night they let that temperature come back up, and so they're not using the energy to keep the ice at a, at a certain temperature all night long. INTERVIEWER [12;12;09;02] So basically you've got everything set to use the minimum amount of energy needed? MAN Absolutely, yes. INTERVIEWER OK, cool, cool. Any figures on how much money you save by, oh. [UNCLEAR] MAN [12;12;23;29] It was from the get, it was initiated, so I don't have a base point from when it was, uh, if we didn't have it. So, you know, we're trying to, I mean, one of the big challenges in, in all of this is to substitute intelligence and ingenuity for energy. [12;12;43;16] When energy is cheap, and you're, and you're thinking of the atmosphere as a dumping ground for CO2, then you can waste energy. As energy becomes more expensive-[BREAK IN AUDIO] MAN [12;12;56;21] Exterior of the, uh, recreation center. [BACKGROUND NOISE, MUSIC] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] DAN RICHARDSON [12;14;27;12] So, the unique thing about this structure is that they're using less wood than the conventional structure, so that by using less wood there's more room for insulation, there's less waste, and they're able to reinvest that money into efficient equipment, efficient windows, uh. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] DAN RICHARDSON [12;14;51;01] So, these units use much less wood than the conventional unit. By using less wood they're able to fit more insulation into the walls, they have less waste, so that savings can then be reinvested into more efficient equipment, uh, more efficient windows, uh, better insulation, the list goes on and on. [12;15;10;12] Uh, also this unit is, or this complex is more efficient from a transportation perspective as well, because it's close to a transit corridor, uh, there's a high, higher likelihood of them using mass transportation. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER [12:15:22:00] So just repeat everything you just said. DAN RICHARDSON So, one of the unique features of these buildings is they use a lot less wood than conventional construction. By using less wood they save money, uh, they, they use less waste, and they're able to fit more insulation in the wall. They can then take that money and reinvest it in more efficient equipment, more efficient windows, more insulation in the cavities. [12:15:47:15] So, by using the same amount of construction costs they're able to come up with a much more efficient structure. INTERVIEWER Efficient in what sense? DAN RICHARDSON [12;15;51;15] Energy efficient. So uh, they're saving the utility bills for the owners. This is affordable housing that's publicly subsidized and, and by doing this they're able to save on long, long term ongoing operation costs for these home owners. INTERVIEWER [12;16;07;02] So it'll just cost, cost less to heat them in the winter? DAN RICHARDSON Much less, about fifty percent less than the conventional house. INTERVIEWER Tell us that from the beginning, it'll cost them less, and, and tell us why. DAN RICHARDSON [12;16;15;18] OK, um, so start over? INTERVIEWER Yes, no, no, start with, uh, these buildings will cost fifty percent less than the, you know- DAN RICHARDSON OK. INTERVIEWER Just start with it so you're saying the whole thing without my question in it. DAN RICHARDSON [12;16;25;08] OK, the city of Aspen, uh, has invested heavily in affordable housing. Well, they think that energy efficiency is a vital component of that, um, affordable housing. So, what they did was they came up with a design that's much more efficient, is going to save the homeowners, uh, utility costs in the long run so that they're saving money from here forward. INTERVIEWER [12:16:43:27] Yeah, but the, tell us about just the specific thing of these buildings are, are, will use fifty percent less- DAN RICHARDSON OK. INTERVIEWER .energy because of. DAN RICHARDSON OK. INTERVIEWER Start that. DAN RICHARDSON [12;16;51;11] So, these, these units, various designs, they have a much more efficient foundation, they have less wood, uh, they're going to use about fifty percent of the energy of a conventional house, and that will translate into energy, uh, efficiency and, and dollars savings for the homeowners. INTERVIEWER What are some of the specific things that mean that they use less, fifty percent less energy, specifically? DAN RICHARDSON [12:17:05:00] OK, uh, in these units they use, for example, what's called advanced framing. So, they use less wood in, in the structure. Less wood means they can fit more insulation in the wall, they have less, uh, sorry, um, they have less waste. [12;17;24;17] And also the mechanical systems, they're able to invest in very efficient, uh, boiler systems to run the heating system, they have passive solar gain, they're going to have solar hot water systems to pre-heat the water, all this contributes to fifty percent more efficiency. INTERVIEWER [12;17;37;09] Tell us all about the, the transportation route, and why that means it's also part of, uh, saving energy. DAN RICHARDSON Sure, it was important for the city of Aspen to have, uh, this, this particular, uh, unit be on a transit route, so this, they're within a quarter mile from a bus stop, so uh, they can ride their bike, they can walk, or they can take the bus into town, whether it's the grocery store or their place of business, what have you. [12;18;00;12] Uh, just the transportation impact from this development will be much less, fewer emissions. INTERVIEWER [12:18:07:06] Terrific. Anything else specifically, you want to take it from the global, what does this have to do with global warming? DAN RICHARDSON [12:18:12:20] Sure, well, we all have to live somewhere, and uh, what they decided to do with this particular unit is, let's see how we can create the same kind of lifestyle, but reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from that lifestyle. So, what they've done is they said, let's lower the transportation impacts by making it on a, by putting it on a transportation route. Let's make the units much more efficient so they can still have a nice place to live, good quality of life, but with much fewer emissions. INTERVIEWER [12;18;36;05] Terrific. Um, that's great, just turn back around just for one, just say your name and how you spell it so it's on there for the transcriber. DAN RICHARDSON [12;18;43;16] OK, Dan Richardson, uh, DAN RICHARD- INTERVIEWER And your title- DAN RICHARDSON .SON. INTERVIEWER .with regard to this project? DAN RICHARDSON I'm the global warming project manager for the city of Aspen. INTERVIEWER [12;18;52;03] So you're, you're a public employee? DAN RICHARDSON Yes. INTERVIEWER Right, that's your job? DAN RICHARDSON That's my job. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER [12:19:11:26] We've got one more statistic we need to hear from you. DAN RICHARDSON Go. INTERVIEWER OK, go ahead. DAN RICHARDSON OK, so these homes- MAN Why don't you ask a question. INTERVIEWER OK. MAN [12:19:42:19] Put it in, put it into perspective, what does this- INTERVIEWER Yeah, yeah. [12:19:45:12] So, put it, so could you put it into perspective? DAN RICHARDSON [12;19;47;10] Sure. The typical US home will emit about ten to twelve tons of CO2 per year. These units here will emit about three tons per year. What does that translate for utility bills? Well, the average American will spend about two thousand dollars to power and heat their homes, these folks are going to spend about five to six hundred dollars a year. INTERVIEWER [12;20;04;14] Double win. DAN RICHARDSON Double win. INTERVIEWER Wow, great. DAN RICHARDSON Cool. I just need to be spoon fed. [12;20;16;08] And this, I mean, that's not really, it's a little bit of energy, but it's more. They, they have foam in between, usually the corners are packed solid with lumber, but they framed the corners differently. Usually there's a trimmer stud right here to support this, and they said-[BREAK IN AUDIO] DAN RICHARDSON [12;20;36;09] So this is a heat recovery ventilator. When you build an efficient house you try and built it as tight as possible, stop all the leaks. Well, then what you need to do is bring in fresh air and circulate it. Well, what this does is pre-heat that air with the existing air, and it allows for a more efficient way to bring fresh air into a building. INTERVIEWER [12:20:53:19] So, the fresh air gets heated with the existing air? DAN RICHARDSON Yeah, so rather than bring thirty degree air in from the outside, you're mixing it with seventy degree air, and you might get, you know, fifty degree air. INTERVIEWER [12;21;06;05] Does, does it cost a lot of energy to mix it together? DAN RICHARDSON Uh, these, these fans are very efficient, so the energy pay back is great. INTERVIEWER Terrific. DAN RICHARDSON It's insignificant. INTERVIEWER While he's doing that-[BREAK IN AUDIO] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] DAN RICHARDSON [12;21;16;03] So this is what's known as advanced framing. The concept is, use less wood, make more room for insulation. [12;21;22;04] So instead of sixteen inch on center framing, they have twenty-four inch on center framing. Instead of using two studs next to the window, they use one with a hanger. Instead of packing the, uh, structural framing member above the window full of wood, uh, they've minimized that and allowed more room for insulation. All this translates into savings, and uh, better, better energy efficiency. INTERVIEWER [12;21;41;23] Can you do that one more time for me. DAN RICHARDSON Sure. INTERVIEWER It was sort of neat when you went along and touched them, because we don't know, when you say, when you, when you went along, what you just did now, you, you went along and said, instead of every sixteen. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] DAN RICHARDSON [12;22;00;09] So this is what's known as advanced framing. Uh, they use less wood to create the same structure. So, instead of sixteen inch on center studs, they've got twenty-four inch on center studs. Instead of-[BREAK IN AUDIO] INTERVIEWER OK, try it one more time. DAN RICHARDSON [12;22;12;05] So, this is what's known as advanced framing. They use less wood, and therefore use, spend less money to build the same structure. Instead of using sixteen inch on center framing they use twenty-four inch center on framing. Uh, instead of using three or four studs in the corner, they're able to use two. Instead of using two, uh, framing members next to the window, they're able to use one. [12;22;32;23] Uh, they've minimized the, the structure above the window to allow for more insulation. All this translates into less waste, less cost, and again, they're able to reinvest that money into efficient, energy efficiency. INTERVIEWER [12:22:45:22] You know, I was going to ask if you could say, instead of, I don't know what it means, sixteen inch on- DAN RICHARDSON OK. INTERVIEWER Instead of having a, a piece of lumber every sixteen inches. DAN RICHARDSON [12:22:53:06] OK. INTERVIEWER Instead of having a piece of lumber every sixteen inches, and touch it, you know- DAN RICHARDSON OK. INTERVIEWER Sort of, sort of, you know, that there would be one here, instead of having it every sixteen inches, every twenty-four inches. DAN RICHARDSON [12;23;00;16] OK. INTERVIEWER Because I don't, otherwise it's jargon. MAN OK, go ahead. DAN RICHARDSON [12:23:06:15] OK, this is what's known as advanced framing. They use less wood to create the same structure. So, in this four foot space instead of having, uh, four studs, which is usual, they use three studs. In the corner over there, instead of having three or four studs, they're able to get away with two. Uh, next to that window over there, they're able to use just one framing member, and an efficient, uh, framing clip, again, minimizing the amount of wood. [12;23;28;24] Above the window you see a, a header, a framing member, they've minimized the structure to allow more room for insulation by having-[BREAK IN AUDIO] [PAUSE] INTERVIEWER [12:33:45:02] So up here is where it all happens, huh? MAN Yeah, well. [BACKGROUND NOISE, VOICES] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] TOM GOLEC [12;34;28;03] So, has it been working out pretty good for you? INTERVIEWER Yeah it has, it's been real, real productive. Lots of interviews, lots of pretty pictures, should be a nice, nice story. TOM GOLEC [12;34;39;00] I wish, I wish we could have had a nicer day for you up here. The other month we saw the leaves come out- INTERVIEWER Oh yeah. TOM GOLEC [12;34;48;23] You can tell the difference up here, this is that eight to seven hundred feet. [UNCLEAR] .everything is a lot greener, the leaves are out. It's a long winter up here. INTERVIEWER It's gorgeous, though. TOM GOLEC [12;35;05;10] Yeah, we have our heyday in the summer when everybody else is. [UNCLEAR] .we get an eighty-five degree day. INTERVIEWER [12;35;24;04] And what, what part of the system are we driving to right now? TOM GOLEC Well the, it would be the, uh, where I take the water. [UNCLEAR] INTERVIEWER Uh-huh? TOM GOLEC [12;35;33;17] And basically put it. [UNCLEAR] .where you were just shooting, that's where it goes into the hydro-house, and back into the creek. So we're not consuming any water, so nobody seems to mind that it's. [UNCLEAR] .it's when you start taking water out and not putting it back in that you get a little nervous out west. INTERVIEWER [12;35;59;18] Yeah. How many years have you been doing this? TOM GOLEC Well, I've been up here for about twenty years, but I started out, I got this small little project from a spring that I use way up on the hillside up there, so I've been powering my house for about twenty years from that. [12:32:19:06] But this larger project was, uh, basically probably been running now for four and five years. INTERVIEWER OK. TOM GOLEC [12;36;33;11] But it all started with this smaller project to get, uh, that's where my enthusiasm came for a larger project. [BREAK IN AUDIO] TOM GOLEC [12:36:47:10] Yogi, you behave, you behave, huh? Eli? These are my wife's babies. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER Where's you get the idea of doing this? TOM GOLEC [12;37;59;04] Well, I have this small plant that I've been using for twenty years to power the house, but it comes from a spring way up on the hillside up there, and I've always used, wanted to use the water out of the creek, because it just had more potential to make a bigger impact, you know. So-[BREAK IN AUDIO] INTERVIEWER [12:38:76:30] Just tell me the story and just walk right past him. [BACKGROUND VOICE] OK, so what happened? TOM GOLEC [12;38;23;20] So, I had this idea to use the, uh, the water out of the creek and make, make a larger hydro-electric project, and basically Randy, I told Randy about it, and he thought it was a good idea, so we presented it to the, uh- INTERVIEWER That's not going to work. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] TOM GOLEC [12;38;49;26] So, so basically I talked to, uh, to Randy about this, and Randy thought it was a good idea, and we brought it to the utility, well the utility, by the way their concerns were safety, and nobody had done it before-[BREAK IN AUDIO] TOM GOLEC OK, go ahead. INTERVIEWER [12:39:06:01] Start again, so I got this idea to take the water up and do my own power. TOM GOLEC OK. INTERVIEWER So tell me that story. TOM GOLEC [12;39;08;19] So we brought the, uh, we brought the idea to the utility, and the utility at first was, since nobody had done it before they had some concerns, mostly safety issues, and uh, some other concerns, and legal issues and so forth. [12;39;27;08] And we just, the process was, you know, a few months, and sitting down at the big mahogany table to address their-[BREAK IN AUDIO] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] TOM GOLEC [12;39;43;09] Well this is, this is our intake structure, and this is basically where we take the water out of the creek and put it into a pipe and we drop it two hundred and thirty vertical feet down onto where the, the hydro-plant is. So, it starts up here, we had to have a, just a divergent structure where the, uh, you know, we could take the water out, and we're able to screen it right in here. INTERVIEWER [12;40;13;17] Oh, so you split the stream in two? TOM GOLEC Yeah, but basically we want to keep the main force of the, uh, the whole thing with these hydro-projects is you've got to have some, you've got to have some kind of social consciousness. [12;40;25;04] If you, when the stream goes down, when there's not enough water, I don't want to be taking all the water out of the stream. So, you gotta allow enough water to go down so we don't effect the ecology of the stream or anything. But you can see, I'm only taking a small portion of what the, uh, stream is producing now. INTERVIEWER [12;40;43;22] And it goes right in there into the pipe? TOM GOLEC Right, there's a, there's a whole screening process right here, so we don't carry all kinds of debris. [12;40;50;04] Because another two or three weeks where we're standing the water is going to be this deep, I mean, it just roars through here. INTERVIEWER With all the spring melt? TOM GOLEC [12;40;59;00] With all the spring, with all, you know, up in the mountains, all the spring melt off, and when it does come down here, it brings rocks, and you know, sticks and, and everything else. You gotta have a way of screening it so we're not running it through, and the screening also acts, there aren't any fish in here to speak of, but you know, screening also acts to keep the fish out, the uh, debris out, and basically it's a maintenance type of thing. So. INTERVIEWER [12;41;25;14] [INAUDIBLE] .can also ________ back out that way? TOM GOLEC Yeah, and it's, you know, like I say, pretty soon we'll be, we'd be standing knee deep in water, because that, there's going to be that much water coming down- INTERVIEWER [12;41;35;13] Wow. TOM GOLEC So uh, like I say, on these, especially on these small projects like this, there's gotta be a balance of how much water you take out for power. [12;41;46;01] Although we put it back in down there, in the stream- INTERVIEWER All right. TOM GOLEC [12;41;49;27] We're still kind of over the course of a thousand feet or so, we definitely effect the, um, the environmental, it has an environmental impact. So, we gotta balance that on these small projects. INTERVIEWER Great. And you built all this yourself? TOM GOLEC Yeah, this is, I just laid up rocks, basically, and, and uh, it's, it's all done by hand work basically. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] TOM GOLEC [12:42:35:27] [INAUDIBLE] .they called it white gold. We got to put the white gold. [INAUDIBLE] Yeah, this, that's what I mean, like I said, another two or three weeks this will just be all white, you can't hardly see any. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] [BREAK IN AUDIO] INTERVIEWER [12;44;30;14] OK, but first say your name and how you spell it, and what the name of this creek is so we have it on tape for the transcriber. TOM GOLEC [12:44:39:27] OK, my name is Tom Golec, that's GOLEC, and we're on, uh, Luddite Creek [PH], um, in Eagle County. INTERVIEWER OK, and have you lived here a long time? TOM GOLEC [12;44;52;26] I've lived up here on this property for about twenty years. And it's up around eighty-seven hundred feet, so we have long winters, and you can't grow much, but one thing I do have is I have a lot of water resource, and I've always wanted to do something with the water, and five, six years ago, I have, I have a small spring way up on the mountains that I basically use for domestic water. [12;45;23;10] And I've been using that small spring for twenty years to power the house with my electrical needs. But I've always wanted to use the water in the creek here. Um, and have a bigger impact and make more electricity, if you will. So, I had the resource, and it was just a matter of timing. [12;45;43;29] So, my neighbor and I got together and, uh, we approached the local utility about doing a larger, it was a twenty-five kilowatt hydro-electric project, um, we approached the, uh, utility, and they, they had somewhat open ears, but since nobody ever did it they had a lot of concerns. [12;46;08;25] And I was lucky that, uh, Randy thought this was a good idea, Randy ________ thought this was a good idea, and he represented ________, and they had a relationship with the local utility, so it was six months at the big mahogany table, they would, they wanted to know about licensing, the legal things, and you know, we addressed each concern. [12:46:31:12] But basically it was, their concerns were, were uh, safety issues. In other words, putting that electricity back onto the grid and not electrocuting any of their linemen or anything like that. But as we addressed each one of their concerns, they kept nodding, saying yeah, but what about this? And we'd go back and address that. [12;46;58;01] Anyways, after about six months they said, OK, you know, go ahead, we'll, we'll work with you on it. And it took about, my neighbor and I worked on the water line, so that took six months. But after that we worked on it another six months, so it was about a year's project, cost about sixty thousand dollars to, to put this, uh, system in, and this is, right now the water is running, it's, the water in the creek is starting to run up. Pretty soon it'll be spring run off, and all it'll be is just white, white water all the way down. [12;47;36;14] The old, uh, miners used to call that white gold, because they used that for, for, uh, or white coal rather, and they used to use that for power years and years ago. So, it was, uh, you know, it was just something I wanted to do, and, and at this point we had the utility's blessing, and after about a year we had the project in, and the project has worked out real good. [12;48;00;22] The utility really likes the project, they're trying to encourage more, more projects like this for, by giving out incentives, financial incentives, and it, it's just been a, a really good project. And I, form my point of view, basically there's a feel good factor here, because I produced now, over the last four and a half years almost, nine hundred thousand kilowatt hours of, uh, electricity. [12;48;30;18] And that's the equivalent of, of um, maybe two and a half million pounds less of carbon dioxide that would be in the atmosphere if we were generating that electricity with coal. So that's the feel good factor, you know. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER [12;48;56;09] All right, so just tell us the little thing about the miners. And, and also when you tell it to us, if you put it in a sentence, explain how they managed to get power out of it. Just tell us that story. TOM GOLEC [12;49;08;08] Well, hydro-electric power is really, it's an old technology, and it's been used for a hundred years, more than a hundred years, more than a hundred years. So, the old, the old miners used to call it white coal, because uh, they could extract power out of the, uh, the streams, the mountain streams and so forth. [12;49;29;24] And that was, that was one, uh, one aspect of putting together this project that I really liked was, you know, it was, it's been around for a long time, and the resources were old resources, and it's not a new technology, it's old technology. INTERVIEWER [12;49;44;02] The miners would get their own little old turbines flowing? TOM GOLEC They'd have their own little old turbines, and you can go out anywhere in the mountains out here in Colorado and find out, uh, old hydro plants that have been running a hundred years. [12:50:01:20] So um, they run a long time, and they'll, hopefully they'll run a long time into the future, too. INTERVIEWER But now tell us about what you're selling to the utility, and how they, you know, whether they're, you know, how they can work that out. TOM GOLEC [12;50;13;06] OK, so Holy Cross Electric, basically they buy the power that I produce, um, at a kind of a wholesale rate, but they've been good enough to put me into a local, um, a renewable energy pool. [12:50:35:10] In other words. [BREAK IN AUDIO] [12:50:42:08] They put me into a local renewable energy pool where they pay, or our membership in our local electrical cooperative pay a premium for, um, renewable energy, energy that's produced by wind power, solar power, and in my case, uh, water power. So, they pay me a premium for the electricity that I produce here. INTERVIEWER [12:51:12:01] How much, can you give us a sense of how much you're making from it? TOM GOLEC Well, I average about twelve thousand dollars a year, about a thousand dollars a month, uh, that the utility pays me for my, my plant, of my production. INTERVIEWER [12:51:25:28] Terrific. And, and the idea is catching on, the utility. You were sort of teaching the utility company a new approach. TOM GOLEC Well, I just demonstrated that it's, it's a technology that, that actually works well, they don't have to worry about any significant problems, and uh, they've accepted it, and they're encouraging it right now. INTERVIEWER [12:51:51:14] So in other words, they took your idea, and they're now looking for it elsewhere? TOM GOLEC That's right, and there are plenty of opportunities here in the mountains for, for this type of technology. Municipal water supplies that take their water up high and drop it down to the cities, they actually have to reduce the pressure in these municipal water lines. [12:52:12:28] And any time that you have to reduce the pressure in a water line, that's an opportunity to put in a turbine and actually capture that power. So there's municipal, uh, opportunities. The ski areas, uh, Snowmass Ski Area has a project where, where basically they have pipelines in, in the ground, and they're, they're producing electricity from spring water, run off when they don't need the water. [12;52;37;20] So, there are a lot of, um, a lot of different, there are big ranches that have water coming down for irrigation systems, and you know, a lot of these ranchers love the idea of actually irrigating their property and producing electricity. It's, there's a, there's a feel good factor in all of this. So. INTERVIEWER [12;53;00;16] And also, it feels good to be more independent, I suppose. TOM GOLEC Absolutely, absolutely, I mean, it's a, uh, it's good for the environment, it's, you know, it helps, helps, helps us keep the clean air that we enjoy out here in the west out in the mountains out here, so. INTERVIEWER [12;53;16;22] And self-reliant. TOM GOLEC That's correct, that's correct. My little, my little power plant up there is a plant I've been using for twenty years and when the utility power goes down, I don't even see it, I'm still up. And uh, my neighbors look to my house, they still see lights on, and they get a little bit confused that the utility really has gone down. [12:53:42:01] But, you know, it's, there are a lot of different reasons that I like water power. I like being up in the creek and just dealing with the whole thing. INTERVIEWER [12;53;49;20] Great, terrific. OK? Got it. Any other questions you want to ask? I think we've got it, any other questions? [BACKGROUND VOICE] [12:54:09:04] Have you heard about global warming? TOM GOLEC [12;54;11;26] I've certainly heard about global warming. And this, using hydro power like this is a, um, a perfect opportunity to mitigate global warming. I mean, it's, we're out west, and there's a lot of coal-fired plants, and the reliance on these coal-fired plants, actually impact even the areas up here in the, uh, we think there's pristine mountain conditions, but you know, there's, there's lakes that they're actually seeing that have, you know, there's a lot of, uh, the acid balance in the lakes are actually turned. [12:54:45:01] But this is a chance to actually help in that respect, is actually produce clean power. INTERVIEWER Terrific. That's great. All right, now let's- [BREAK IN AUDIO] [BACKGROUND VOICE] INTERVIEWER So, you were saying something before about.[UNCLEAR] ? RANDY UDALL [12;54;58;20] Right. INTERVIEWER Start from the beginning and tell us about that. RANDY UDALL [12;55;01;28] OK, so one thing we're trying to do here is begin using flows of energy rather than fuels. The old miners used to call hydro-power white coal. Uh, flows of energy are different than fuels, they're forever, they're perpetual, they're everlasting. [12;55;20;10] And we can use them for a long, long time, many centuries. So, the challenge right now is that about eighty-five percent of our energy comes from fuel, coal, and natural gas, and oil. But the flows of energy, water running down a creek like this, and sunlight hitting my face, they're enormous, and we're just beginning to tape them here in the United States. [12;55;44;09] But for many thousands of years people ran their entire civilization off flows of energy, wind power, water power, wood, and sunlight. So that's inevitably how we're going to have to run our civilization in the future. INTERVIEWER [12:56:02:03] What about the utility companies, they're making money off of selling people what they get out of fuels? RANDY UDALL [12;56;07;05] So, fuels are nice, you dig them out of the ground, and nature's done a million years worth of work to make them very dense forms of energy. But all of the fossil fuels contain carbon. So, when we burn a pound of coal, the carbon in the coal combines with oxygen in the air to produce two pounds of carbon dioxide, the cheap greenhouse gas. [12;56;28;24] Here when we make electricity using this running water, there's no greenhouse gasses associated with it. And we can do this for the next ten years, we can do it for the next hundred years, we can do it for the next thousand years. INTERVIEWER [12;56;50;06] Are utility companies, nonetheless, going to be resisting this or not? RANDY UDALL [12;56;53;01] So, our local utility companies have said to people here, if you can make electricity on your roof or in your backyard, if you have a creek like this, we want you to do it. So, for the first time in our area the local utilities are saying yes. INTERVIEWER What's in it for them? RANDY UDALL [12;57;11;17] What's in it for them? They want us to be more energy independent, they want to produce more electricity closer to home. Why do we need to bring power in from many hundreds of miles away if we can make it here on our own. INTERVIEWER [12:57:27:18] So the utility companies don't need to lose money on this? RANDY UDALL No, actually some of the renewable energy flows, some of the flows of energy, like wind and water power, are cheaper now than fossil fuel energies. INTERVIEWER [12;57;41;22] So, in other words, for the utility companies, it's not a problem of using fuels, as long as they're getting paid, or as long as they're, as long as they're, as long as they're getting paid, they don't care whether they buy it from local folks, or from oil companies? RANDY UDALL [12;57;55;17] No, they, our utility companies have, I'm trying to think what's a good answer to that one. Uh. INTERVIEWER [12;58;05;23] I mean, all I want is a sense that the utility, let me put it this way, you know, some people are saying, boy, getting off of fuels is going to cost us a change over, is going to cost our economy trillions of dollars. RANDY UDALL Right. [12:58:20:03] So, fossil fuels are convenient, and historically they've been very cheap. But, the prices of fossil fuel energy are going up dramatically. Natural gas prices have tripled in the last four years. Oil prices have quadrupled since 1998. This stuff, you know what this is going to cost, this is free. [12;58;37;28] Your fuel here is free. It'll be free for the next thousand years. INTERVIEWER And to the point about the economy, people who claim that, well, utility companies and the economy, uh, have to be afraid here, you're telling us that's not how the economics works? RANDY UDALL [12;58;54;28] We, we actually think in the long run that tapping flows of energy, sunlight, wind power, and water power, that those are going to be the cheapest forms of electricity and energy going ahead. INTERVIEWER [12;59;08;01] So utility companies don't need to lose money on this? RANDY UDALL These, our utility company is on the cutting edge, they can see the writing on the wall, we want inexpensive energy, but we've got to get the carbon out, we've got to get the greenhouse gasses out. [12;59;22;13] So, it's not just, cheap and dirty doesn't work anymore, we need inexpensive and clean. INTERVIEWER [12;59;27;13] And the one kind of company that will have to face some kind of financial adjustment then are those who sell fossil fuels, right? RANDY UDALL [12;59;34;28] Right, I mean, there will be a continuing demand for fossil fuels far into the future. We can't immediately overnight go away from them. But, the task of our generation is to begin using more energy from flows. [12;59;49;07] [BACKGROUND VOICE] INTERVIEWER [12;59;51;27] Can you give us the, just, just so we have it once more for the camera- RANDY UDALL Right, INTERVIEWER .fuel versus flow, the very basic thing. RANDY UDALL [12;59;59;11] OK, uh. INTERVIEWER Just like you did at the beginning. RANDY UDALL [13;00;01;29] Right, so many people don't understand the difference between a flow of energy like we have in this creek, and a fuel. A fuel is like coal or oil or natural gas, these things that are a hundred million years old, and nature's done a lot of work, and you take them out of the ground, and you burn them. [13;00;22;11] But you can only burn them once. If I have a lump of coal and I burn it, it's gone. This you can use forever. This will be here next spring, it'll be here next summer, it'll be here a century from now. [13:00:37:01] So flows last forever, fuels are a one time thing. And we've been in an orgy of burning fuels for the last two hundred years, but it's inevitable that we will go back to flows, because that's what human beings have always run their civilizations on. INTERVIEWER [13;00;52;02] Thank you. [BREAK IN AUDIO] [END TAPE 12]
CBS / New York Times Democratic presidential debate with Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton
[CBS / New York Times Democratic presidential debate with Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton] [SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC) / SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MASS) / CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH) AND CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER REVEREND AL SHARPTON / CBS / NY TIMES DEBATE] [EDWARDS, KERRY, KUCINICH AND SHARPTON / CBS / NY TIMES DEBATE] [NEW YORK, NY USA] DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' DEBATE SPONSORED BY CBS AND THE NEW YORK TIMES FEBRUARY 29, 2004 SPEAKERS: DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ELIZABETH BUMILLER, THE NEW YORK TIMES ANDREW KIRTZMAN, WCBS-TV CHANNEL 2, NEW YORK U.S. SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (NC) U.S. SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (MA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH (OH) THE REVEREND AL SHARPTON (+) (JOINED IN PROGRESS) RATHER: ... and Al Sharpton of New York. The Democratic candidates are here this morning for their final joint appearance before Super Tuesday. We intend this hour to be a free-wheeling, informative discussion of the issues. Joining me in the questioning are reporters Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times and Andrew Kirtzman of WCBS-TV Channel 2 here in New York. This broadcast is being carried on many CBS radio and television stations, and by the Discovery Times channel. The candidates' campaigns have drawn for positions around the table. There are no set rules, no time limits, although we hope things will move along fairly quickly and that the answers will be at least reasonably brief, gentlemen. And we have only one goal, and that is to help you, the voters, make an informed decision. 11:01:37 So let's get to it. It's a big day in the news. Haiti is in the news. We have questions about that. But first, I want each on of you in turn, in one sentence, in 11:01:42 terms of your own spirituality, if you prefer religiosity to complete the sentence, "This I believe..." Senator Kerry? 11:01:55 KERRY: I believe in God. And I believe in the power of redemption, and the capacity of individual human beings to be able to make a difference, because, as President Kennedy said, "Here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own." RATHER: Senator Edwards? 11:02:09 EDWARDS: I believe we live in a country where there are two different Americas, one for people who get everything they need every single day, and one for everybody else. And I believe that the president of the United States, with the Lord's help, has the power to change that. RATHER: Congressman? 11:02:25 KUCINICH: I believe that we're here to bring spiritual principles into the material world. And reflecting the words in Matthew 25, "When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you shelter me?" We have a purpose here on this earth to try to help this -- lift this world up. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, "This I believe..." 11:02:47 SHARPTON: I believe in God, but I believe that God created us for a purpose. I believe that God has blessed this country immeasurably. The question is whether this country will bless God. So the way we can judge that is how we treat each other, human rights, in the many Americas. I believe there are many Americas, not just poor and rich, but of many colors, of many religions, of many sexual orientations. How we deal with one another, how with provide for one another, how we protect one another, is how we determine whether we are worthy of the blessings that God has given us. RATHER: Thank you, Reverend. 11:03:22 Let me say again, that it is not scriptural, but around this table, at least, blessed are the brief. (LAUGHTER) SHARPTON: For they shall inherit the debate. RATHER: Very probably. 11:03:35 Senator Kerry, President Bush has made it clear that the United States will be part of an international force going to Haiti. You've been critical of that action. Tell me what your beef is with what the president is doing. 11:03:48 KERRY: He's late, as usual. This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier. BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, what would you have done in this situation? 11:04:04 KERRY: Well, first of all, I never would have allowed it to get out of control the way it did. KERRY: This administration empowered the insurgents, and it empowered -- look, Aristide... BUMILLER: How did it empower the insurgents? 11:04:17 KERRY: I'll tell you precisely how, but first let me say this. President Aristide has made plenty of mistakes, and his police have run amok, and other things have happened, I understand that. But the fact is that, by giving to the insurgents the power to veto an agreement, they effectively said, "Unless you two reach an agreement on the sharing of power, we're not going to provide aid and assistance." So he empowered the insurgents to say, "No, we're not going to reach agreement." And they continued to battle, continued to have no services provided in Haiti, and then it started to spiral downwards. So the result is that you almost inevitably had the clash that 11:04:59 you have today. And innocent Haitians, the people of Haiti, deserved better than that over the course of the last year. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards, could we ask what you think of this? Did you agree with the president's decision? And you've been critical in the past of his policy toward Haiti. 11:05:10 EDWARDS: Yes, that's because he's ignored Haiti the same way he's ignored most of the countries in this hemisphere. Now, we have -- this is a country that's extraordinarily unstable. I think this is the 33rd government that they've had. One of the poorest nations, if not the poorest nation, in the world. We should have been engaged over a long period of time, in a serious way, at least through diplomacy, not to allow this to get to a crisis situation where it now is. I do believe that now, that now the proper thing to do is for America to be part of the United Nations force to secure the country. That is the right thing to do. But there are very serious issues here. The Haitian constitution, for example, provides that the chief justice is a successor to Aristide. The chief justice is apparently very close to Aristide. I mean, we have to put a political process in place, stabilize the country first, then put a political process in place that allows us to move toward a serious democratic election, so that the people of Haiti are satisfied with the result. 11:06:09 RATHER: Senator, do you have any argument with anything that Senator Kerry just said about Haiti? 11:06:14 EDWARDS: We have a slight difference. I think it is true that, at its best, for the president and the administration, this has been neglect. In other words, they've paid no attention, they haven't been engaged. At its worst, they have actually facilitated the ouster of Aristide. SHARPTON: I have a difference with both of those... (CROSSTALK) EDWARDS: Al, if you would let me finish, please. 11:06:32 BUMILLER: But no one says he's a good president, so why is it so terrible he's gone? You've all agreed on that. 11:06:38 EDWARDS: The reason is because it should be a democratic process that leads to his leaving, not the... KERRY: George Bush... EDWARDS: Excuse me, John, if you let me finish. It should be a democratic process that provides for someone else to rule Haiti. And that's the problem with this. I mean, if you look at what's happened in Haiti over a relatively long period of time, it's been extraordinarily unstable. As I mentioned earlier, 33rd regime change. We need to put a process in place that makes sure that the people of Haiti are satisfied with who's governing them. 11:07:12 KIRTZMAN: Senator, he was installed by Democrats, not by Republicans. Why are you blaming Bush, when you could be blaming Clinton, who was the one who was responsible for him being in power in the first place? 11:07:21 EDWARDS: But, remember, prior to that time, he was elected in elections that weren't even questioned or challenged, number one. And number two, when this problem began to develop, this president did exactly what he's done with other problems around the world, which is do nothing, do nothing, and when it gets to crisis stage, then we act. EDWARDS: And that's what's, by the way -- if we can just little elevation on this... KIRTZMAN: Not much, Senator. EDWARDS: One of the most serious problems with this with this administration is they talk about a doctrine preemption. How about a 11:07:49 doctrine of prevention, where America leads and stays engaged with this problems? KIRTZMAN: Reverend Sharpton, you've been patient. SHARPTON: First all, I talked with the opposition leaders and 11:07:59 President Aristide by phone this week. Second of all, I've been to Haiti several times. And I think that I'm speaking as one who has been close to this situation more than anyone on this stage. One of the things I think we're seeing (inaudible) is that we only want certain people to talk, but we want everybody to vote. And we need to rid ourselves of that. What we need to do, first of all, is allow Haiti to have the resources. The World Bank had approved a $500 million loan that this country has blocked. That's one. RATHER: Was that the Bush administration or the Clinton administration? SHARPTON: This administration, as well as prior administrations, should have made sure the World Bank loans had gone through. The resources were available. You almost set up a situation where Aristide had to fail. Now, Aristide... 11:08:47 BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton, can we just go to domestic politics for a moment? SHARPTON: No, we're going to finish on this. BUMILLER: I would... SHARPTON: If you don't want us to participate, say that, ma'am. I listened to them go back and forth. BUMILLER: Let's go back to Haiti. SHARPTON: Let's deal with Haiti. I think that what we're trying to say is that the president... BUMILLER: No, no. Mr. Kucinich, would you like to say... 11:08:58 SHARPTON: ... should not come now, late, after he ignored what was going on all along. And I think that it is too little too late to just talk about military action. RATHER: Congressman? 11:09:11 KUCINICH: I'd like to answer your question directly. What the president is advocating, in terms of international intervention, is the right thing to do. Now, let me talk to you about what I would do as president, in terms of creating a Department of Peace, a Cabinet-level position, where you would track the kind of percolation of conflict that goes on and intervene in a nonviolent way before it gets out of hand. I mean, we need to take a prospective look at all of our international relations. RATHER: Senator Edwards, we need to move on. We have a lot of 11:09:37 ground we want to cover. We could spend this whole hour talking about Haiti and, I think, substantively so. EDWARDS: Yes. RATHER: But we're a couple days away from possibly decisive Super Tuesday. There are any number of voters out there who are in the process of making up their minds. RATHER: Is there any question that you can ask Senator Kerry, speaking directly to him, that you think is important for those voters who haven't made up their mind, are in the process of making up their mind, to draw him out on some difference between the two of you? Or are you in the position of saying, "Listen, it's late on, and I'm pretty much playing for vice president now, and I don't want to ask him the tough questions"? 11:10:16 EDWARDS: Oh, no. Oh, no, no. Far from it. I think there are tough questions. Let me tell you what I think, first of all, the fundamental difference is between John Kerry and myself. And then I'll ask him a question if you'd like me to do that directly. The fundamental issue in this election is whether the people of this country believe that we're going to get change that originates in Washington or change that has to come from out here in the real world. And the differences between us on this -- I have multiple examples; I'll just give you one. John Kerry has said he and I are in the same position -- we have basically the same position on trade. That's not true. We have a very different record on trade. But more importantly, my approach to trade is fundamentally different than his. What he has suggested is that when he becomes president, he'll set up a committee to study for 120 days our trade agreements to see what needs to be done. Now, in the real world, in Ohio, if you live in Ohio and you lose your job during that 120 days, think about that. What you're going to say to a family that's lost their job because of bad trade agreements is, "Don't worry, we've got a Washington committee that's studying this for you." I mean, what we should -- we know what's wrong with these trade agreements. They need to be changed. The president of the United States needs to be willing to change them. 11:11:28 (UNKNOWN): Senator Edwards, can I just ask, if you lose all 10 primaries on Tuesday, are you still in this race? 11:11:33 EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am, I'm going to be... (CROSSTALK) (UNKNOWN): Why? EDWARDS: Because the American people deserve this choice. And we are a very different choice, for the reasons we just talked about. 11:11:43 RATHER: I'd like to hear your question to Senator Kerry. 11:11:46 EDWARDS: My question is, do you believe we're going to change this country out of Washington, D.C.? 11:11:51 KERRY: Yes, because that's where the Congress of the United States is, and that's where 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is. And the answer is, we're going to need a president who has the experience and the proven ability -- proven ability -- to be able to stand up and take on tough fights. Now, I just listened to John talk about Washington, D.C. Last time I looked, John ran for the United States Senate, and he's been in the Senate for the last five years. That seems to me to be Washington, D.C. Secondly, when he tried to say there's a difference between us on trade just now, he said there's a difference in the record versus what we're going to do. That's not what people are looking for. 11:12:33 On the record, I have consistently fought to put in the trade agreements enforceable measures that allow us to stand up and fight for workers. In the China trade agreements, which incidentally John voted for, we have anti-surge, anti-dumping provisions. The president hasn't enforced them. Moreover, John has just misrepresented the position that I've taken. KERRY: I am not only going to have a 120-day review of every trade agreement, so that we have smart, thoughtful people look and see what's working and what isn't working, but he knows very well that I have also pledged for a number of years that we should have no trade agreement that does not also have labor and environment standards contained within it. Now, that's exactly the same position... 11:13:20 RATHER: Senator, you look nervous over... 11:13:23 EDWARDS: He is dead wrong. Dead wrong. If you look at -- I mean, it's all fine to say, "Going forward, this is what I'm going to do." But what you've done in the past gives some indication to the American people about what you're, in fact, going to do. Let me just give you some differences between us on the record. There's no way to dispute this. First, I voted against final fast track authority for this president to continue to negotiate these trade agreements; he voted for it. I voted against the Singapore trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the African trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the Caribbean trade agreement; he supported it. It's just simply not the truth... (CROSSTALK) 11:14:06 EDWARDS: If you'll allow me to finish. These are great arguments about what he intends to do going forward. But it's similar, for example, Senator Kerry has consistently said that he can pay for all the things that he's proposing and substantially reduce the deficit, I think I've heard him say cut it in half, in his first term. Well, The Washington Post today just analyzed his proposals, and its the same old thing. Here we go again. In fact, in fact, he overspends, in terms of being able to pay for all of his proposals, he overspends by $165 billion in his first term, which means he would drive us deeper and deeper into deficit. My point is very simple about all this. This is the same old Washington talk that people have been listening to for decades. They want something different, Dan. RATHER: Let me give Senator Kerry a chance to respond to... KUCINICH: Dan, let's talk about the same old Washington... KERRY: Wait, wait, can I respond, Dennis... 11:15:05 KUCINICH: No, this is my turn. And I'm saying that we could talk about the same old Washington talk, but with all due respect, John, you told the New York Times that NAFTA should exist. And I think that NAFTA should not exist. Now, when we're going back to what both, you know, Senator Kerry and you are -- and we've been back on it a lot. Senator Kerry, you knew full well that when NAFTA was passed, and when the WTO passed, that it was written specifically so as not to provide for workers' rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. It's kind of like crying crocodile tears for workers, after millions of jobs have been lost in this country, to say, "Well, we're going to fix it." The fact of the matter is, the WTO does not permit any modification. It was written that way. And so I've said as president I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO, and go back to bilateral trade, which will save those jobs in Ohio. RATHER: Let's give Senator Kerry a chance to respond. 11:15:55 KERRY: Well, yes, we need to go on, but these are central issues. KERRY: And John has just made some very important statements, and I want to respond to them. I think John would have learned by now not to believe everything he reads in a newspaper. And he should do his homework, because the fact is that what's printed in The Washington Post today is inaccurate. A stimulus is by definition something that you do outside of the budget for one year or two years. The Washington Post included the stimulus when they figured the numbers. The stimulus is what you do to kick the economy into gear so that you can reduce the deficit. 11:16:40 Secondly, they did not include the reduction of the $139 billion of the Medicare bill which I have said I am sending back to Congress because it's a bad bill. I voted against it, it's bad. Now, when you add up my stimulus that's outside of the budget and the Medicare numbers that they didn't even include, you do not go over, I do not spend more... BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, let me... KERRY: No, no, I insist on being able to finish. 11:17:06 BUMILLER: I want to ask a really important question. KERRY: This is important. (CROSSTALK) 11:17:12 SHARPTON: If we're going to have a discussion just between two -- in your arrogance (ph), you can try that, but that's one of the reasons we're going to have delegates, so that you can't just limit the discussion. And I think that your attempt to do this is blatant, and I'm going to call you out on it, because I'm not going to sit here and be window dressing. BUMILLER: Well, I'm not going to be addressed like this. SHARPTON: Well, then, let all of us speak. (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: I want us to be able to respond, or then tell us you want a two-way debate. 11:17:45 RATHER: Here's where the thing is. We certainly want to hear, I think you will agree, the voters have spoken. 11:17:52 SHARPTON: No, the voters have not spoken. We've only had -- he's won one primary. He's come in fourth seven times. BUMILLER: How many delegates... SHARPTON: What you're trying to do is trying to decide for the voters how we go forward. The voters need to hear this morning from four candidates, or say the media now is going to select candidates. 11:18:07 RATHER: Reverend, we've heard from you, we're going to hear from you. I don't understand what the argument is. SHARPTON: I had to fight to speak on Haiti, I had to fight to speak on trade. You got a guy with one primary that you're pretending he's -- Gary Hart won more primaries than Mondale. 11:18:12 Let's have an open debate and go into Super Tuesday, or say that you guys want to decide the nominee. 11:18:25 RATHER: Reverend, debate them, not me. SHARPTON: If I get time, I would love to do that. RATHER: You've been on, but the clock's been running on you. I wanted to hear what you had to say... KERRY: Can I just finish? RATHER: Finish what you have to say, Senator, then we're going to go to Reverend Sharpton. 11:18:33 KERRY: On trade, there is no difference between what John Edwards would do today and what I would do today. And to listen to John try to carve out this -- what I think is sort of a protectionist point of view in the past, actually is not documented by the record. John Edwards has been in the Senate for five years. He's talked more in the last five weeks about trade than he has in the entire five years. KERRY: The fact is that he didn't vote in the 1994 election when he had a chance to vote about trade. He didn't talk about it, against it, in his election in 1998 when he ran for the Senate. And he went to The New York Times last week and said that he thought that NAFTA, in fact, was good for the prosperity of our country. 11:19:22 RATHER: Senator, I'm going to call time. KERRY: I think you have to be consistent in this... EDWARDS: After Reverend Sharpton speaks, I deserve a chance to respond to that. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:19:28 SHARPTON: I think that, again, NAFTA and the WTO were wrong from its beginning. You cannot change it; you must rescind it. It has cost thousands upon thousands of jobs. We talk about it being a "patriotic" thing to protect American businesses, but we call it "protectionism" to protect American workers. I think there are a lot of differences among us. I think clearly Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards voted for the war. They support trade agreements. They supported what I think is the most anti-civil rights act of our time, the Patriot Act. But I also think that that's why we have a convention, that's why we have delegates, that's why we'll come to a consensus and have a candidate to beat Bush. But as long as we try to stifle the discussion, it feeds into the Ralph Naders of the world that say the only way to deal with this is to leave the party. KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards, didn't you tell The New York Times editorial board last week that your plan would not, in fact, significantly cut the export of jobs? 11:20:26 EDWARDS: No, what I said was we need a trade policy in this country that works for American workers, that allows them to compete. I want to go back to something that the senator... KIRTZMAN: Before you do, though, are you saying flatly now that your NAFTA proposal would stem the flight of jobs abroad, and by how much? EDWARDS: I think it would help. Not just NAFTA, I think that all our trade policy can have a significant impact on the outflow of jobs, plus our outsourcing policy. Taking away, for example... 11:20:36 KIRTZMAN: Can you quantify it somehow? EDWARDS: No, of course not. There's no way to do that. What we 11:20:52 know is there are millions of jobs leaving, millions of jobs leaving this country. We need a trade policy and a tax policy that allows American workers to be competitive. But you've got to give me just at least 60 seconds to respond to what Senator Kerry said. The suggestion -- the suggestion -- that I came late to this? I 11:21:27 want to say to Senator Kerry, I have lived with this my entire life. I saw what happened when the mill in my hometown closed that my own father worked at. I respect your -- you have a right to have a different view than I do. But to suggest for a moment that this is not personal to me? I have lived... KERRY: I never said that. I never said that. EDWARDS: Excuse me, if you'll let me finish, I have lived with this my entire life. I have seen the effect not just on the economy, but on the families who are involved when families lose jobs. RATHER: Senator, can I come back... EDWARDS: This is something I take very seriously and very personally. And there is, in fact, a significant difference between us on our records. BUMILLER: Can I just change the topic for a minute, just ask a plain political question? 11:21:43 The National Journal, a respected, nonideologic publication covering Congress, as you both know, has just rated you, Senator Kerry, number one, the most liberal senator in the Senate. You're number four. How can you hope to win with this kind of characterization, in this climate? 11:22:00 KERRY: Because it's a laughable characterization. It's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life. BUMILLER: Are you a liberal? KERRY: Let me just... BUMILLER: Are you a liberal? 11:22:12 KERRY: ... to the characterization. I mean, look, labels are so silly in American politics. I was one of the first Democrats in the United States Senate in 1985 to join with Fritz Hollings in deficit reduction. Now, does that make me a conservative? I fought to put 100,000 police officers on the streets of America. Am I a conservative? BUMILLER: But, Senator Kerry, the question is... KERRY: I know. You don't let us finish answering questions. 11:22:28 BUMILLER: You're in New York. (LAUGHTER) 11:22:31 KERRY: Well, I'm going to fight for it. And that's exactly what I'm going to do, I'm going to fight for it. BUMILLER: All right. KERRY: Do you know what they measured in that? First of all, they measured 62 votes. I voted 37 times; 25 votes they didn't even count because I wasn't there to vote for them. Secondly, secondly, they counted my voting against the Medicare bill, which is a terrible bill for seniors in America, they called that being liberal. Lots of conservatives voted against that. In addition, they counted my voting against George Bush's tax cut that we can't afford. I thought it was fiscally conservative to vote against George Bush's tax cut. They call it liberal. BUMILLER: Is this a helpful characterization in this campaign? 11:23:14 KERRY: I think it's the silliest thing I've ever heard. 11:23:18 KUCINICH: Let me answer directly. I'm liberal, and I'm co- chairman of the Progressive Caucus in the United States Congress. And as such, I stand for full-employment economy, universal health care, protection of Social Security, canceling NAFTA and the WTO, creating a Department of Peace. These are the kinds of things that relate to creating a sustainable society where people can have peace and prosperity simultaneously. 11:23:39 RATHER: Congressman, do you consider Senator Kerry a liberal by your definition? KUCINICH: I think it's important to hear how the senator describes himself. RATHER: But my question is, how do you describe him? Is he a liberal? KUCINICH: I don't think so, because he voted for the war. He voted for the Patriot Act. He supported NAFTA and the WTO. I would say that... RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, do you consider Senator Kerry a liberal? 11:24:00 SHARPTON: No. I think that anyone -- if you want to use George Bush as the definition of conservative, most of America is liberal now, because most of America would vote against Bush. (LAUGHTER) So in that broad definition, he is. But I think that compared to some of us, no. I think we've made ourselves clear on that. But I don't think -- "liberal" is going to lose this dirty name in 2004, because George Bush has so let down what conservative -- I remember when conservatives were respectable. BUMILLER: Thank you, yes. RATHER: Senator Edwards, I want to... 11:24:31 EDWARDS: May I respond to just to this question, Dan... RATHER: Sure. EDWARDS: ... because all three others have. RATHER: Well, I'm coming to you. Are you a liberal? EDWARDS: I don't believe anybody -- this is actually a subject that John and I agree about. I don't think anybody in America cares about what some inside-Washington publication says about your ideology. What they care about is: What are your values, where you come from, what do you believe in, and who are you fighting for? And do you understand the real world and the problems that people face every day in their life? That's what the people of the United States are looking for. KIRTZMAN: Let me pick on that. 11:25:04 EDWARDS: This president... KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards... EDWARDS: ... this president does not understand what's going on in people's lives. EDWARDS: He is completely out of touch. I wish he would so one day what the four of us do every single day, which is go out, campaign, conduct town-hall meetings, not ticketed events, not when you make people pay $2,000 to get in the door, but actual real people and listening to what their problems are. This president does not know what's going on in the real world. KERRY: Can I say one other thing? RATHER: If it's brief. KERRY: Well, I will be brief. But is this president a legitimate Republican or conservative? Because there's nothing conservative about driving deficits up as far as the eye can see. There's nothing conservative about trampling on the line of division between church and state in America. There is nothing conservative about letting your attorney general trample on civil liberties and civil rights, and be twice cited by his own inspector general for doing so. This administration is extreme. And I believe we're offering America mainstream American values. 11:26:03 RATHER: But, if you will, Andrew has a question and I wanted to get to it. But I let me pick up on that and what Senator Edwards said. The latest poll I've seen shows that a combination, that a Kerry- Edwards ticket or an Edwards-Kerry ticket, would at this moment get more votes than a Bush-Cheney ticket. It would be stronger than either one of you, Senator Kerry or Senator Edwards, running alone, and Reverend Sharpton, with you or the congressman alone. My question is, Senator Kerry, are you prepared here and now to say, if you get the nomination, you will run with John Edwards and that's a strong ticket? 11:26:43 KERRY: No, and I don't think John Edwards would be prepared to say that he would necessarily run with me. RATHER: Would you, Senator Edwards? EDWARDS: I think there's no way to say that. We're still in a fight for the nomination. KERRY: We're vying for the nomination. 11:26:56 KUCINICH: And let me say why neither Senator Kerry nor my good friend, Senator Edwards, would be appropriate as nominees: Because they supported the president on the war, said there were weapons of mass destruction, which you actually embroidered, Senator Kerry. And you know what? Think of the 2004 debate, standing next to President Bush where he says, "Oh, look, I said there were weapons. Senator, you said there were weapons. I was for the war; you supported the war. I was for the occupation; you supported the occupation. And Senator, thank you, you want to send more troops to the armed services." You know what? I'm in the best position to challenge this president, because the war should be the singular issue. They lied to get the American people to accept the war. We have 130,000 troops there who are still at risk. We've spent over $200 billion of money that's needed for our domestic agenda. Over 10,000 Iraqis have lost their lives. I mean, this war ought to be the single issue. And frankly, John... BUMILLER: Let me ask a question about Iraq. I have an Iraq question. KIRTZMAN: This morning you have -- go ahead. (LAUGHTER) KERRY: You're having to work to get in. (LAUGHTER) KIRTZMAN: Tough crowd. 11:27:44 Senator Edwards, through the campaign, and again this morning, you have spoken very eloquently and movingly about the fight against the rich and the powerful on behalf of the working class. And yet, you yourself are rich and powerful. You're worth upwards of $36 million. KIRTZMAN: You have a $4 million house in Georgetown, a $1 million beachhouse in North Carolina, a $1 million home in Raleigh. Do you think your supporters know that you live this way? 11:28:20 EDWARDS: Well, first of all, in fairness, if you're going to list our assets, I hope you'll list John Kerry's too... (LAUGHTER) ... because he's got a lot more than I've got. CROSSTALK) EDWARDS: Here's the truth. The truth is that I come from the same place most Americans have come from. I grew up in a family where my father worked in the mill, working -- didn't make me any different than most people in this country. I mean, he worked hard, he had a high school education. I was the first person in my family to go to college. KIRTZMAN: But they've heard that part, but have they heard the other part, is the question. KUCINICH: Why should that disqualify him? I mean, that's crazy. You know what? He has spoken... (CROSSTALK) KUCINICH: John, let me defend you on this. (LAUGHTER) Because I'm saying that the fact that he's speaking about these issues relating to two Americas, that there's poverty in this country, and those issues ought to be addressed, I'm glad you're talking about it, John, and I... 11:29:11 SHARPTON: And I am, too. But I think, Andrew, the point is... (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: I will let you finish, like you did me. I think the point is, though, the reason I say there's more than two Americas is because he could come from there to where he is. And many of us can't because of other obstacles: because of race, because of sex, because of sexual orientation. So the reason I disagree with just two Americas is, he could go from a mill to $36 million. Many people can't do it. And I might add, there was nothing more biased in the South than some of those mill towns, where some of us couldn't even work in the mills. So I think that his story should be told, but it should be told in the broader context of why everyone can't have the same kind of achievement. (CROSSTALK) 11:29:55 KIRTZMAN: I've got to interrupt you, because Dennis was defending... (CROSSTALK) 11:30:01 KIRTZMAN: I will give you the turn. I just want to remind you of the question that I... EDWARDS: I remember the question. KIRTZMAN: Do you think your supporters know you live this way? EDWARDS: Yes, sir, I think that most of them do. They know I've done very well. And the truth is this. Let me just put this in the simplest terms I know how. I come from the same place that most Americans come from. I am running for president of the United States so that millions of American get the same chances that I've had. I mean, it's just that simple. And Al Sharpton is completely right about one thing. This is not just wealth and class. It's race -- we have two health-care systems in America. We have two public school systems. We have two governments, one for the insiders and the lobbyists and one for everybody else. What this is about for me, in its simplest terms, is trying to make sure that other Americans get the same chance that I've had. I don't want to see us, those of us who've had the great luck to have done pretty well in this country, to pull the ladder up behind us. We want to make it available to more people, no matter where they live, who their family is or what the color of their skin is. 11:30:58 BUMILLER: Senator, let's move this around the world to Iraq for just a minute. KERRY: Can we also move it around the table? (LAUGHTER) BUMILLER: I'll ask you, and then I'll ask the Reverend Sharpton. As you know, Iraq is to begin ruling itself on June 30th, when the U.S. is transferring authority. Now, there's a lot of people in Washington and Baghdad who are saying this is completely set on a political timetable at the convenience for President Bush. Should we put off the June 30th transfer? 11:31:23 KERRY: I think the transfer should depend entirely on the ability to guarantee a stable Iraq. It should not be set arbitrarily, certainly not by an election date. What is critical is that you have... BUMILLER: Is that a yes or no? 11:31:37 KERRY: It's, obviously, it's a... BUMILLER: It's a what? KERRY: You should put it off if it's needed to be put off. I mean, look, if the date works, terrific. But the test is not a date. The test is the stability and viability of Iraq. And what is critical... BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton, what do you think? 11:31:54 SHARPTON: I think the date was set for political reasons. If it, by some miracle -- and I don't foresee it -- that we could see a stabilized enough situation to meet the date, we should do it. But I don't see how we can do it. I think I am part of those that think that this was set in time for the '04 election, time for George Bush, when he's trailing in the fall, to say that they're already in self-government, and try to take it off the table. I think that we cannot take Iraq off the table. I think the president misleading the country, and those that supported his misleading it, while hundreds of thousands of us marched, must be a central issue in the fall campaign. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards? 11:32:32 EDWARDS: First of all, I think the date has now been embraced by the United Nations. The key to this is that there be legitimacy. There will not be legitimacy as long as this to the Iraqis has the stamp, "Made in America." This has to be changed. And in order for it to be changed, the United Nations has to be involved in setting up this provisional government. That way, it'll be more acceptable to the Iraq people, more acceptable to the rest of the world. KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards... 11:32:58 EDWARDS: And the administration, by the way, the Bush administration, is completely responsible for us being in this place. They have squandered our credibility around the world, which is why we're in this place. RATHER: Just before you answer, let me remind people who may 11:33:13 have just turned in, we have just passed the halfway mark. We're roughly 33 and a half minutes into an hour program with the four remaining contenders to the Democratic presidential nomination. Now, Congressman, the question is whether you think that date should be postponed. 11:33:26 KUCINICH: Well, I'd say that the date is not as significant as the fact that the United States wants to maintain control over the oil assets of Iraq, wants to privatize Iraq, run the contracts in Iraq and continue an occupation of Iraq. See, that's the key issue. Because you have 130,000 troops there. You have all kinds of families who are wondering when are my sons and daughters, mothers and fathers going to come home. And you know what? I've been the only one up here to, throughout this whole campaign, talk about a specific plan for withdrawal. We have to find a way to bring U.N. peacekeepers in and to bring our troops home. And that's what we ought to be talking about here. I mean, it would be good to hear from Senator Kerry, who the other day said that there's a right way and wrong way to do it, and that we're in there for the long haul -- it'd be good for you to tell the American people what are you going to do with those other 40,000 troops you say you're going to bring in the first 100 days? And also, are you going to have a draft? Are you going to get us out of Iraq, or are you going to be the Democratic version of the Republican war that you voted for? 11:34:29 KERRY: No, I'm not going to have a draft. Yes, I will get us out of Iraq. KUCINICH: How? KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000. That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country. KUCINICH: How are we going to get another 40,000 troops, John? 11:34:57 KERRY: Dennis, I laid out -- I think I was the first United States senator to stand up and lay out a very specific plan for how you approach the rest of the world and bring them to the table with respect to Iraq. And the way -- you can't just cut and run, Dennis. KUCINICH: I've never suggested that, John. KERRY: Well, then, you've adopted my plan, because my plan... KUCINICH: No, John, I've... 11:35:22 BUMILLER: Can I ask a more personal question about Iraq and funerals? Could I just -- let me just ask that, because... KERRY: But wait a minute, we actually have an issue that's on the table here, and I'd like to finish it. BUMILLER: Can you do it quickly? 11:35:31 KERRY: There is a better way to do what George Bush is doing, which is to bring the international community in. He refuses to share responsibility in the reconstruction. He refuses to share responsibility for the decisionmaking of the transformation of the country. And both of those are prerequisites to being able to get other countries to share in the responsibility. BUMILLER: OK. KERRY: And what is incredible is that all of Europe has a huge interest in not having Iraq as a failed state on its doorstep, all of the Arab countries have a huge interest in not having a failed Iraq... BUMILLER: Let me... KERRY: ... as their neighbor, and notwithstanding... BUMILLER: Senator... KERRY: ... the president has none of them legitimately involved. BUMILLER: Thank you. 11:36:07 Here's the question. As you well know, more than 500 American men and women have died in Iraq, and the president has been criticized for not attending a single funeral. Now, the argument of the White House is that he can't attend one without attending them all. KERRY: I disagree with that. BUMILLER: What would you do? 11:36:23 KERRY: That is just profoundly wrong. I've talked to a number of families, many families, and those families have said to me, you know, we haven't really from the president or anybody, why can't you make phone calls to those families? 11:36:36 BUMILLER: How can you go to 500 funerals and be president? 11:36:37 KERRY: You don't go to 500 funerals. But you can certainly say to people -- and it shows respect to all the families, if you pick a funeral, go to that funeral. And then, you know what else... SHARPTON: Or reach out to the families. (CROSSTALK) BUMILLER: The president does do that. 11:36:52 SHARPTON: I preached at one of the funerals of one of the young men killed, Darius Jennings. It's not about going to all of the funerals, it's showing compassion. These people lost their lives in the service of this country. The real question, though, is why they lost their lives in the first place. And that's why I said we've got a debate out in this party. There were those that supported the president doing that. You can't give a man a blank check, and then go back and ask how come there's no money in the account. They gave him a blank check. He used it. 11:37:25 KUCINICH: There's a point that's being missed here, and the point that's being missed is, we should be taking action to make sure there are no funerals. SHARPTON: That's correct. KUCINICH: We should be bringing our troops home. KIRTZMAN: OK, fair enough. Fair enough. Everyone... (CROSSTALK) KERRY: ... allowing those those caskets to be viewed when they come in to Dover Air Force Base... BUMILLER: Well, do you think they should be photographed when they come back? 11:37:39 KERRY: I think you should give them full honors after their return to the United States. KIRTZMAN: OK. Fair enough. Fair enough. Senator Edwards, one of the main issues of the general election is going to be whether the president can keep you safe. There has not been a terrorist attack on United States soil for two-and-a-half years since the destruction of the World Trade Center. Now, is that just luck, or can you credit President Bush with that? 11:38:02 EDWARDS: Oh, I think -- first of all, I don't credit the president. I think there are a number of things that the administration and the Congress have done that have moved the country in the right direction toward keeping the American people safe. We have not done enough. There are a whole group of things that need to be done to keep the American people safer. KIRTZMAN: Has George Bush kept the country safe, in your opinion? 11:38:21 EDWARDS: No, that's what I'm trying to tell you. I think there are a whole group of things that we need to do in addition to what's being done now. For example, a better job at our ports. We have thousands of containers coming in every day. We inspect 4 or 5 percent of them. All of the experts tell us if we don't inspect at least 10 to 20 percent, it's very difficult to have a deterrent effect. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are extraordinary vulnerable. But by the way, this is a perfect example of Bush being married to special interests, because the chemical industry -- what happened was, they recognized the problem that I recognized, and others, about the vulnerability of chemical plants. We have over a hundred... KIRTZMAN: But put yourself in the place... EDWARDS: You just asked -- you just asked me what he's not done... KIRTZMAN: We just have limited time, so we want to try to give everybody... 11:39:02 EDWARDS: ... you'll let me finish this, please. This is a perfect example of what this administration does. We have chemical plants, over 100, any one of which, if they were attacked, could cost a million lives or more. All of us recognized this was a problem. We wanted to take action. The chemical industry pushed back, lobbied against it, and the Bush administration caved. 11:39:23 KIRTZMAN: With all due respect, Senator, I'm trying to get to the bottom line of my question, though... EDWARDS: Yes, sir. KIRTZMAN: ... which is that the typical American, when he or she goes to a voting booth in November, has got to make a bottom-line decision: Who is going to keep me safe? Now, we've got Bush in the White House already or a one-term senator who doesn't have that much foreign policy experience. Number one, how do you convince that person that you can keep him as safe or safer than Bush? And number two, would you consider running with a running-mate, perhaps, who has more foreign policy credentials than you do to make up for that deficiency? 11:39:53 EDWARDS: First of all, there is no deficiency. The issue here is not the length of your resume. The issue is the strength of your vision, what it is you believe needs to be done to keep the American people safe, convincing them that -- for example, when I have been campaigning around the country, I have consistently asked to groups of people, "What would you do differently today than you would have done on September 11th if a terrorist attack occurred in your community?" EDWARDS: People don't have a clue. They have no idea what they're supposed to do. KUCINICH: Well, there's another aspect to that. (CROSSTALK) 11:40:24 EDWARDS: Excuse me, if I could -- I'll finish. In 30 seconds, I'll finish. But that's a perfect example of what's happening in the real world -- not in Washington -- in the real world. People do not know what needs to be done. They don't how to respond if an attack occurs. They don't know, in fact, if an attack occurred in the middle of night, how they're going to find out about it. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? SHARPTON: I think that the first thing you've got to deal with, Andrew, on that question is we've got to finish investigating what 11:40:43 happened 9/11 to find out if the Bush administration could have done more to avoid that attack. I mean, maybe I missed something here, but that attack happened under George Bush. It didn't happen under someone else. So are you now suggesting that Bush's answer to Americans are, be glad you're alive? I mean, I think that that is absurd. I think that we need to finish investigating what happened 9/11, could this administration have done more, before we start giving them bouquets and talk about... 11:41:19 KIRTZMAN: It's an interesting point. It's an interesting -- well, let me just pivot off of what Sharpton says, an interesting point. Do you agree with Wesley Clark that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the World Trade Center attacks? 11:41:27 KERRY: I think we could have done -- absolutely, we could have done more. No question about it. But we should have done more since then, too. And let me just say something. We've spent -- this debate is now getting towards its end. We're in New York City. Fifty percent of the African-Americans in New York City are unemployed between the ages of 16 and 64. One of the things the president could have done in order to make this city more safe, frankly -- he's only given it one-tenth of the money that they need with respect to protection of water supply. He's cut $250 million for firefighters. They're cutting firefighters and closing firehouses. They're cutting the COPS program. There's a $5 billion to $6 billion deficit in the state of New York. The governor, therefore, has started to raise taxes or cut services. George Bush's priority: tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. My priority: a $50 billion fund as a tax relief education fund, which is part of the stimulus counted in my numbers... 11:42:23 BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a... KERRY: Can I finish? KIRTZMAN: You haven't gotten the direct answer... KERRY: I'd like to finish. (CROSSTALK) KUCINICH: You haven't gotten a direct answer on this, and I want 11:42:31 to answer you directly. This is about national security. And you asked the question, essentially, are we safer? And I will submit to you, we are not. We are not safer, because we attacked a country that did not attack us and have created a resurgence of Al Qaida as a result. We are not safer, because we don't know about 9/11 because the commission can't even get the information from the White House. RATHER: Thank you, Congressman. KUCINICH: Excuse me. We are not safer because the president has a doctrine of unilateralism and preemption and is building new nuclear weapons, sending a signal to the rest of the world that they better watch out, and follows up in saying, "You better get us first before we get you." BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a question... KUCINICH: We're not safer. 11:43:07 BUMILLER: ... about likeability. You know, even your Democratic fans say that the president beats you hands down on likability, which, like it or not, is a major factor in a television era. So what have you learned from your -- one of your competitors, John Edwards, about campaigning and what's important in a 2004 race? 11:43:32 KERRY: Actually, Elizabeth, I learned it from the people who I've campaigned with all across the country. I learned it in Iowa, and I learned it in New Hampshire. And I think the reason I've won 18 or 20 contests so far, and I'm now campaigning hard to win others, is that give me a living room, give me a barn, give me a VFW hall, give me a one-on-one, and I think I can talk to anybody in this country. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards, what do you think... KERRY: And that is precisely what I'm doing today and precisely what I'm going to keep doing. 11:44:05 RATHER: If I may, Elizabeth, let me ask Senator Edwards the same question in a somewhat different way. EDWARDS: Yes, OK. RATHER: I want to use a Texas expression here. We know... EDWARDS: Somehow I knew this... (LAUGHTER) RATHER: No, but, in understandable terms, we're dealing with something really important here. That is, who is going to run against George Bush in November. We're talking the presidency of the United States. But we know that likability, as Ms. Bumiller said, is very important to the campaign -- charisma, whatever you want to call it. 11:44:44 Does Senator Kerry have enough Elvis to beat George Bush... (LAUGHTER) ... enough excitement factor, enough charisma, enough likeability? You know what I'm talking about, and people in North Carolina and elsewhere will know what I'm talking about when I say, "Does he have enough Elvis," because when he gets down to November, a lot of people are going to vote on who they like the best, whether we want them to vote that way or not. 11:44:59 EDWARDS: Yes. Let me answer your question directly. First of all, I know John Kerry. I like him very much. And he and I have known each other for years. Here's what I would say, though, in answer to both of your questions. I don't think this is a personality contest. I think what people are looking for in a president is somebody who, when they hear them speak, speaks their language, understands what their lives are like, shares their values. And I sometimes hear journalists say, "Well, you know, the people who vote, they just don't understand the issues well enough. They don't understand the subtleties of the difference between you and John Kerry at the fourth level of tax policy." Well, here's the truth about that. The truth about that is the American people get it right. What they know is they know in their gut when somebody's telling them the truth. They have a radar for the truth, and they know who they can trust. They know whether you're honest and sincere, and whether they can rely on you and trust you... 11:46:03 RATHER: But excuse me, one second... EDWARDS: But that, I think -- if I could just finish -- that, I think, is the ultimate issue. When they look in your eyes, when they hear what you have to say, do they trust you, and do they want you to be their president? RATHER: Let me call time out for just one second, because this is necessary. We are inside roughly the 13-minute mark here, and I have to do something now that I wish I didn't have to do. I wish we had the rest of the afternoon to talk about it, but we need to pick up the pace in these 13 minutes, because there are any number of subjects that we have not covered. So, let me, with your permission, change the subject very quickly. I do ask for brevity here. We'll try to work everybody in. But, Senator Kerry, what's wrong with gay marriage? 11:46:30 KERRY: I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a personal belief. RATHER: Well, what's wrong with a man and a man committing to each other for life? 11:46:40 KERRY: What I think -- I think it's a distinction between what you believe the institution of marriage is, but what's important, Dan, is that you give people rights. I'm for rights, not for terminology or status -- rights. RATHER: But who does it hurt, Senator? KERRY: I think all -- that's not the issue. The issue is... RATHER: Well, that's the question. KERRY: ... are we prepared to provide rights to all Americans, so that they share the same rights as other people, not the same terminology or status? I believe that the right, the spousal rights -- the right of inheritance, the right with respect to taxes, the right with respect to visitation in a hospital -- there are a whole series of rights. I am for those rights being afforded to every single American without distinction. KUCINICH: May I respond? RATHER: But who does it hurt, Congressman? 11:47:29 KUCINICH: First of all, I'm glad that Senator Kerry says he's for rights. I think it would be instructive to review the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, because I think that many Americans believe that equality of opportunity should not be denied on account of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. And so what we're really talking about is having people be able to avail themselves of the same protections of civil law, that 1,047 different protections that people have when they're married, and to enable those privileges to be extended to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. This is really about who we are, not just as a party, but as a nation. And we have to show capacity to expand. And I think any of us who are up here should be willing to take a stand on behalf of those people who are about to be excluded by the president of the United States from the protection... (CROSSTALK) 11:48:24 KIRTZMAN: I'm kind of curious, Senator Kerry. If one of your children came to you and said, "First of all, I'm gay; second of all, I've met someone of the same gender that I want to marry," would you go to the wedding? Would you respect that relationship? 11:48:41 KERRY: I've been to the wedding of somebody who has gotten married who's gay, and I just happen to have a different opinion about what you call it and what the status is. But I believe they deserve all the rights, all the support, all the love, all the affection, all of the rights that the state can afford. That's why... (CROSSTALK) 11:48:59 KERRY: That's why I am for civil union. That's why I'm for partnership rights. That's why I'm for even the federal extension, with respect to tax code and other rights. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:49:08 SHARPTON: I think that's states' rights. I think you cannot have any civil or human rights left up to the states. RATHER: So you're for a constitutional amendment? SHARPTON: I am for the constitutional right for human beings to decide what they want to do with human beings. Which is why I think the likeable thing is one issue here, is not who runs against the president, it's what runs against the president. RATHER: All right, let me again move on... SHARPTON: And I think what must run against the president is the rights of American citizens to have fair and equal rights. RATHER: Let me just say... BUMILLER: Let me ask John... 11:49:39 EDWARDS: Can I just say, though, how extraordinarily political what this president is doing is. I mean, here -- first of all, there's no issue... BUMILLER: No, no. Here's the question. EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am. 11:49:47 BUMILLER: Do you see a difference between gay rights and civil rights? Why is one right a federal right, and the other one you're saying leave it to the states? What's the difference here? 11:49:54 EDWARDS: Here's what I say. I say that the federal government plays an important role in civil rights and in gay rights. I believe the federal government should recognize what the state, who has forever, now, decided what constitutes marriage... BUMILLER: Why is there a different standard here? 11:50:09 EDWARDS: But wait a second, wait a second. We're talking about what the definition of marriage is, which is something that has always been decided by states, not rights. Now, see, this is one place that actually Senator Kerry and I largely agree. If we're talking about a bundle of rights, with what rights you'd get under federal law for partners, the problems with adoption... 11:50:27 SHARPTON: But they used to say that blacks were three-fifths of a human. What do you mean? Are gays and lesbians human or not? 11:50:33 EDWARDS: Of course they're human. SHARPTON: Then why can't they have the same human rights? 11:50:39 BUMILLER: I hate to ask this question because I never get an answer, but what is the difference between a gay marriage and a gay civil union, when you have heterosexuals getting married at city hall, and there's no religion involved and it's called a civil ceremony? What is the difference? 11:50:47 SHARPTON: They say you can shack up, just don't get married. That's the difference. RATHER: If I may, we need to move on. BUMILLER: But the answer? 11:50:54 EDWARDS: The answer is, I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be respected. I think they're entitled to rights. And that's what I think the role... BUMILLER: But you just can't call it marriage. EDWARDS: I think it's for the states to decide that. RATHER: We're at 11:51 eastern time. We are all going to get criticized if we don't move to at least some foreign policy questions. Senator Kerry... KERRY: What about the economy, health care, education... RATHER: I wish we had another three hours. Here's the question... (CROSSTALK) 11:51:20 RATHER: I want to talk about North Korea. You're president of the United States, and you get information, absolutely unequivocal information, that the North Koreans, not only do they nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver those nuclear weapons, but that they are real and present threats to Japan and some of their neighbors (ph). Are you prepared, under those circumstances, to move and move decisively with American military power? 11:51:44 KERRY: Of course I'd do whatever is necessary to protect the security of the United States of America. Bill Clinton moved quite authoritatively when the Straits of Taiwan were being threatened by China. I would do the same thing. KERRY: But here is what is important with respect to North Korea. I believe that between China, Japan and South Korea and our own interests, and the state of the economy in North Korea and their own interests, there is a deal to be struck. And what is quite extraordinary is that this administration did not follow up on the extraordinary work of Bill Perry, of Bill Clinton, President Clinton, and the work that they did to actually get inspectors and television cameras into the Pyongyang reactor. Now they're gone. This administration has made the world less safe because they were unwilling to continue that dialogue. RATHER: Senator Edwards? KERRY: I will go back immediately to that dialogue. And I believe we can avoid the very situation you describe. 11:52:39 BUMILLER: But, Senator Kerry, they did make some progress this weekend in those talks. How can you... KERRY: Yes, but, Elizabeth, let me tell you something. The 11:52:44 progress is so minimal, it is so slow, and it's begrudging. And they are not doing the kind of direct, head-to-head negotiations. And I have said that I would put all of the issues of the peninsula on the table, not just the nuclear issue, but the economic, the human rights, the deployment of forces. There are major issues there... RATHER: Senator Edwards, is this talking the question to death? 11:53:04 And as president, would you be prepared to commit American military power to subdue North Korea under the circumstances I outlined? 11:53:13 EDWARDS: I would never take that option off the table. I think the starting place, the starting place -- first of all, these negotiations that have just taken place, and John mentioned all of the countries -- Russia, in addition to that -- that were participating in these discussions, we need all of these countries involved. But the problem is, we weren't leading the discussions. We were sitting in the background. The South Koreans were making proposals; others were making proposals. We weren't leading. The reality is that this is a serious, serious threat. They have allowed this to get to crisis situation. I said that at the very beginning about the whole problem with Haiti. This is a pattern. This is not an isolated incident. This is a pattern. Now we're in crisis, and now they're doing something. But why 11:53:55 was Colin Powell not there? Why were we not seriously leading these negotiations? What we need is we need to demand that they stop their nuclear weapons program. We need to have absolute ability to verify that that's occurring. And we need to be willing to give something in return. 11:54:13 KUCINICH: And in order to have credibility, in order to have credibility, John, we should be canceling our nuclear programs. We're building new nuclear weapons. How can we tell North Korea, you shouldn't have a nuclear program... BUMILLER: Let's move on... RATHER: Sorry, I have to call a television time-out here. KUCINICH: Dan, we have to work for nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear abolition. And as president, I would meet with the leader of North Korea and assure him that we mean North Korea no harm; he can put away is weapons. We need to do that with the whole... 11:54:36 RATHER: Congressman, what I need to do is to point out that we need a two-minute drill here now. We're inside the two-minute mark. If we have a two-minute grill, please. The fence or wall in the Middle East -- the Israelis say it's a fence, the Palestinians call it a wall. Senator Kerry, what do you call it? 11:54:53 KERRY: A fence necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:55:00 SHARPTON: I think it's a fence, but I think that we must keep Palestinian rights in mind. SHARPTON: And I think it will not work unless we have cooperation of all sides, and we not in any way, shape or form have an unbalanced Middle East policy that we've had so far. RATHER: Fence or a wall? 11:55:15 EDWARDS: It is a fence, both symbolically and in reality. There are only a very few miles of it that are made of concrete. And the Israelis have the right to protect themselves. And I agree that until we get to the place that they have a real partner, which America has to play an enormous role in, they're entitled to build the fence. RATHER: Congressman? 11:55:34 KUCINICH: When Israel builds something on its territory, it's a fence. But when they build something on the Palestinians' territory, it's a wall. And I think that we need to help bring the parties together, for peaceful coexistence and restart the peace talks. RATHER: I want you to keep in mind, we have about a minute-15. Ms. Bumiller? 11:55:54 BUMILLER: Really fast, on a Sunday morning, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on America's side. Really quick, is God on America's side? 11:56:07 KERRY: Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence. BUMILLER: Senator? 11:56:27 EDWARDS: Well, there's a wonderful story about Abraham Lincoln during the middle of the Civil War bringing in a group of leaders, and at the end of the meeting one of the leaders said, "Mr. President, can we pray, can we please join in prayer that God is on our side?" And Abraham Lincoln's response was, "I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side." 11:56:47 SHARPTON: And I think that's the point... BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton? SHARPTON: I think it's important we're on God's side, as I said earlier, that we must (inaudible). But I also think we've got to heal this president from feeling like he and America is the same thing. God is on America's side. That does not mean He supports what George Bush... RATHER: Fifteen seconds, Congressman. 11:57:05 KUCINICH: We need to break the spell of fear which is over this country. Remember where we come from as a country. When Francis Scott Key wrote that "Star-Spangled Banner," he made the connection when he said, "Does that star-spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave?" The connection between democracy and courage. I would call out the courage of the American people, and defend our rights, cancel the Patriot Act, reestablish the fullness of our democracy. 11:57:28 RATHER: Congressman and Senators, Reverend, our time is up. We want to thank the Democratic candidates for president, all of you, for joining us here today, and particularly for participating in this kind of discussion. Senator John Kerry, Senator John Edwards, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton. 11:57:44 President James Madison once said, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with knowledge." We hope we've added some of that this morning. Thank you all very much. END
CBS / New York Times Democratic presidential debate with Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton
[CBS / New York Times Democratic presidential debate with Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton] [SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC) / SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MASS) / CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH) AND CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER REVEREND AL SHARPTON / CBS / NY TIMES DEBATE] [EDWARDS, KERRY, KUCINICH AND SHARPTON / CBS / NY TIMES DEBATE] [NEW YORK, NY USA] DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' DEBATE SPONSORED BY CBS AND THE NEW YORK TIMES FEBRUARY 29, 2004 SPEAKERS: DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ELIZABETH BUMILLER, THE NEW YORK TIMES ANDREW KIRTZMAN, WCBS-TV CHANNEL 2, NEW YORK U.S. SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (NC) U.S. SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (MA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH (OH) THE REVEREND AL SHARPTON (+) (JOINED IN PROGRESS) RATHER: ... and Al Sharpton of New York. The Democratic candidates are here this morning for their final joint appearance before Super Tuesday. We intend this hour to be a free-wheeling, informative discussion of the issues. Joining me in the questioning are reporters Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times and Andrew Kirtzman of WCBS-TV Channel 2 here in New York. This broadcast is being carried on many CBS radio and television stations, and by the Discovery Times channel. The candidates' campaigns have drawn for positions around the table. There are no set rules, no time limits, although we hope things will move along fairly quickly and that the answers will be at least reasonably brief, gentlemen. And we have only one goal, and that is to help you, the voters, make an informed decision. 11:01:37 So let's get to it. It's a big day in the news. Haiti is in the news. We have questions about that. But first, I want each on of you in turn, in one sentence, in 11:01:42 terms of your own spirituality, if you prefer religiosity to complete the sentence, "This I believe..." Senator Kerry? 11:01:55 KERRY: I believe in God. And I believe in the power of redemption, and the capacity of individual human beings to be able to make a difference, because, as President Kennedy said, "Here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own." RATHER: Senator Edwards? 11:02:09 EDWARDS: I believe we live in a country where there are two different Americas, one for people who get everything they need every single day, and one for everybody else. And I believe that the president of the United States, with the Lord's help, has the power to change that. RATHER: Congressman? 11:02:25 KUCINICH: I believe that we're here to bring spiritual principles into the material world. And reflecting the words in Matthew 25, "When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you shelter me?" We have a purpose here on this earth to try to help this -- lift this world up. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, "This I believe..." 11:02:47 SHARPTON: I believe in God, but I believe that God created us for a purpose. I believe that God has blessed this country immeasurably. The question is whether this country will bless God. So the way we can judge that is how we treat each other, human rights, in the many Americas. I believe there are many Americas, not just poor and rich, but of many colors, of many religions, of many sexual orientations. How we deal with one another, how with provide for one another, how we protect one another, is how we determine whether we are worthy of the blessings that God has given us. RATHER: Thank you, Reverend. 11:03:22 Let me say again, that it is not scriptural, but around this table, at least, blessed are the brief. (LAUGHTER) SHARPTON: For they shall inherit the debate. RATHER: Very probably. 11:03:35 Senator Kerry, President Bush has made it clear that the United States will be part of an international force going to Haiti. You've been critical of that action. Tell me what your beef is with what the president is doing. 11:03:48 KERRY: He's late, as usual. This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier. BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, what would you have done in this situation? 11:04:04 KERRY: Well, first of all, I never would have allowed it to get out of control the way it did. KERRY: This administration empowered the insurgents, and it empowered -- look, Aristide... BUMILLER: How did it empower the insurgents? 11:04:17 KERRY: I'll tell you precisely how, but first let me say this. President Aristide has made plenty of mistakes, and his police have run amok, and other things have happened, I understand that. But the fact is that, by giving to the insurgents the power to veto an agreement, they effectively said, "Unless you two reach an agreement on the sharing of power, we're not going to provide aid and assistance." So he empowered the insurgents to say, "No, we're not going to reach agreement." And they continued to battle, continued to have no services provided in Haiti, and then it started to spiral downwards. So the result is that you almost inevitably had the clash that 11:04:59 you have today. And innocent Haitians, the people of Haiti, deserved better than that over the course of the last year. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards, could we ask what you think of this? Did you agree with the president's decision? And you've been critical in the past of his policy toward Haiti. 11:05:10 EDWARDS: Yes, that's because he's ignored Haiti the same way he's ignored most of the countries in this hemisphere. Now, we have -- this is a country that's extraordinarily unstable. I think this is the 33rd government that they've had. One of the poorest nations, if not the poorest nation, in the world. We should have been engaged over a long period of time, in a serious way, at least through diplomacy, not to allow this to get to a crisis situation where it now is. I do believe that now, that now the proper thing to do is for America to be part of the United Nations force to secure the country. That is the right thing to do. But there are very serious issues here. The Haitian constitution, for example, provides that the chief justice is a successor to Aristide. The chief justice is apparently very close to Aristide. I mean, we have to put a political process in place, stabilize the country first, then put a political process in place that allows us to move toward a serious democratic election, so that the people of Haiti are satisfied with the result. 11:06:09 RATHER: Senator, do you have any argument with anything that Senator Kerry just said about Haiti? 11:06:14 EDWARDS: We have a slight difference. I think it is true that, at its best, for the president and the administration, this has been neglect. In other words, they've paid no attention, they haven't been engaged. At its worst, they have actually facilitated the ouster of Aristide. SHARPTON: I have a difference with both of those... (CROSSTALK) EDWARDS: Al, if you would let me finish, please. 11:06:32 BUMILLER: But no one says he's a good president, so why is it so terrible he's gone? You've all agreed on that. 11:06:38 EDWARDS: The reason is because it should be a democratic process that leads to his leaving, not the... KERRY: George Bush... EDWARDS: Excuse me, John, if you let me finish. It should be a democratic process that provides for someone else to rule Haiti. And that's the problem with this. I mean, if you look at what's happened in Haiti over a relatively long period of time, it's been extraordinarily unstable. As I mentioned earlier, 33rd regime change. We need to put a process in place that makes sure that the people of Haiti are satisfied with who's governing them. 11:07:12 KIRTZMAN: Senator, he was installed by Democrats, not by Republicans. Why are you blaming Bush, when you could be blaming Clinton, who was the one who was responsible for him being in power in the first place? 11:07:21 EDWARDS: But, remember, prior to that time, he was elected in elections that weren't even questioned or challenged, number one. And number two, when this problem began to develop, this president did exactly what he's done with other problems around the world, which is do nothing, do nothing, and when it gets to crisis stage, then we act. EDWARDS: And that's what's, by the way -- if we can just little elevation on this... KIRTZMAN: Not much, Senator. EDWARDS: One of the most serious problems with this with this administration is they talk about a doctrine preemption. How about a 11:07:49 doctrine of prevention, where America leads and stays engaged with this problems? KIRTZMAN: Reverend Sharpton, you've been patient. SHARPTON: First all, I talked with the opposition leaders and 11:07:59 President Aristide by phone this week. Second of all, I've been to Haiti several times. And I think that I'm speaking as one who has been close to this situation more than anyone on this stage. One of the things I think we're seeing (inaudible) is that we only want certain people to talk, but we want everybody to vote. And we need to rid ourselves of that. What we need to do, first of all, is allow Haiti to have the resources. The World Bank had approved a $500 million loan that this country has blocked. That's one. RATHER: Was that the Bush administration or the Clinton administration? SHARPTON: This administration, as well as prior administrations, should have made sure the World Bank loans had gone through. The resources were available. You almost set up a situation where Aristide had to fail. Now, Aristide... 11:08:47 BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton, can we just go to domestic politics for a moment? SHARPTON: No, we're going to finish on this. BUMILLER: I would... SHARPTON: If you don't want us to participate, say that, ma'am. I listened to them go back and forth. BUMILLER: Let's go back to Haiti. SHARPTON: Let's deal with Haiti. I think that what we're trying to say is that the president... BUMILLER: No, no. Mr. Kucinich, would you like to say... 11:08:58 SHARPTON: ... should not come now, late, after he ignored what was going on all along. And I think that it is too little too late to just talk about military action. RATHER: Congressman? 11:09:11 KUCINICH: I'd like to answer your question directly. What the president is advocating, in terms of international intervention, is the right thing to do. Now, let me talk to you about what I would do as president, in terms of creating a Department of Peace, a Cabinet-level position, where you would track the kind of percolation of conflict that goes on and intervene in a nonviolent way before it gets out of hand. I mean, we need to take a prospective look at all of our international relations. RATHER: Senator Edwards, we need to move on. We have a lot of 11:09:37 ground we want to cover. We could spend this whole hour talking about Haiti and, I think, substantively so. EDWARDS: Yes. RATHER: But we're a couple days away from possibly decisive Super Tuesday. There are any number of voters out there who are in the process of making up their minds. RATHER: Is there any question that you can ask Senator Kerry, speaking directly to him, that you think is important for those voters who haven't made up their mind, are in the process of making up their mind, to draw him out on some difference between the two of you? Or are you in the position of saying, "Listen, it's late on, and I'm pretty much playing for vice president now, and I don't want to ask him the tough questions"? 11:10:16 EDWARDS: Oh, no. Oh, no, no. Far from it. I think there are tough questions. Let me tell you what I think, first of all, the fundamental difference is between John Kerry and myself. And then I'll ask him a question if you'd like me to do that directly. The fundamental issue in this election is whether the people of this country believe that we're going to get change that originates in Washington or change that has to come from out here in the real world. And the differences between us on this -- I have multiple examples; I'll just give you one. John Kerry has said he and I are in the same position -- we have basically the same position on trade. That's not true. We have a very different record on trade. But more importantly, my approach to trade is fundamentally different than his. What he has suggested is that when he becomes president, he'll set up a committee to study for 120 days our trade agreements to see what needs to be done. Now, in the real world, in Ohio, if you live in Ohio and you lose your job during that 120 days, think about that. What you're going to say to a family that's lost their job because of bad trade agreements is, "Don't worry, we've got a Washington committee that's studying this for you." I mean, what we should -- we know what's wrong with these trade agreements. They need to be changed. The president of the United States needs to be willing to change them. 11:11:28 (UNKNOWN): Senator Edwards, can I just ask, if you lose all 10 primaries on Tuesday, are you still in this race? 11:11:33 EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am, I'm going to be... (CROSSTALK) (UNKNOWN): Why? EDWARDS: Because the American people deserve this choice. And we are a very different choice, for the reasons we just talked about. 11:11:43 RATHER: I'd like to hear your question to Senator Kerry. 11:11:46 EDWARDS: My question is, do you believe we're going to change this country out of Washington, D.C.? 11:11:51 KERRY: Yes, because that's where the Congress of the United States is, and that's where 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is. And the answer is, we're going to need a president who has the experience and the proven ability -- proven ability -- to be able to stand up and take on tough fights. Now, I just listened to John talk about Washington, D.C. Last time I looked, John ran for the United States Senate, and he's been in the Senate for the last five years. That seems to me to be Washington, D.C. Secondly, when he tried to say there's a difference between us on trade just now, he said there's a difference in the record versus what we're going to do. That's not what people are looking for. 11:12:33 On the record, I have consistently fought to put in the trade agreements enforceable measures that allow us to stand up and fight for workers. In the China trade agreements, which incidentally John voted for, we have anti-surge, anti-dumping provisions. The president hasn't enforced them. Moreover, John has just misrepresented the position that I've taken. KERRY: I am not only going to have a 120-day review of every trade agreement, so that we have smart, thoughtful people look and see what's working and what isn't working, but he knows very well that I have also pledged for a number of years that we should have no trade agreement that does not also have labor and environment standards contained within it. Now, that's exactly the same position... 11:13:20 RATHER: Senator, you look nervous over... 11:13:23 EDWARDS: He is dead wrong. Dead wrong. If you look at -- I mean, it's all fine to say, "Going forward, this is what I'm going to do." But what you've done in the past gives some indication to the American people about what you're, in fact, going to do. Let me just give you some differences between us on the record. There's no way to dispute this. First, I voted against final fast track authority for this president to continue to negotiate these trade agreements; he voted for it. I voted against the Singapore trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the African trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the Caribbean trade agreement; he supported it. It's just simply not the truth... (CROSSTALK) 11:14:06 EDWARDS: If you'll allow me to finish. These are great arguments about what he intends to do going forward. But it's similar, for example, Senator Kerry has consistently said that he can pay for all the things that he's proposing and substantially reduce the deficit, I think I've heard him say cut it in half, in his first term. Well, The Washington Post today just analyzed his proposals, and its the same old thing. Here we go again. In fact, in fact, he overspends, in terms of being able to pay for all of his proposals, he overspends by $165 billion in his first term, which means he would drive us deeper and deeper into deficit. My point is very simple about all this. This is the same old Washington talk that people have been listening to for decades. They want something different, Dan. RATHER: Let me give Senator Kerry a chance to respond to... KUCINICH: Dan, let's talk about the same old Washington... KERRY: Wait, wait, can I respond, Dennis... 11:15:05 KUCINICH: No, this is my turn. And I'm saying that we could talk about the same old Washington talk, but with all due respect, John, you told the New York Times that NAFTA should exist. And I think that NAFTA should not exist. Now, when we're going back to what both, you know, Senator Kerry and you are -- and we've been back on it a lot. Senator Kerry, you knew full well that when NAFTA was passed, and when the WTO passed, that it was written specifically so as not to provide for workers' rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. It's kind of like crying crocodile tears for workers, after millions of jobs have been lost in this country, to say, "Well, we're going to fix it." The fact of the matter is, the WTO does not permit any modification. It was written that way. And so I've said as president I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO, and go back to bilateral trade, which will save those jobs in Ohio. RATHER: Let's give Senator Kerry a chance to respond. 11:15:55 KERRY: Well, yes, we need to go on, but these are central issues. KERRY: And John has just made some very important statements, and I want to respond to them. I think John would have learned by now not to believe everything he reads in a newspaper. And he should do his homework, because the fact is that what's printed in The Washington Post today is inaccurate. A stimulus is by definition something that you do outside of the budget for one year or two years. The Washington Post included the stimulus when they figured the numbers. The stimulus is what you do to kick the economy into gear so that you can reduce the deficit. 11:16:40 Secondly, they did not include the reduction of the $139 billion of the Medicare bill which I have said I am sending back to Congress because it's a bad bill. I voted against it, it's bad. Now, when you add up my stimulus that's outside of the budget and the Medicare numbers that they didn't even include, you do not go over, I do not spend more... BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, let me... KERRY: No, no, I insist on being able to finish. 11:17:06 BUMILLER: I want to ask a really important question. KERRY: This is important. (CROSSTALK) 11:17:12 SHARPTON: If we're going to have a discussion just between two -- in your arrogance (ph), you can try that, but that's one of the reasons we're going to have delegates, so that you can't just limit the discussion. And I think that your attempt to do this is blatant, and I'm going to call you out on it, because I'm not going to sit here and be window dressing. BUMILLER: Well, I'm not going to be addressed like this. SHARPTON: Well, then, let all of us speak. (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: I want us to be able to respond, or then tell us you want a two-way debate. 11:17:45 RATHER: Here's where the thing is. We certainly want to hear, I think you will agree, the voters have spoken. 11:17:52 SHARPTON: No, the voters have not spoken. We've only had -- he's won one primary. He's come in fourth seven times. BUMILLER: How many delegates... SHARPTON: What you're trying to do is trying to decide for the voters how we go forward. The voters need to hear this morning from four candidates, or say the media now is going to select candidates. 11:18:07 RATHER: Reverend, we've heard from you, we're going to hear from you. I don't understand what the argument is. SHARPTON: I had to fight to speak on Haiti, I had to fight to speak on trade. You got a guy with one primary that you're pretending he's -- Gary Hart won more primaries than Mondale. 11:18:12 Let's have an open debate and go into Super Tuesday, or say that you guys want to decide the nominee. 11:18:25 RATHER: Reverend, debate them, not me. SHARPTON: If I get time, I would love to do that. RATHER: You've been on, but the clock's been running on you. I wanted to hear what you had to say... KERRY: Can I just finish? RATHER: Finish what you have to say, Senator, then we're going to go to Reverend Sharpton. 11:18:33 KERRY: On trade, there is no difference between what John Edwards would do today and what I would do today. And to listen to John try to carve out this -- what I think is sort of a protectionist point of view in the past, actually is not documented by the record. John Edwards has been in the Senate for five years. He's talked more in the last five weeks about trade than he has in the entire five years. KERRY: The fact is that he didn't vote in the 1994 election when he had a chance to vote about trade. He didn't talk about it, against it, in his election in 1998 when he ran for the Senate. And he went to The New York Times last week and said that he thought that NAFTA, in fact, was good for the prosperity of our country. 11:19:22 RATHER: Senator, I'm going to call time. KERRY: I think you have to be consistent in this... EDWARDS: After Reverend Sharpton speaks, I deserve a chance to respond to that. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:19:28 SHARPTON: I think that, again, NAFTA and the WTO were wrong from its beginning. You cannot change it; you must rescind it. It has cost thousands upon thousands of jobs. We talk about it being a "patriotic" thing to protect American businesses, but we call it "protectionism" to protect American workers. I think there are a lot of differences among us. I think clearly Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards voted for the war. They support trade agreements. They supported what I think is the most anti-civil rights act of our time, the Patriot Act. But I also think that that's why we have a convention, that's why we have delegates, that's why we'll come to a consensus and have a candidate to beat Bush. But as long as we try to stifle the discussion, it feeds into the Ralph Naders of the world that say the only way to deal with this is to leave the party. KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards, didn't you tell The New York Times editorial board last week that your plan would not, in fact, significantly cut the export of jobs? 11:20:26 EDWARDS: No, what I said was we need a trade policy in this country that works for American workers, that allows them to compete. I want to go back to something that the senator... KIRTZMAN: Before you do, though, are you saying flatly now that your NAFTA proposal would stem the flight of jobs abroad, and by how much? EDWARDS: I think it would help. Not just NAFTA, I think that all our trade policy can have a significant impact on the outflow of jobs, plus our outsourcing policy. Taking away, for example... 11:20:36 KIRTZMAN: Can you quantify it somehow? EDWARDS: No, of course not. There's no way to do that. What we 11:20:52 know is there are millions of jobs leaving, millions of jobs leaving this country. We need a trade policy and a tax policy that allows American workers to be competitive. But you've got to give me just at least 60 seconds to respond to what Senator Kerry said. The suggestion -- the suggestion -- that I came late to this? I 11:21:27 want to say to Senator Kerry, I have lived with this my entire life. I saw what happened when the mill in my hometown closed that my own father worked at. I respect your -- you have a right to have a different view than I do. But to suggest for a moment that this is not personal to me? I have lived... KERRY: I never said that. I never said that. EDWARDS: Excuse me, if you'll let me finish, I have lived with this my entire life. I have seen the effect not just on the economy, but on the families who are involved when families lose jobs. RATHER: Senator, can I come back... EDWARDS: This is something I take very seriously and very personally. And there is, in fact, a significant difference between us on our records. BUMILLER: Can I just change the topic for a minute, just ask a plain political question? 11:21:43 The National Journal, a respected, nonideologic publication covering Congress, as you both know, has just rated you, Senator Kerry, number one, the most liberal senator in the Senate. You're number four. How can you hope to win with this kind of characterization, in this climate? 11:22:00 KERRY: Because it's a laughable characterization. It's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life. BUMILLER: Are you a liberal? KERRY: Let me just... BUMILLER: Are you a liberal? 11:22:12 KERRY: ... to the characterization. I mean, look, labels are so silly in American politics. I was one of the first Democrats in the United States Senate in 1985 to join with Fritz Hollings in deficit reduction. Now, does that make me a conservative? I fought to put 100,000 police officers on the streets of America. Am I a conservative? BUMILLER: But, Senator Kerry, the question is... KERRY: I know. You don't let us finish answering questions. 11:22:28 BUMILLER: You're in New York. (LAUGHTER) 11:22:31 KERRY: Well, I'm going to fight for it. And that's exactly what I'm going to do, I'm going to fight for it. BUMILLER: All right. KERRY: Do you know what they measured in that? First of all, they measured 62 votes. I voted 37 times; 25 votes they didn't even count because I wasn't there to vote for them. Secondly, secondly, they counted my voting against the Medicare bill, which is a terrible bill for seniors in America, they called that being liberal. Lots of conservatives voted against that. In addition, they counted my voting against George Bush's tax cut that we can't afford. I thought it was fiscally conservative to vote against George Bush's tax cut. They call it liberal. BUMILLER: Is this a helpful characterization in this campaign? 11:23:14 KERRY: I think it's the silliest thing I've ever heard. 11:23:18 KUCINICH: Let me answer directly. I'm liberal, and I'm co- chairman of the Progressive Caucus in the United States Congress. And as such, I stand for full-employment economy, universal health care, protection of Social Security, canceling NAFTA and the WTO, creating a Department of Peace. These are the kinds of things that relate to creating a sustainable society where people can have peace and prosperity simultaneously. 11:23:39 RATHER: Congressman, do you consider Senator Kerry a liberal by your definition? KUCINICH: I think it's important to hear how the senator describes himself. RATHER: But my question is, how do you describe him? Is he a liberal? KUCINICH: I don't think so, because he voted for the war. He voted for the Patriot Act. He supported NAFTA and the WTO. I would say that... RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, do you consider Senator Kerry a liberal? 11:24:00 SHARPTON: No. I think that anyone -- if you want to use George Bush as the definition of conservative, most of America is liberal now, because most of America would vote against Bush. (LAUGHTER) So in that broad definition, he is. But I think that compared to some of us, no. I think we've made ourselves clear on that. But I don't think -- "liberal" is going to lose this dirty name in 2004, because George Bush has so let down what conservative -- I remember when conservatives were respectable. BUMILLER: Thank you, yes. RATHER: Senator Edwards, I want to... 11:24:31 EDWARDS: May I respond to just to this question, Dan... RATHER: Sure. EDWARDS: ... because all three others have. RATHER: Well, I'm coming to you. Are you a liberal? EDWARDS: I don't believe anybody -- this is actually a subject that John and I agree about. I don't think anybody in America cares about what some inside-Washington publication says about your ideology. What they care about is: What are your values, where you come from, what do you believe in, and who are you fighting for? And do you understand the real world and the problems that people face every day in their life? That's what the people of the United States are looking for. KIRTZMAN: Let me pick on that. 11:25:04 EDWARDS: This president... KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards... EDWARDS: ... this president does not understand what's going on in people's lives. EDWARDS: He is completely out of touch. I wish he would so one day what the four of us do every single day, which is go out, campaign, conduct town-hall meetings, not ticketed events, not when you make people pay $2,000 to get in the door, but actual real people and listening to what their problems are. This president does not know what's going on in the real world. KERRY: Can I say one other thing? RATHER: If it's brief. KERRY: Well, I will be brief. But is this president a legitimate Republican or conservative? Because there's nothing conservative about driving deficits up as far as the eye can see. There's nothing conservative about trampling on the line of division between church and state in America. There is nothing conservative about letting your attorney general trample on civil liberties and civil rights, and be twice cited by his own inspector general for doing so. This administration is extreme. And I believe we're offering America mainstream American values. 11:26:03 RATHER: But, if you will, Andrew has a question and I wanted to get to it. But I let me pick up on that and what Senator Edwards said. The latest poll I've seen shows that a combination, that a Kerry- Edwards ticket or an Edwards-Kerry ticket, would at this moment get more votes than a Bush-Cheney ticket. It would be stronger than either one of you, Senator Kerry or Senator Edwards, running alone, and Reverend Sharpton, with you or the congressman alone. My question is, Senator Kerry, are you prepared here and now to say, if you get the nomination, you will run with John Edwards and that's a strong ticket? 11:26:43 KERRY: No, and I don't think John Edwards would be prepared to say that he would necessarily run with me. RATHER: Would you, Senator Edwards? EDWARDS: I think there's no way to say that. We're still in a fight for the nomination. KERRY: We're vying for the nomination. 11:26:56 KUCINICH: And let me say why neither Senator Kerry nor my good friend, Senator Edwards, would be appropriate as nominees: Because they supported the president on the war, said there were weapons of mass destruction, which you actually embroidered, Senator Kerry. And you know what? Think of the 2004 debate, standing next to President Bush where he says, "Oh, look, I said there were weapons. Senator, you said there were weapons. I was for the war; you supported the war. I was for the occupation; you supported the occupation. And Senator, thank you, you want to send more troops to the armed services." You know what? I'm in the best position to challenge this president, because the war should be the singular issue. They lied to get the American people to accept the war. We have 130,000 troops there who are still at risk. We've spent over $200 billion of money that's needed for our domestic agenda. Over 10,000 Iraqis have lost their lives. I mean, this war ought to be the single issue. And frankly, John... BUMILLER: Let me ask a question about Iraq. I have an Iraq question. KIRTZMAN: This morning you have -- go ahead. (LAUGHTER) KERRY: You're having to work to get in. (LAUGHTER) KIRTZMAN: Tough crowd. 11:27:44 Senator Edwards, through the campaign, and again this morning, you have spoken very eloquently and movingly about the fight against the rich and the powerful on behalf of the working class. And yet, you yourself are rich and powerful. You're worth upwards of $36 million. KIRTZMAN: You have a $4 million house in Georgetown, a $1 million beachhouse in North Carolina, a $1 million home in Raleigh. Do you think your supporters know that you live this way? 11:28:20 EDWARDS: Well, first of all, in fairness, if you're going to list our assets, I hope you'll list John Kerry's too... (LAUGHTER) ... because he's got a lot more than I've got. CROSSTALK) EDWARDS: Here's the truth. The truth is that I come from the same place most Americans have come from. I grew up in a family where my father worked in the mill, working -- didn't make me any different than most people in this country. I mean, he worked hard, he had a high school education. I was the first person in my family to go to college. KIRTZMAN: But they've heard that part, but have they heard the other part, is the question. KUCINICH: Why should that disqualify him? I mean, that's crazy. You know what? He has spoken... (CROSSTALK) KUCINICH: John, let me defend you on this. (LAUGHTER) Because I'm saying that the fact that he's speaking about these issues relating to two Americas, that there's poverty in this country, and those issues ought to be addressed, I'm glad you're talking about it, John, and I... 11:29:11 SHARPTON: And I am, too. But I think, Andrew, the point is... (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: I will let you finish, like you did me. I think the point is, though, the reason I say there's more than two Americas is because he could come from there to where he is. And many of us can't because of other obstacles: because of race, because of sex, because of sexual orientation. So the reason I disagree with just two Americas is, he could go from a mill to $36 million. Many people can't do it. And I might add, there was nothing more biased in the South than some of those mill towns, where some of us couldn't even work in the mills. So I think that his story should be told, but it should be told in the broader context of why everyone can't have the same kind of achievement. (CROSSTALK) 11:29:55 KIRTZMAN: I've got to interrupt you, because Dennis was defending... (CROSSTALK) 11:30:01 KIRTZMAN: I will give you the turn. I just want to remind you of the question that I... EDWARDS: I remember the question. KIRTZMAN: Do you think your supporters know you live this way? EDWARDS: Yes, sir, I think that most of them do. They know I've done very well. And the truth is this. Let me just put this in the simplest terms I know how. I come from the same place that most Americans come from. I am running for president of the United States so that millions of American get the same chances that I've had. I mean, it's just that simple. And Al Sharpton is completely right about one thing. This is not just wealth and class. It's race -- we have two health-care systems in America. We have two public school systems. We have two governments, one for the insiders and the lobbyists and one for everybody else. What this is about for me, in its simplest terms, is trying to make sure that other Americans get the same chance that I've had. I don't want to see us, those of us who've had the great luck to have done pretty well in this country, to pull the ladder up behind us. We want to make it available to more people, no matter where they live, who their family is or what the color of their skin is. 11:30:58 BUMILLER: Senator, let's move this around the world to Iraq for just a minute. KERRY: Can we also move it around the table? (LAUGHTER) BUMILLER: I'll ask you, and then I'll ask the Reverend Sharpton. As you know, Iraq is to begin ruling itself on June 30th, when the U.S. is transferring authority. Now, there's a lot of people in Washington and Baghdad who are saying this is completely set on a political timetable at the convenience for President Bush. Should we put off the June 30th transfer? 11:31:23 KERRY: I think the transfer should depend entirely on the ability to guarantee a stable Iraq. It should not be set arbitrarily, certainly not by an election date. What is critical is that you have... BUMILLER: Is that a yes or no? 11:31:37 KERRY: It's, obviously, it's a... BUMILLER: It's a what? KERRY: You should put it off if it's needed to be put off. I mean, look, if the date works, terrific. But the test is not a date. The test is the stability and viability of Iraq. And what is critical... BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton, what do you think? 11:31:54 SHARPTON: I think the date was set for political reasons. If it, by some miracle -- and I don't foresee it -- that we could see a stabilized enough situation to meet the date, we should do it. But I don't see how we can do it. I think I am part of those that think that this was set in time for the '04 election, time for George Bush, when he's trailing in the fall, to say that they're already in self-government, and try to take it off the table. I think that we cannot take Iraq off the table. I think the president misleading the country, and those that supported his misleading it, while hundreds of thousands of us marched, must be a central issue in the fall campaign. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards? 11:32:32 EDWARDS: First of all, I think the date has now been embraced by the United Nations. The key to this is that there be legitimacy. There will not be legitimacy as long as this to the Iraqis has the stamp, "Made in America." This has to be changed. And in order for it to be changed, the United Nations has to be involved in setting up this provisional government. That way, it'll be more acceptable to the Iraq people, more acceptable to the rest of the world. KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards... 11:32:58 EDWARDS: And the administration, by the way, the Bush administration, is completely responsible for us being in this place. They have squandered our credibility around the world, which is why we're in this place. RATHER: Just before you answer, let me remind people who may 11:33:13 have just turned in, we have just passed the halfway mark. We're roughly 33 and a half minutes into an hour program with the four remaining contenders to the Democratic presidential nomination. Now, Congressman, the question is whether you think that date should be postponed. 11:33:26 KUCINICH: Well, I'd say that the date is not as significant as the fact that the United States wants to maintain control over the oil assets of Iraq, wants to privatize Iraq, run the contracts in Iraq and continue an occupation of Iraq. See, that's the key issue. Because you have 130,000 troops there. You have all kinds of families who are wondering when are my sons and daughters, mothers and fathers going to come home. And you know what? I've been the only one up here to, throughout this whole campaign, talk about a specific plan for withdrawal. We have to find a way to bring U.N. peacekeepers in and to bring our troops home. And that's what we ought to be talking about here. I mean, it would be good to hear from Senator Kerry, who the other day said that there's a right way and wrong way to do it, and that we're in there for the long haul -- it'd be good for you to tell the American people what are you going to do with those other 40,000 troops you say you're going to bring in the first 100 days? And also, are you going to have a draft? Are you going to get us out of Iraq, or are you going to be the Democratic version of the Republican war that you voted for? 11:34:29 KERRY: No, I'm not going to have a draft. Yes, I will get us out of Iraq. KUCINICH: How? KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000. That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country. KUCINICH: How are we going to get another 40,000 troops, John? 11:34:57 KERRY: Dennis, I laid out -- I think I was the first United States senator to stand up and lay out a very specific plan for how you approach the rest of the world and bring them to the table with respect to Iraq. And the way -- you can't just cut and run, Dennis. KUCINICH: I've never suggested that, John. KERRY: Well, then, you've adopted my plan, because my plan... KUCINICH: No, John, I've... 11:35:22 BUMILLER: Can I ask a more personal question about Iraq and funerals? Could I just -- let me just ask that, because... KERRY: But wait a minute, we actually have an issue that's on the table here, and I'd like to finish it. BUMILLER: Can you do it quickly? 11:35:31 KERRY: There is a better way to do what George Bush is doing, which is to bring the international community in. He refuses to share responsibility in the reconstruction. He refuses to share responsibility for the decisionmaking of the transformation of the country. And both of those are prerequisites to being able to get other countries to share in the responsibility. BUMILLER: OK. KERRY: And what is incredible is that all of Europe has a huge interest in not having Iraq as a failed state on its doorstep, all of the Arab countries have a huge interest in not having a failed Iraq... BUMILLER: Let me... KERRY: ... as their neighbor, and notwithstanding... BUMILLER: Senator... KERRY: ... the president has none of them legitimately involved. BUMILLER: Thank you. 11:36:07 Here's the question. As you well know, more than 500 American men and women have died in Iraq, and the president has been criticized for not attending a single funeral. Now, the argument of the White House is that he can't attend one without attending them all. KERRY: I disagree with that. BUMILLER: What would you do? 11:36:23 KERRY: That is just profoundly wrong. I've talked to a number of families, many families, and those families have said to me, you know, we haven't really from the president or anybody, why can't you make phone calls to those families? 11:36:36 BUMILLER: How can you go to 500 funerals and be president? 11:36:37 KERRY: You don't go to 500 funerals. But you can certainly say to people -- and it shows respect to all the families, if you pick a funeral, go to that funeral. And then, you know what else... SHARPTON: Or reach out to the families. (CROSSTALK) BUMILLER: The president does do that. 11:36:52 SHARPTON: I preached at one of the funerals of one of the young men killed, Darius Jennings. It's not about going to all of the funerals, it's showing compassion. These people lost their lives in the service of this country. The real question, though, is why they lost their lives in the first place. And that's why I said we've got a debate out in this party. There were those that supported the president doing that. You can't give a man a blank check, and then go back and ask how come there's no money in the account. They gave him a blank check. He used it. 11:37:25 KUCINICH: There's a point that's being missed here, and the point that's being missed is, we should be taking action to make sure there are no funerals. SHARPTON: That's correct. KUCINICH: We should be bringing our troops home. KIRTZMAN: OK, fair enough. Fair enough. Everyone... (CROSSTALK) KERRY: ... allowing those those caskets to be viewed when they come in to Dover Air Force Base... BUMILLER: Well, do you think they should be photographed when they come back? 11:37:39 KERRY: I think you should give them full honors after their return to the United States. KIRTZMAN: OK. Fair enough. Fair enough. Senator Edwards, one of the main issues of the general election is going to be whether the president can keep you safe. There has not been a terrorist attack on United States soil for two-and-a-half years since the destruction of the World Trade Center. Now, is that just luck, or can you credit President Bush with that? 11:38:02 EDWARDS: Oh, I think -- first of all, I don't credit the president. I think there are a number of things that the administration and the Congress have done that have moved the country in the right direction toward keeping the American people safe. We have not done enough. There are a whole group of things that need to be done to keep the American people safer. KIRTZMAN: Has George Bush kept the country safe, in your opinion? 11:38:21 EDWARDS: No, that's what I'm trying to tell you. I think there are a whole group of things that we need to do in addition to what's being done now. For example, a better job at our ports. We have thousands of containers coming in every day. We inspect 4 or 5 percent of them. All of the experts tell us if we don't inspect at least 10 to 20 percent, it's very difficult to have a deterrent effect. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are extraordinary vulnerable. But by the way, this is a perfect example of Bush being married to special interests, because the chemical industry -- what happened was, they recognized the problem that I recognized, and others, about the vulnerability of chemical plants. We have over a hundred... KIRTZMAN: But put yourself in the place... EDWARDS: You just asked -- you just asked me what he's not done... KIRTZMAN: We just have limited time, so we want to try to give everybody... 11:39:02 EDWARDS: ... you'll let me finish this, please. This is a perfect example of what this administration does. We have chemical plants, over 100, any one of which, if they were attacked, could cost a million lives or more. All of us recognized this was a problem. We wanted to take action. The chemical industry pushed back, lobbied against it, and the Bush administration caved. 11:39:23 KIRTZMAN: With all due respect, Senator, I'm trying to get to the bottom line of my question, though... EDWARDS: Yes, sir. KIRTZMAN: ... which is that the typical American, when he or she goes to a voting booth in November, has got to make a bottom-line decision: Who is going to keep me safe? Now, we've got Bush in the White House already or a one-term senator who doesn't have that much foreign policy experience. Number one, how do you convince that person that you can keep him as safe or safer than Bush? And number two, would you consider running with a running-mate, perhaps, who has more foreign policy credentials than you do to make up for that deficiency? 11:39:53 EDWARDS: First of all, there is no deficiency. The issue here is not the length of your resume. The issue is the strength of your vision, what it is you believe needs to be done to keep the American people safe, convincing them that -- for example, when I have been campaigning around the country, I have consistently asked to groups of people, "What would you do differently today than you would have done on September 11th if a terrorist attack occurred in your community?" EDWARDS: People don't have a clue. They have no idea what they're supposed to do. KUCINICH: Well, there's another aspect to that. (CROSSTALK) 11:40:24 EDWARDS: Excuse me, if I could -- I'll finish. In 30 seconds, I'll finish. But that's a perfect example of what's happening in the real world -- not in Washington -- in the real world. People do not know what needs to be done. They don't how to respond if an attack occurs. They don't know, in fact, if an attack occurred in the middle of night, how they're going to find out about it. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? SHARPTON: I think that the first thing you've got to deal with, Andrew, on that question is we've got to finish investigating what 11:40:43 happened 9/11 to find out if the Bush administration could have done more to avoid that attack. I mean, maybe I missed something here, but that attack happened under George Bush. It didn't happen under someone else. So are you now suggesting that Bush's answer to Americans are, be glad you're alive? I mean, I think that that is absurd. I think that we need to finish investigating what happened 9/11, could this administration have done more, before we start giving them bouquets and talk about... 11:41:19 KIRTZMAN: It's an interesting point. It's an interesting -- well, let me just pivot off of what Sharpton says, an interesting point. Do you agree with Wesley Clark that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the World Trade Center attacks? 11:41:27 KERRY: I think we could have done -- absolutely, we could have done more. No question about it. But we should have done more since then, too. And let me just say something. We've spent -- this debate is now getting towards its end. We're in New York City. Fifty percent of the African-Americans in New York City are unemployed between the ages of 16 and 64. One of the things the president could have done in order to make this city more safe, frankly -- he's only given it one-tenth of the money that they need with respect to protection of water supply. He's cut $250 million for firefighters. They're cutting firefighters and closing firehouses. They're cutting the COPS program. There's a $5 billion to $6 billion deficit in the state of New York. The governor, therefore, has started to raise taxes or cut services. George Bush's priority: tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. My priority: a $50 billion fund as a tax relief education fund, which is part of the stimulus counted in my numbers... 11:42:23 BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a... KERRY: Can I finish? KIRTZMAN: You haven't gotten the direct answer... KERRY: I'd like to finish. (CROSSTALK) KUCINICH: You haven't gotten a direct answer on this, and I want 11:42:31 to answer you directly. This is about national security. And you asked the question, essentially, are we safer? And I will submit to you, we are not. We are not safer, because we attacked a country that did not attack us and have created a resurgence of Al Qaida as a result. We are not safer, because we don't know about 9/11 because the commission can't even get the information from the White House. RATHER: Thank you, Congressman. KUCINICH: Excuse me. We are not safer because the president has a doctrine of unilateralism and preemption and is building new nuclear weapons, sending a signal to the rest of the world that they better watch out, and follows up in saying, "You better get us first before we get you." BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a question... KUCINICH: We're not safer. 11:43:07 BUMILLER: ... about likeability. You know, even your Democratic fans say that the president beats you hands down on likability, which, like it or not, is a major factor in a television era. So what have you learned from your -- one of your competitors, John Edwards, about campaigning and what's important in a 2004 race? 11:43:32 KERRY: Actually, Elizabeth, I learned it from the people who I've campaigned with all across the country. I learned it in Iowa, and I learned it in New Hampshire. And I think the reason I've won 18 or 20 contests so far, and I'm now campaigning hard to win others, is that give me a living room, give me a barn, give me a VFW hall, give me a one-on-one, and I think I can talk to anybody in this country. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards, what do you think... KERRY: And that is precisely what I'm doing today and precisely what I'm going to keep doing. 11:44:05 RATHER: If I may, Elizabeth, let me ask Senator Edwards the same question in a somewhat different way. EDWARDS: Yes, OK. RATHER: I want to use a Texas expression here. We know... EDWARDS: Somehow I knew this... (LAUGHTER) RATHER: No, but, in understandable terms, we're dealing with something really important here. That is, who is going to run against George Bush in November. We're talking the presidency of the United States. But we know that likability, as Ms. Bumiller said, is very important to the campaign -- charisma, whatever you want to call it. 11:44:44 Does Senator Kerry have enough Elvis to beat George Bush... (LAUGHTER) ... enough excitement factor, enough charisma, enough likeability? You know what I'm talking about, and people in North Carolina and elsewhere will know what I'm talking about when I say, "Does he have enough Elvis," because when he gets down to November, a lot of people are going to vote on who they like the best, whether we want them to vote that way or not. 11:44:59 EDWARDS: Yes. Let me answer your question directly. First of all, I know John Kerry. I like him very much. And he and I have known each other for years. Here's what I would say, though, in answer to both of your questions. I don't think this is a personality contest. I think what people are looking for in a president is somebody who, when they hear them speak, speaks their language, understands what their lives are like, shares their values. And I sometimes hear journalists say, "Well, you know, the people who vote, they just don't understand the issues well enough. They don't understand the subtleties of the difference between you and John Kerry at the fourth level of tax policy." Well, here's the truth about that. The truth about that is the American people get it right. What they know is they know in their gut when somebody's telling them the truth. They have a radar for the truth, and they know who they can trust. They know whether you're honest and sincere, and whether they can rely on you and trust you... 11:46:03 RATHER: But excuse me, one second... EDWARDS: But that, I think -- if I could just finish -- that, I think, is the ultimate issue. When they look in your eyes, when they hear what you have to say, do they trust you, and do they want you to be their president? RATHER: Let me call time out for just one second, because this is necessary. We are inside roughly the 13-minute mark here, and I have to do something now that I wish I didn't have to do. I wish we had the rest of the afternoon to talk about it, but we need to pick up the pace in these 13 minutes, because there are any number of subjects that we have not covered. So, let me, with your permission, change the subject very quickly. I do ask for brevity here. We'll try to work everybody in. But, Senator Kerry, what's wrong with gay marriage? 11:46:30 KERRY: I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a personal belief. RATHER: Well, what's wrong with a man and a man committing to each other for life? 11:46:40 KERRY: What I think -- I think it's a distinction between what you believe the institution of marriage is, but what's important, Dan, is that you give people rights. I'm for rights, not for terminology or status -- rights. RATHER: But who does it hurt, Senator? KERRY: I think all -- that's not the issue. The issue is... RATHER: Well, that's the question. KERRY: ... are we prepared to provide rights to all Americans, so that they share the same rights as other people, not the same terminology or status? I believe that the right, the spousal rights -- the right of inheritance, the right with respect to taxes, the right with respect to visitation in a hospital -- there are a whole series of rights. I am for those rights being afforded to every single American without distinction. KUCINICH: May I respond? RATHER: But who does it hurt, Congressman? 11:47:29 KUCINICH: First of all, I'm glad that Senator Kerry says he's for rights. I think it would be instructive to review the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, because I think that many Americans believe that equality of opportunity should not be denied on account of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. And so what we're really talking about is having people be able to avail themselves of the same protections of civil law, that 1,047 different protections that people have when they're married, and to enable those privileges to be extended to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. This is really about who we are, not just as a party, but as a nation. And we have to show capacity to expand. And I think any of us who are up here should be willing to take a stand on behalf of those people who are about to be excluded by the president of the United States from the protection... (CROSSTALK) 11:48:24 KIRTZMAN: I'm kind of curious, Senator Kerry. If one of your children came to you and said, "First of all, I'm gay; second of all, I've met someone of the same gender that I want to marry," would you go to the wedding? Would you respect that relationship? 11:48:41 KERRY: I've been to the wedding of somebody who has gotten married who's gay, and I just happen to have a different opinion about what you call it and what the status is. But I believe they deserve all the rights, all the support, all the love, all the affection, all of the rights that the state can afford. That's why... (CROSSTALK) 11:48:59 KERRY: That's why I am for civil union. That's why I'm for partnership rights. That's why I'm for even the federal extension, with respect to tax code and other rights. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:49:08 SHARPTON: I think that's states' rights. I think you cannot have any civil or human rights left up to the states. RATHER: So you're for a constitutional amendment? SHARPTON: I am for the constitutional right for human beings to decide what they want to do with human beings. Which is why I think the likeable thing is one issue here, is not who runs against the president, it's what runs against the president. RATHER: All right, let me again move on... SHARPTON: And I think what must run against the president is the rights of American citizens to have fair and equal rights. RATHER: Let me just say... BUMILLER: Let me ask John... 11:49:39 EDWARDS: Can I just say, though, how extraordinarily political what this president is doing is. I mean, here -- first of all, there's no issue... BUMILLER: No, no. Here's the question. EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am. 11:49:47 BUMILLER: Do you see a difference between gay rights and civil rights? Why is one right a federal right, and the other one you're saying leave it to the states? What's the difference here? 11:49:54 EDWARDS: Here's what I say. I say that the federal government plays an important role in civil rights and in gay rights. I believe the federal government should recognize what the state, who has forever, now, decided what constitutes marriage... BUMILLER: Why is there a different standard here? 11:50:09 EDWARDS: But wait a second, wait a second. We're talking about what the definition of marriage is, which is something that has always been decided by states, not rights. Now, see, this is one place that actually Senator Kerry and I largely agree. If we're talking about a bundle of rights, with what rights you'd get under federal law for partners, the problems with adoption... 11:50:27 SHARPTON: But they used to say that blacks were three-fifths of a human. What do you mean? Are gays and lesbians human or not? 11:50:33 EDWARDS: Of course they're human. SHARPTON: Then why can't they have the same human rights? 11:50:39 BUMILLER: I hate to ask this question because I never get an answer, but what is the difference between a gay marriage and a gay civil union, when you have heterosexuals getting married at city hall, and there's no religion involved and it's called a civil ceremony? What is the difference? 11:50:47 SHARPTON: They say you can shack up, just don't get married. That's the difference. RATHER: If I may, we need to move on. BUMILLER: But the answer? 11:50:54 EDWARDS: The answer is, I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be respected. I think they're entitled to rights. And that's what I think the role... BUMILLER: But you just can't call it marriage. EDWARDS: I think it's for the states to decide that. RATHER: We're at 11:51 eastern time. We are all going to get criticized if we don't move to at least some foreign policy questions. Senator Kerry... KERRY: What about the economy, health care, education... RATHER: I wish we had another three hours. Here's the question... (CROSSTALK) 11:51:20 RATHER: I want to talk about North Korea. You're president of the United States, and you get information, absolutely unequivocal information, that the North Koreans, not only do they nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver those nuclear weapons, but that they are real and present threats to Japan and some of their neighbors (ph). Are you prepared, under those circumstances, to move and move decisively with American military power? 11:51:44 KERRY: Of course I'd do whatever is necessary to protect the security of the United States of America. Bill Clinton moved quite authoritatively when the Straits of Taiwan were being threatened by China. I would do the same thing. KERRY: But here is what is important with respect to North Korea. I believe that between China, Japan and South Korea and our own interests, and the state of the economy in North Korea and their own interests, there is a deal to be struck. And what is quite extraordinary is that this administration did not follow up on the extraordinary work of Bill Perry, of Bill Clinton, President Clinton, and the work that they did to actually get inspectors and television cameras into the Pyongyang reactor. Now they're gone. This administration has made the world less safe because they were unwilling to continue that dialogue. RATHER: Senator Edwards? KERRY: I will go back immediately to that dialogue. And I believe we can avoid the very situation you describe. 11:52:39 BUMILLER: But, Senator Kerry, they did make some progress this weekend in those talks. How can you... KERRY: Yes, but, Elizabeth, let me tell you something. The 11:52:44 progress is so minimal, it is so slow, and it's begrudging. And they are not doing the kind of direct, head-to-head negotiations. And I have said that I would put all of the issues of the peninsula on the table, not just the nuclear issue, but the economic, the human rights, the deployment of forces. There are major issues there... RATHER: Senator Edwards, is this talking the question to death? 11:53:04 And as president, would you be prepared to commit American military power to subdue North Korea under the circumstances I outlined? 11:53:13 EDWARDS: I would never take that option off the table. I think the starting place, the starting place -- first of all, these negotiations that have just taken place, and John mentioned all of the countries -- Russia, in addition to that -- that were participating in these discussions, we need all of these countries involved. But the problem is, we weren't leading the discussions. We were sitting in the background. The South Koreans were making proposals; others were making proposals. We weren't leading. The reality is that this is a serious, serious threat. They have allowed this to get to crisis situation. I said that at the very beginning about the whole problem with Haiti. This is a pattern. This is not an isolated incident. This is a pattern. Now we're in crisis, and now they're doing something. But why 11:53:55 was Colin Powell not there? Why were we not seriously leading these negotiations? What we need is we need to demand that they stop their nuclear weapons program. We need to have absolute ability to verify that that's occurring. And we need to be willing to give something in return. 11:54:13 KUCINICH: And in order to have credibility, in order to have credibility, John, we should be canceling our nuclear programs. We're building new nuclear weapons. How can we tell North Korea, you shouldn't have a nuclear program... BUMILLER: Let's move on... RATHER: Sorry, I have to call a television time-out here. KUCINICH: Dan, we have to work for nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear abolition. And as president, I would meet with the leader of North Korea and assure him that we mean North Korea no harm; he can put away is weapons. We need to do that with the whole... 11:54:36 RATHER: Congressman, what I need to do is to point out that we need a two-minute drill here now. We're inside the two-minute mark. If we have a two-minute grill, please. The fence or wall in the Middle East -- the Israelis say it's a fence, the Palestinians call it a wall. Senator Kerry, what do you call it? 11:54:53 KERRY: A fence necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:55:00 SHARPTON: I think it's a fence, but I think that we must keep Palestinian rights in mind. SHARPTON: And I think it will not work unless we have cooperation of all sides, and we not in any way, shape or form have an unbalanced Middle East policy that we've had so far. RATHER: Fence or a wall? 11:55:15 EDWARDS: It is a fence, both symbolically and in reality. There are only a very few miles of it that are made of concrete. And the Israelis have the right to protect themselves. And I agree that until we get to the place that they have a real partner, which America has to play an enormous role in, they're entitled to build the fence. RATHER: Congressman? 11:55:34 KUCINICH: When Israel builds something on its territory, it's a fence. But when they build something on the Palestinians' territory, it's a wall. And I think that we need to help bring the parties together, for peaceful coexistence and restart the peace talks. RATHER: I want you to keep in mind, we have about a minute-15. Ms. Bumiller? 11:55:54 BUMILLER: Really fast, on a Sunday morning, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on America's side. Really quick, is God on America's side? 11:56:07 KERRY: Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence. BUMILLER: Senator? 11:56:27 EDWARDS: Well, there's a wonderful story about Abraham Lincoln during the middle of the Civil War bringing in a group of leaders, and at the end of the meeting one of the leaders said, "Mr. President, can we pray, can we please join in prayer that God is on our side?" And Abraham Lincoln's response was, "I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side." 11:56:47 SHARPTON: And I think that's the point... BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton? SHARPTON: I think it's important we're on God's side, as I said earlier, that we must (inaudible). But I also think we've got to heal this president from feeling like he and America is the same thing. God is on America's side. That does not mean He supports what George Bush... RATHER: Fifteen seconds, Congressman. 11:57:05 KUCINICH: We need to break the spell of fear which is over this country. Remember where we come from as a country. When Francis Scott Key wrote that "Star-Spangled Banner," he made the connection when he said, "Does that star-spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave?" The connection between democracy and courage. I would call out the courage of the American people, and defend our rights, cancel the Patriot Act, reestablish the fullness of our democracy. 11:57:28 RATHER: Congressman and Senators, Reverend, our time is up. We want to thank the Democratic candidates for president, all of you, for joining us here today, and particularly for participating in this kind of discussion. Senator John Kerry, Senator John Edwards, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton. 11:57:44 President James Madison once said, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with knowledge." We hope we've added some of that this morning. Thank you all very much. END
CBS / New York Times Democratic presidential debate with Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton
[CBS / New York Times Democratic presidential debate with Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton] [SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC) / SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MASS) / CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH) AND CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER REVEREND AL SHARPTON / CBS / NY TIMES DEBATE] [EDWARDS, KERRY, KUCINICH AND SHARPTON / CBS / NY TIMES DEBATE] [NEW YORK, NY USA] DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' DEBATE SPONSORED BY CBS AND THE NEW YORK TIMES FEBRUARY 29, 2004 SPEAKERS: DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ELIZABETH BUMILLER, THE NEW YORK TIMES ANDREW KIRTZMAN, WCBS-TV CHANNEL 2, NEW YORK U.S. SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (NC) U.S. SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (MA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH (OH) THE REVEREND AL SHARPTON (+) (JOINED IN PROGRESS) RATHER: ... and Al Sharpton of New York. The Democratic candidates are here this morning for their final joint appearance before Super Tuesday. We intend this hour to be a free-wheeling, informative discussion of the issues. Joining me in the questioning are reporters Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times and Andrew Kirtzman of WCBS-TV Channel 2 here in New York. This broadcast is being carried on many CBS radio and television stations, and by the Discovery Times channel. The candidates' campaigns have drawn for positions around the table. There are no set rules, no time limits, although we hope things will move along fairly quickly and that the answers will be at least reasonably brief, gentlemen. And we have only one goal, and that is to help you, the voters, make an informed decision. 11:01:37 So let's get to it. It's a big day in the news. Haiti is in the news. We have questions about that. But first, I want each on of you in turn, in one sentence, in 11:01:42 terms of your own spirituality, if you prefer religiosity to complete the sentence, "This I believe..." Senator Kerry? 11:01:55 KERRY: I believe in God. And I believe in the power of redemption, and the capacity of individual human beings to be able to make a difference, because, as President Kennedy said, "Here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own." RATHER: Senator Edwards? 11:02:09 EDWARDS: I believe we live in a country where there are two different Americas, one for people who get everything they need every single day, and one for everybody else. And I believe that the president of the United States, with the Lord's help, has the power to change that. RATHER: Congressman? 11:02:25 KUCINICH: I believe that we're here to bring spiritual principles into the material world. And reflecting the words in Matthew 25, "When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you shelter me?" We have a purpose here on this earth to try to help this -- lift this world up. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, "This I believe..." 11:02:47 SHARPTON: I believe in God, but I believe that God created us for a purpose. I believe that God has blessed this country immeasurably. The question is whether this country will bless God. So the way we can judge that is how we treat each other, human rights, in the many Americas. I believe there are many Americas, not just poor and rich, but of many colors, of many religions, of many sexual orientations. How we deal with one another, how with provide for one another, how we protect one another, is how we determine whether we are worthy of the blessings that God has given us. RATHER: Thank you, Reverend. 11:03:22 Let me say again, that it is not scriptural, but around this table, at least, blessed are the brief. (LAUGHTER) SHARPTON: For they shall inherit the debate. RATHER: Very probably. 11:03:35 Senator Kerry, President Bush has made it clear that the United States will be part of an international force going to Haiti. You've been critical of that action. Tell me what your beef is with what the president is doing. 11:03:48 KERRY: He's late, as usual. This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier. BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, what would you have done in this situation? 11:04:04 KERRY: Well, first of all, I never would have allowed it to get out of control the way it did. KERRY: This administration empowered the insurgents, and it empowered -- look, Aristide... BUMILLER: How did it empower the insurgents? 11:04:17 KERRY: I'll tell you precisely how, but first let me say this. President Aristide has made plenty of mistakes, and his police have run amok, and other things have happened, I understand that. But the fact is that, by giving to the insurgents the power to veto an agreement, they effectively said, "Unless you two reach an agreement on the sharing of power, we're not going to provide aid and assistance." So he empowered the insurgents to say, "No, we're not going to reach agreement." And they continued to battle, continued to have no services provided in Haiti, and then it started to spiral downwards. So the result is that you almost inevitably had the clash that 11:04:59 you have today. And innocent Haitians, the people of Haiti, deserved better than that over the course of the last year. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards, could we ask what you think of this? Did you agree with the president's decision? And you've been critical in the past of his policy toward Haiti. 11:05:10 EDWARDS: Yes, that's because he's ignored Haiti the same way he's ignored most of the countries in this hemisphere. Now, we have -- this is a country that's extraordinarily unstable. I think this is the 33rd government that they've had. One of the poorest nations, if not the poorest nation, in the world. We should have been engaged over a long period of time, in a serious way, at least through diplomacy, not to allow this to get to a crisis situation where it now is. I do believe that now, that now the proper thing to do is for America to be part of the United Nations force to secure the country. That is the right thing to do. But there are very serious issues here. The Haitian constitution, for example, provides that the chief justice is a successor to Aristide. The chief justice is apparently very close to Aristide. I mean, we have to put a political process in place, stabilize the country first, then put a political process in place that allows us to move toward a serious democratic election, so that the people of Haiti are satisfied with the result. 11:06:09 RATHER: Senator, do you have any argument with anything that Senator Kerry just said about Haiti? 11:06:14 EDWARDS: We have a slight difference. I think it is true that, at its best, for the president and the administration, this has been neglect. In other words, they've paid no attention, they haven't been engaged. At its worst, they have actually facilitated the ouster of Aristide. SHARPTON: I have a difference with both of those... (CROSSTALK) EDWARDS: Al, if you would let me finish, please. 11:06:32 BUMILLER: But no one says he's a good president, so why is it so terrible he's gone? You've all agreed on that. 11:06:38 EDWARDS: The reason is because it should be a democratic process that leads to his leaving, not the... KERRY: George Bush... EDWARDS: Excuse me, John, if you let me finish. It should be a democratic process that provides for someone else to rule Haiti. And that's the problem with this. I mean, if you look at what's happened in Haiti over a relatively long period of time, it's been extraordinarily unstable. As I mentioned earlier, 33rd regime change. We need to put a process in place that makes sure that the people of Haiti are satisfied with who's governing them. 11:07:12 KIRTZMAN: Senator, he was installed by Democrats, not by Republicans. Why are you blaming Bush, when you could be blaming Clinton, who was the one who was responsible for him being in power in the first place? 11:07:21 EDWARDS: But, remember, prior to that time, he was elected in elections that weren't even questioned or challenged, number one. And number two, when this problem began to develop, this president did exactly what he's done with other problems around the world, which is do nothing, do nothing, and when it gets to crisis stage, then we act. EDWARDS: And that's what's, by the way -- if we can just little elevation on this... KIRTZMAN: Not much, Senator. EDWARDS: One of the most serious problems with this with this administration is they talk about a doctrine preemption. How about a 11:07:49 doctrine of prevention, where America leads and stays engaged with this problems? KIRTZMAN: Reverend Sharpton, you've been patient. SHARPTON: First all, I talked with the opposition leaders and 11:07:59 President Aristide by phone this week. Second of all, I've been to Haiti several times. And I think that I'm speaking as one who has been close to this situation more than anyone on this stage. One of the things I think we're seeing (inaudible) is that we only want certain people to talk, but we want everybody to vote. And we need to rid ourselves of that. What we need to do, first of all, is allow Haiti to have the resources. The World Bank had approved a $500 million loan that this country has blocked. That's one. RATHER: Was that the Bush administration or the Clinton administration? SHARPTON: This administration, as well as prior administrations, should have made sure the World Bank loans had gone through. The resources were available. You almost set up a situation where Aristide had to fail. Now, Aristide... 11:08:47 BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton, can we just go to domestic politics for a moment? SHARPTON: No, we're going to finish on this. BUMILLER: I would... SHARPTON: If you don't want us to participate, say that, ma'am. I listened to them go back and forth. BUMILLER: Let's go back to Haiti. SHARPTON: Let's deal with Haiti. I think that what we're trying to say is that the president... BUMILLER: No, no. Mr. Kucinich, would you like to say... 11:08:58 SHARPTON: ... should not come now, late, after he ignored what was going on all along. And I think that it is too little too late to just talk about military action. RATHER: Congressman? 11:09:11 KUCINICH: I'd like to answer your question directly. What the president is advocating, in terms of international intervention, is the right thing to do. Now, let me talk to you about what I would do as president, in terms of creating a Department of Peace, a Cabinet-level position, where you would track the kind of percolation of conflict that goes on and intervene in a nonviolent way before it gets out of hand. I mean, we need to take a prospective look at all of our international relations. RATHER: Senator Edwards, we need to move on. We have a lot of 11:09:37 ground we want to cover. We could spend this whole hour talking about Haiti and, I think, substantively so. EDWARDS: Yes. RATHER: But we're a couple days away from possibly decisive Super Tuesday. There are any number of voters out there who are in the process of making up their minds. RATHER: Is there any question that you can ask Senator Kerry, speaking directly to him, that you think is important for those voters who haven't made up their mind, are in the process of making up their mind, to draw him out on some difference between the two of you? Or are you in the position of saying, "Listen, it's late on, and I'm pretty much playing for vice president now, and I don't want to ask him the tough questions"? 11:10:16 EDWARDS: Oh, no. Oh, no, no. Far from it. I think there are tough questions. Let me tell you what I think, first of all, the fundamental difference is between John Kerry and myself. And then I'll ask him a question if you'd like me to do that directly. The fundamental issue in this election is whether the people of this country believe that we're going to get change that originates in Washington or change that has to come from out here in the real world. And the differences between us on this -- I have multiple examples; I'll just give you one. John Kerry has said he and I are in the same position -- we have basically the same position on trade. That's not true. We have a very different record on trade. But more importantly, my approach to trade is fundamentally different than his. What he has suggested is that when he becomes president, he'll set up a committee to study for 120 days our trade agreements to see what needs to be done. Now, in the real world, in Ohio, if you live in Ohio and you lose your job during that 120 days, think about that. What you're going to say to a family that's lost their job because of bad trade agreements is, "Don't worry, we've got a Washington committee that's studying this for you." I mean, what we should -- we know what's wrong with these trade agreements. They need to be changed. The president of the United States needs to be willing to change them. 11:11:28 (UNKNOWN): Senator Edwards, can I just ask, if you lose all 10 primaries on Tuesday, are you still in this race? 11:11:33 EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am, I'm going to be... (CROSSTALK) (UNKNOWN): Why? EDWARDS: Because the American people deserve this choice. And we are a very different choice, for the reasons we just talked about. 11:11:43 RATHER: I'd like to hear your question to Senator Kerry. 11:11:46 EDWARDS: My question is, do you believe we're going to change this country out of Washington, D.C.? 11:11:51 KERRY: Yes, because that's where the Congress of the United States is, and that's where 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is. And the answer is, we're going to need a president who has the experience and the proven ability -- proven ability -- to be able to stand up and take on tough fights. Now, I just listened to John talk about Washington, D.C. Last time I looked, John ran for the United States Senate, and he's been in the Senate for the last five years. That seems to me to be Washington, D.C. Secondly, when he tried to say there's a difference between us on trade just now, he said there's a difference in the record versus what we're going to do. That's not what people are looking for. 11:12:33 On the record, I have consistently fought to put in the trade agreements enforceable measures that allow us to stand up and fight for workers. In the China trade agreements, which incidentally John voted for, we have anti-surge, anti-dumping provisions. The president hasn't enforced them. Moreover, John has just misrepresented the position that I've taken. KERRY: I am not only going to have a 120-day review of every trade agreement, so that we have smart, thoughtful people look and see what's working and what isn't working, but he knows very well that I have also pledged for a number of years that we should have no trade agreement that does not also have labor and environment standards contained within it. Now, that's exactly the same position... 11:13:20 RATHER: Senator, you look nervous over... 11:13:23 EDWARDS: He is dead wrong. Dead wrong. If you look at -- I mean, it's all fine to say, "Going forward, this is what I'm going to do." But what you've done in the past gives some indication to the American people about what you're, in fact, going to do. Let me just give you some differences between us on the record. There's no way to dispute this. First, I voted against final fast track authority for this president to continue to negotiate these trade agreements; he voted for it. I voted against the Singapore trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the African trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the Caribbean trade agreement; he supported it. It's just simply not the truth... (CROSSTALK) 11:14:06 EDWARDS: If you'll allow me to finish. These are great arguments about what he intends to do going forward. But it's similar, for example, Senator Kerry has consistently said that he can pay for all the things that he's proposing and substantially reduce the deficit, I think I've heard him say cut it in half, in his first term. Well, The Washington Post today just analyzed his proposals, and its the same old thing. Here we go again. In fact, in fact, he overspends, in terms of being able to pay for all of his proposals, he overspends by $165 billion in his first term, which means he would drive us deeper and deeper into deficit. My point is very simple about all this. This is the same old Washington talk that people have been listening to for decades. They want something different, Dan. RATHER: Let me give Senator Kerry a chance to respond to... KUCINICH: Dan, let's talk about the same old Washington... KERRY: Wait, wait, can I respond, Dennis... 11:15:05 KUCINICH: No, this is my turn. And I'm saying that we could talk about the same old Washington talk, but with all due respect, John, you told the New York Times that NAFTA should exist. And I think that NAFTA should not exist. Now, when we're going back to what both, you know, Senator Kerry and you are -- and we've been back on it a lot. Senator Kerry, you knew full well that when NAFTA was passed, and when the WTO passed, that it was written specifically so as not to provide for workers' rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. It's kind of like crying crocodile tears for workers, after millions of jobs have been lost in this country, to say, "Well, we're going to fix it." The fact of the matter is, the WTO does not permit any modification. It was written that way. And so I've said as president I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO, and go back to bilateral trade, which will save those jobs in Ohio. RATHER: Let's give Senator Kerry a chance to respond. 11:15:55 KERRY: Well, yes, we need to go on, but these are central issues. KERRY: And John has just made some very important statements, and I want to respond to them. I think John would have learned by now not to believe everything he reads in a newspaper. And he should do his homework, because the fact is that what's printed in The Washington Post today is inaccurate. A stimulus is by definition something that you do outside of the budget for one year or two years. The Washington Post included the stimulus when they figured the numbers. The stimulus is what you do to kick the economy into gear so that you can reduce the deficit. 11:16:40 Secondly, they did not include the reduction of the $139 billion of the Medicare bill which I have said I am sending back to Congress because it's a bad bill. I voted against it, it's bad. Now, when you add up my stimulus that's outside of the budget and the Medicare numbers that they didn't even include, you do not go over, I do not spend more... BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, let me... KERRY: No, no, I insist on being able to finish. 11:17:06 BUMILLER: I want to ask a really important question. KERRY: This is important. (CROSSTALK) 11:17:12 SHARPTON: If we're going to have a discussion just between two -- in your arrogance (ph), you can try that, but that's one of the reasons we're going to have delegates, so that you can't just limit the discussion. And I think that your attempt to do this is blatant, and I'm going to call you out on it, because I'm not going to sit here and be window dressing. BUMILLER: Well, I'm not going to be addressed like this. SHARPTON: Well, then, let all of us speak. (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: I want us to be able to respond, or then tell us you want a two-way debate. 11:17:45 RATHER: Here's where the thing is. We certainly want to hear, I think you will agree, the voters have spoken. 11:17:52 SHARPTON: No, the voters have not spoken. We've only had -- he's won one primary. He's come in fourth seven times. BUMILLER: How many delegates... SHARPTON: What you're trying to do is trying to decide for the voters how we go forward. The voters need to hear this morning from four candidates, or say the media now is going to select candidates. 11:18:07 RATHER: Reverend, we've heard from you, we're going to hear from you. I don't understand what the argument is. SHARPTON: I had to fight to speak on Haiti, I had to fight to speak on trade. You got a guy with one primary that you're pretending he's -- Gary Hart won more primaries than Mondale. 11:18:12 Let's have an open debate and go into Super Tuesday, or say that you guys want to decide the nominee. 11:18:25 RATHER: Reverend, debate them, not me. SHARPTON: If I get time, I would love to do that. RATHER: You've been on, but the clock's been running on you. I wanted to hear what you had to say... KERRY: Can I just finish? RATHER: Finish what you have to say, Senator, then we're going to go to Reverend Sharpton. 11:18:33 KERRY: On trade, there is no difference between what John Edwards would do today and what I would do today. And to listen to John try to carve out this -- what I think is sort of a protectionist point of view in the past, actually is not documented by the record. John Edwards has been in the Senate for five years. He's talked more in the last five weeks about trade than he has in the entire five years. KERRY: The fact is that he didn't vote in the 1994 election when he had a chance to vote about trade. He didn't talk about it, against it, in his election in 1998 when he ran for the Senate. And he went to The New York Times last week and said that he thought that NAFTA, in fact, was good for the prosperity of our country. 11:19:22 RATHER: Senator, I'm going to call time. KERRY: I think you have to be consistent in this... EDWARDS: After Reverend Sharpton speaks, I deserve a chance to respond to that. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:19:28 SHARPTON: I think that, again, NAFTA and the WTO were wrong from its beginning. You cannot change it; you must rescind it. It has cost thousands upon thousands of jobs. We talk about it being a "patriotic" thing to protect American businesses, but we call it "protectionism" to protect American workers. I think there are a lot of differences among us. I think clearly Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards voted for the war. They support trade agreements. They supported what I think is the most anti-civil rights act of our time, the Patriot Act. But I also think that that's why we have a convention, that's why we have delegates, that's why we'll come to a consensus and have a candidate to beat Bush. But as long as we try to stifle the discussion, it feeds into the Ralph Naders of the world that say the only way to deal with this is to leave the party. KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards, didn't you tell The New York Times editorial board last week that your plan would not, in fact, significantly cut the export of jobs? 11:20:26 EDWARDS: No, what I said was we need a trade policy in this country that works for American workers, that allows them to compete. I want to go back to something that the senator... KIRTZMAN: Before you do, though, are you saying flatly now that your NAFTA proposal would stem the flight of jobs abroad, and by how much? EDWARDS: I think it would help. Not just NAFTA, I think that all our trade policy can have a significant impact on the outflow of jobs, plus our outsourcing policy. Taking away, for example... 11:20:36 KIRTZMAN: Can you quantify it somehow? EDWARDS: No, of course not. There's no way to do that. What we 11:20:52 know is there are millions of jobs leaving, millions of jobs leaving this country. We need a trade policy and a tax policy that allows American workers to be competitive. But you've got to give me just at least 60 seconds to respond to what Senator Kerry said. The suggestion -- the suggestion -- that I came late to this? I 11:21:27 want to say to Senator Kerry, I have lived with this my entire life. I saw what happened when the mill in my hometown closed that my own father worked at. I respect your -- you have a right to have a different view than I do. But to suggest for a moment that this is not personal to me? I have lived... KERRY: I never said that. I never said that. EDWARDS: Excuse me, if you'll let me finish, I have lived with this my entire life. I have seen the effect not just on the economy, but on the families who are involved when families lose jobs. RATHER: Senator, can I come back... EDWARDS: This is something I take very seriously and very personally. And there is, in fact, a significant difference between us on our records. BUMILLER: Can I just change the topic for a minute, just ask a plain political question? 11:21:43 The National Journal, a respected, nonideologic publication covering Congress, as you both know, has just rated you, Senator Kerry, number one, the most liberal senator in the Senate. You're number four. How can you hope to win with this kind of characterization, in this climate? 11:22:00 KERRY: Because it's a laughable characterization. It's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life. BUMILLER: Are you a liberal? KERRY: Let me just... BUMILLER: Are you a liberal? 11:22:12 KERRY: ... to the characterization. I mean, look, labels are so silly in American politics. I was one of the first Democrats in the United States Senate in 1985 to join with Fritz Hollings in deficit reduction. Now, does that make me a conservative? I fought to put 100,000 police officers on the streets of America. Am I a conservative? BUMILLER: But, Senator Kerry, the question is... KERRY: I know. You don't let us finish answering questions. 11:22:28 BUMILLER: You're in New York. (LAUGHTER) 11:22:31 KERRY: Well, I'm going to fight for it. And that's exactly what I'm going to do, I'm going to fight for it. BUMILLER: All right. KERRY: Do you know what they measured in that? First of all, they measured 62 votes. I voted 37 times; 25 votes they didn't even count because I wasn't there to vote for them. Secondly, secondly, they counted my voting against the Medicare bill, which is a terrible bill for seniors in America, they called that being liberal. Lots of conservatives voted against that. In addition, they counted my voting against George Bush's tax cut that we can't afford. I thought it was fiscally conservative to vote against George Bush's tax cut. They call it liberal. BUMILLER: Is this a helpful characterization in this campaign? 11:23:14 KERRY: I think it's the silliest thing I've ever heard. 11:23:18 KUCINICH: Let me answer directly. I'm liberal, and I'm co- chairman of the Progressive Caucus in the United States Congress. And as such, I stand for full-employment economy, universal health care, protection of Social Security, canceling NAFTA and the WTO, creating a Department of Peace. These are the kinds of things that relate to creating a sustainable society where people can have peace and prosperity simultaneously. 11:23:39 RATHER: Congressman, do you consider Senator Kerry a liberal by your definition? KUCINICH: I think it's important to hear how the senator describes himself. RATHER: But my question is, how do you describe him? Is he a liberal? KUCINICH: I don't think so, because he voted for the war. He voted for the Patriot Act. He supported NAFTA and the WTO. I would say that... RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, do you consider Senator Kerry a liberal? 11:24:00 SHARPTON: No. I think that anyone -- if you want to use George Bush as the definition of conservative, most of America is liberal now, because most of America would vote against Bush. (LAUGHTER) So in that broad definition, he is. But I think that compared to some of us, no. I think we've made ourselves clear on that. But I don't think -- "liberal" is going to lose this dirty name in 2004, because George Bush has so let down what conservative -- I remember when conservatives were respectable. BUMILLER: Thank you, yes. RATHER: Senator Edwards, I want to... 11:24:31 EDWARDS: May I respond to just to this question, Dan... RATHER: Sure. EDWARDS: ... because all three others have. RATHER: Well, I'm coming to you. Are you a liberal? EDWARDS: I don't believe anybody -- this is actually a subject that John and I agree about. I don't think anybody in America cares about what some inside-Washington publication says about your ideology. What they care about is: What are your values, where you come from, what do you believe in, and who are you fighting for? And do you understand the real world and the problems that people face every day in their life? That's what the people of the United States are looking for. KIRTZMAN: Let me pick on that. 11:25:04 EDWARDS: This president... KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards... EDWARDS: ... this president does not understand what's going on in people's lives. EDWARDS: He is completely out of touch. I wish he would so one day what the four of us do every single day, which is go out, campaign, conduct town-hall meetings, not ticketed events, not when you make people pay $2,000 to get in the door, but actual real people and listening to what their problems are. This president does not know what's going on in the real world. KERRY: Can I say one other thing? RATHER: If it's brief. KERRY: Well, I will be brief. But is this president a legitimate Republican or conservative? Because there's nothing conservative about driving deficits up as far as the eye can see. There's nothing conservative about trampling on the line of division between church and state in America. There is nothing conservative about letting your attorney general trample on civil liberties and civil rights, and be twice cited by his own inspector general for doing so. This administration is extreme. And I believe we're offering America mainstream American values. 11:26:03 RATHER: But, if you will, Andrew has a question and I wanted to get to it. But I let me pick up on that and what Senator Edwards said. The latest poll I've seen shows that a combination, that a Kerry- Edwards ticket or an Edwards-Kerry ticket, would at this moment get more votes than a Bush-Cheney ticket. It would be stronger than either one of you, Senator Kerry or Senator Edwards, running alone, and Reverend Sharpton, with you or the congressman alone. My question is, Senator Kerry, are you prepared here and now to say, if you get the nomination, you will run with John Edwards and that's a strong ticket? 11:26:43 KERRY: No, and I don't think John Edwards would be prepared to say that he would necessarily run with me. RATHER: Would you, Senator Edwards? EDWARDS: I think there's no way to say that. We're still in a fight for the nomination. KERRY: We're vying for the nomination. 11:26:56 KUCINICH: And let me say why neither Senator Kerry nor my good friend, Senator Edwards, would be appropriate as nominees: Because they supported the president on the war, said there were weapons of mass destruction, which you actually embroidered, Senator Kerry. And you know what? Think of the 2004 debate, standing next to President Bush where he says, "Oh, look, I said there were weapons. Senator, you said there were weapons. I was for the war; you supported the war. I was for the occupation; you supported the occupation. And Senator, thank you, you want to send more troops to the armed services." You know what? I'm in the best position to challenge this president, because the war should be the singular issue. They lied to get the American people to accept the war. We have 130,000 troops there who are still at risk. We've spent over $200 billion of money that's needed for our domestic agenda. Over 10,000 Iraqis have lost their lives. I mean, this war ought to be the single issue. And frankly, John... BUMILLER: Let me ask a question about Iraq. I have an Iraq question. KIRTZMAN: This morning you have -- go ahead. (LAUGHTER) KERRY: You're having to work to get in. (LAUGHTER) KIRTZMAN: Tough crowd. 11:27:44 Senator Edwards, through the campaign, and again this morning, you have spoken very eloquently and movingly about the fight against the rich and the powerful on behalf of the working class. And yet, you yourself are rich and powerful. You're worth upwards of $36 million. KIRTZMAN: You have a $4 million house in Georgetown, a $1 million beachhouse in North Carolina, a $1 million home in Raleigh. Do you think your supporters know that you live this way? 11:28:20 EDWARDS: Well, first of all, in fairness, if you're going to list our assets, I hope you'll list John Kerry's too... (LAUGHTER) ... because he's got a lot more than I've got. CROSSTALK) EDWARDS: Here's the truth. The truth is that I come from the same place most Americans have come from. I grew up in a family where my father worked in the mill, working -- didn't make me any different than most people in this country. I mean, he worked hard, he had a high school education. I was the first person in my family to go to college. KIRTZMAN: But they've heard that part, but have they heard the other part, is the question. KUCINICH: Why should that disqualify him? I mean, that's crazy. You know what? He has spoken... (CROSSTALK) KUCINICH: John, let me defend you on this. (LAUGHTER) Because I'm saying that the fact that he's speaking about these issues relating to two Americas, that there's poverty in this country, and those issues ought to be addressed, I'm glad you're talking about it, John, and I... 11:29:11 SHARPTON: And I am, too. But I think, Andrew, the point is... (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: I will let you finish, like you did me. I think the point is, though, the reason I say there's more than two Americas is because he could come from there to where he is. And many of us can't because of other obstacles: because of race, because of sex, because of sexual orientation. So the reason I disagree with just two Americas is, he could go from a mill to $36 million. Many people can't do it. And I might add, there was nothing more biased in the South than some of those mill towns, where some of us couldn't even work in the mills. So I think that his story should be told, but it should be told in the broader context of why everyone can't have the same kind of achievement. (CROSSTALK) 11:29:55 KIRTZMAN: I've got to interrupt you, because Dennis was defending... (CROSSTALK) 11:30:01 KIRTZMAN: I will give you the turn. I just want to remind you of the question that I... EDWARDS: I remember the question. KIRTZMAN: Do you think your supporters know you live this way? EDWARDS: Yes, sir, I think that most of them do. They know I've done very well. And the truth is this. Let me just put this in the simplest terms I know how. I come from the same place that most Americans come from. I am running for president of the United States so that millions of American get the same chances that I've had. I mean, it's just that simple. And Al Sharpton is completely right about one thing. This is not just wealth and class. It's race -- we have two health-care systems in America. We have two public school systems. We have two governments, one for the insiders and the lobbyists and one for everybody else. What this is about for me, in its simplest terms, is trying to make sure that other Americans get the same chance that I've had. I don't want to see us, those of us who've had the great luck to have done pretty well in this country, to pull the ladder up behind us. We want to make it available to more people, no matter where they live, who their family is or what the color of their skin is. 11:30:58 BUMILLER: Senator, let's move this around the world to Iraq for just a minute. KERRY: Can we also move it around the table? (LAUGHTER) BUMILLER: I'll ask you, and then I'll ask the Reverend Sharpton. As you know, Iraq is to begin ruling itself on June 30th, when the U.S. is transferring authority. Now, there's a lot of people in Washington and Baghdad who are saying this is completely set on a political timetable at the convenience for President Bush. Should we put off the June 30th transfer? 11:31:23 KERRY: I think the transfer should depend entirely on the ability to guarantee a stable Iraq. It should not be set arbitrarily, certainly not by an election date. What is critical is that you have... BUMILLER: Is that a yes or no? 11:31:37 KERRY: It's, obviously, it's a... BUMILLER: It's a what? KERRY: You should put it off if it's needed to be put off. I mean, look, if the date works, terrific. But the test is not a date. The test is the stability and viability of Iraq. And what is critical... BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton, what do you think? 11:31:54 SHARPTON: I think the date was set for political reasons. If it, by some miracle -- and I don't foresee it -- that we could see a stabilized enough situation to meet the date, we should do it. But I don't see how we can do it. I think I am part of those that think that this was set in time for the '04 election, time for George Bush, when he's trailing in the fall, to say that they're already in self-government, and try to take it off the table. I think that we cannot take Iraq off the table. I think the president misleading the country, and those that supported his misleading it, while hundreds of thousands of us marched, must be a central issue in the fall campaign. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards? 11:32:32 EDWARDS: First of all, I think the date has now been embraced by the United Nations. The key to this is that there be legitimacy. There will not be legitimacy as long as this to the Iraqis has the stamp, "Made in America." This has to be changed. And in order for it to be changed, the United Nations has to be involved in setting up this provisional government. That way, it'll be more acceptable to the Iraq people, more acceptable to the rest of the world. KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards... 11:32:58 EDWARDS: And the administration, by the way, the Bush administration, is completely responsible for us being in this place. They have squandered our credibility around the world, which is why we're in this place. RATHER: Just before you answer, let me remind people who may 11:33:13 have just turned in, we have just passed the halfway mark. We're roughly 33 and a half minutes into an hour program with the four remaining contenders to the Democratic presidential nomination. Now, Congressman, the question is whether you think that date should be postponed. 11:33:26 KUCINICH: Well, I'd say that the date is not as significant as the fact that the United States wants to maintain control over the oil assets of Iraq, wants to privatize Iraq, run the contracts in Iraq and continue an occupation of Iraq. See, that's the key issue. Because you have 130,000 troops there. You have all kinds of families who are wondering when are my sons and daughters, mothers and fathers going to come home. And you know what? I've been the only one up here to, throughout this whole campaign, talk about a specific plan for withdrawal. We have to find a way to bring U.N. peacekeepers in and to bring our troops home. And that's what we ought to be talking about here. I mean, it would be good to hear from Senator Kerry, who the other day said that there's a right way and wrong way to do it, and that we're in there for the long haul -- it'd be good for you to tell the American people what are you going to do with those other 40,000 troops you say you're going to bring in the first 100 days? And also, are you going to have a draft? Are you going to get us out of Iraq, or are you going to be the Democratic version of the Republican war that you voted for? 11:34:29 KERRY: No, I'm not going to have a draft. Yes, I will get us out of Iraq. KUCINICH: How? KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000. That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country. KUCINICH: How are we going to get another 40,000 troops, John? 11:34:57 KERRY: Dennis, I laid out -- I think I was the first United States senator to stand up and lay out a very specific plan for how you approach the rest of the world and bring them to the table with respect to Iraq. And the way -- you can't just cut and run, Dennis. KUCINICH: I've never suggested that, John. KERRY: Well, then, you've adopted my plan, because my plan... KUCINICH: No, John, I've... 11:35:22 BUMILLER: Can I ask a more personal question about Iraq and funerals? Could I just -- let me just ask that, because... KERRY: But wait a minute, we actually have an issue that's on the table here, and I'd like to finish it. BUMILLER: Can you do it quickly? 11:35:31 KERRY: There is a better way to do what George Bush is doing, which is to bring the international community in. He refuses to share responsibility in the reconstruction. He refuses to share responsibility for the decisionmaking of the transformation of the country. And both of those are prerequisites to being able to get other countries to share in the responsibility. BUMILLER: OK. KERRY: And what is incredible is that all of Europe has a huge interest in not having Iraq as a failed state on its doorstep, all of the Arab countries have a huge interest in not having a failed Iraq... BUMILLER: Let me... KERRY: ... as their neighbor, and notwithstanding... BUMILLER: Senator... KERRY: ... the president has none of them legitimately involved. BUMILLER: Thank you. 11:36:07 Here's the question. As you well know, more than 500 American men and women have died in Iraq, and the president has been criticized for not attending a single funeral. Now, the argument of the White House is that he can't attend one without attending them all. KERRY: I disagree with that. BUMILLER: What would you do? 11:36:23 KERRY: That is just profoundly wrong. I've talked to a number of families, many families, and those families have said to me, you know, we haven't really from the president or anybody, why can't you make phone calls to those families? 11:36:36 BUMILLER: How can you go to 500 funerals and be president? 11:36:37 KERRY: You don't go to 500 funerals. But you can certainly say to people -- and it shows respect to all the families, if you pick a funeral, go to that funeral. And then, you know what else... SHARPTON: Or reach out to the families. (CROSSTALK) BUMILLER: The president does do that. 11:36:52 SHARPTON: I preached at one of the funerals of one of the young men killed, Darius Jennings. It's not about going to all of the funerals, it's showing compassion. These people lost their lives in the service of this country. The real question, though, is why they lost their lives in the first place. And that's why I said we've got a debate out in this party. There were those that supported the president doing that. You can't give a man a blank check, and then go back and ask how come there's no money in the account. They gave him a blank check. He used it. 11:37:25 KUCINICH: There's a point that's being missed here, and the point that's being missed is, we should be taking action to make sure there are no funerals. SHARPTON: That's correct. KUCINICH: We should be bringing our troops home. KIRTZMAN: OK, fair enough. Fair enough. Everyone... (CROSSTALK) KERRY: ... allowing those those caskets to be viewed when they come in to Dover Air Force Base... BUMILLER: Well, do you think they should be photographed when they come back? 11:37:39 KERRY: I think you should give them full honors after their return to the United States. KIRTZMAN: OK. Fair enough. Fair enough. Senator Edwards, one of the main issues of the general election is going to be whether the president can keep you safe. There has not been a terrorist attack on United States soil for two-and-a-half years since the destruction of the World Trade Center. Now, is that just luck, or can you credit President Bush with that? 11:38:02 EDWARDS: Oh, I think -- first of all, I don't credit the president. I think there are a number of things that the administration and the Congress have done that have moved the country in the right direction toward keeping the American people safe. We have not done enough. There are a whole group of things that need to be done to keep the American people safer. KIRTZMAN: Has George Bush kept the country safe, in your opinion? 11:38:21 EDWARDS: No, that's what I'm trying to tell you. I think there are a whole group of things that we need to do in addition to what's being done now. For example, a better job at our ports. We have thousands of containers coming in every day. We inspect 4 or 5 percent of them. All of the experts tell us if we don't inspect at least 10 to 20 percent, it's very difficult to have a deterrent effect. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are extraordinary vulnerable. But by the way, this is a perfect example of Bush being married to special interests, because the chemical industry -- what happened was, they recognized the problem that I recognized, and others, about the vulnerability of chemical plants. We have over a hundred... KIRTZMAN: But put yourself in the place... EDWARDS: You just asked -- you just asked me what he's not done... KIRTZMAN: We just have limited time, so we want to try to give everybody... 11:39:02 EDWARDS: ... you'll let me finish this, please. This is a perfect example of what this administration does. We have chemical plants, over 100, any one of which, if they were attacked, could cost a million lives or more. All of us recognized this was a problem. We wanted to take action. The chemical industry pushed back, lobbied against it, and the Bush administration caved. 11:39:23 KIRTZMAN: With all due respect, Senator, I'm trying to get to the bottom line of my question, though... EDWARDS: Yes, sir. KIRTZMAN: ... which is that the typical American, when he or she goes to a voting booth in November, has got to make a bottom-line decision: Who is going to keep me safe? Now, we've got Bush in the White House already or a one-term senator who doesn't have that much foreign policy experience. Number one, how do you convince that person that you can keep him as safe or safer than Bush? And number two, would you consider running with a running-mate, perhaps, who has more foreign policy credentials than you do to make up for that deficiency? 11:39:53 EDWARDS: First of all, there is no deficiency. The issue here is not the length of your resume. The issue is the strength of your vision, what it is you believe needs to be done to keep the American people safe, convincing them that -- for example, when I have been campaigning around the country, I have consistently asked to groups of people, "What would you do differently today than you would have done on September 11th if a terrorist attack occurred in your community?" EDWARDS: People don't have a clue. They have no idea what they're supposed to do. KUCINICH: Well, there's another aspect to that. (CROSSTALK) 11:40:24 EDWARDS: Excuse me, if I could -- I'll finish. In 30 seconds, I'll finish. But that's a perfect example of what's happening in the real world -- not in Washington -- in the real world. People do not know what needs to be done. They don't how to respond if an attack occurs. They don't know, in fact, if an attack occurred in the middle of night, how they're going to find out about it. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? SHARPTON: I think that the first thing you've got to deal with, Andrew, on that question is we've got to finish investigating what 11:40:43 happened 9/11 to find out if the Bush administration could have done more to avoid that attack. I mean, maybe I missed something here, but that attack happened under George Bush. It didn't happen under someone else. So are you now suggesting that Bush's answer to Americans are, be glad you're alive? I mean, I think that that is absurd. I think that we need to finish investigating what happened 9/11, could this administration have done more, before we start giving them bouquets and talk about... 11:41:19 KIRTZMAN: It's an interesting point. It's an interesting -- well, let me just pivot off of what Sharpton says, an interesting point. Do you agree with Wesley Clark that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the World Trade Center attacks? 11:41:27 KERRY: I think we could have done -- absolutely, we could have done more. No question about it. But we should have done more since then, too. And let me just say something. We've spent -- this debate is now getting towards its end. We're in New York City. Fifty percent of the African-Americans in New York City are unemployed between the ages of 16 and 64. One of the things the president could have done in order to make this city more safe, frankly -- he's only given it one-tenth of the money that they need with respect to protection of water supply. He's cut $250 million for firefighters. They're cutting firefighters and closing firehouses. They're cutting the COPS program. There's a $5 billion to $6 billion deficit in the state of New York. The governor, therefore, has started to raise taxes or cut services. George Bush's priority: tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. My priority: a $50 billion fund as a tax relief education fund, which is part of the stimulus counted in my numbers... 11:42:23 BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a... KERRY: Can I finish? KIRTZMAN: You haven't gotten the direct answer... KERRY: I'd like to finish. (CROSSTALK) KUCINICH: You haven't gotten a direct answer on this, and I want 11:42:31 to answer you directly. This is about national security. And you asked the question, essentially, are we safer? And I will submit to you, we are not. We are not safer, because we attacked a country that did not attack us and have created a resurgence of Al Qaida as a result. We are not safer, because we don't know about 9/11 because the commission can't even get the information from the White House. RATHER: Thank you, Congressman. KUCINICH: Excuse me. We are not safer because the president has a doctrine of unilateralism and preemption and is building new nuclear weapons, sending a signal to the rest of the world that they better watch out, and follows up in saying, "You better get us first before we get you." BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a question... KUCINICH: We're not safer. 11:43:07 BUMILLER: ... about likeability. You know, even your Democratic fans say that the president beats you hands down on likability, which, like it or not, is a major factor in a television era. So what have you learned from your -- one of your competitors, John Edwards, about campaigning and what's important in a 2004 race? 11:43:32 KERRY: Actually, Elizabeth, I learned it from the people who I've campaigned with all across the country. I learned it in Iowa, and I learned it in New Hampshire. And I think the reason I've won 18 or 20 contests so far, and I'm now campaigning hard to win others, is that give me a living room, give me a barn, give me a VFW hall, give me a one-on-one, and I think I can talk to anybody in this country. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards, what do you think... KERRY: And that is precisely what I'm doing today and precisely what I'm going to keep doing. 11:44:05 RATHER: If I may, Elizabeth, let me ask Senator Edwards the same question in a somewhat different way. EDWARDS: Yes, OK. RATHER: I want to use a Texas expression here. We know... EDWARDS: Somehow I knew this... (LAUGHTER) RATHER: No, but, in understandable terms, we're dealing with something really important here. That is, who is going to run against George Bush in November. We're talking the presidency of the United States. But we know that likability, as Ms. Bumiller said, is very important to the campaign -- charisma, whatever you want to call it. 11:44:44 Does Senator Kerry have enough Elvis to beat George Bush... (LAUGHTER) ... enough excitement factor, enough charisma, enough likeability? You know what I'm talking about, and people in North Carolina and elsewhere will know what I'm talking about when I say, "Does he have enough Elvis," because when he gets down to November, a lot of people are going to vote on who they like the best, whether we want them to vote that way or not. 11:44:59 EDWARDS: Yes. Let me answer your question directly. First of all, I know John Kerry. I like him very much. And he and I have known each other for years. Here's what I would say, though, in answer to both of your questions. I don't think this is a personality contest. I think what people are looking for in a president is somebody who, when they hear them speak, speaks their language, understands what their lives are like, shares their values. And I sometimes hear journalists say, "Well, you know, the people who vote, they just don't understand the issues well enough. They don't understand the subtleties of the difference between you and John Kerry at the fourth level of tax policy." Well, here's the truth about that. The truth about that is the American people get it right. What they know is they know in their gut when somebody's telling them the truth. They have a radar for the truth, and they know who they can trust. They know whether you're honest and sincere, and whether they can rely on you and trust you... 11:46:03 RATHER: But excuse me, one second... EDWARDS: But that, I think -- if I could just finish -- that, I think, is the ultimate issue. When they look in your eyes, when they hear what you have to say, do they trust you, and do they want you to be their president? RATHER: Let me call time out for just one second, because this is necessary. We are inside roughly the 13-minute mark here, and I have to do something now that I wish I didn't have to do. I wish we had the rest of the afternoon to talk about it, but we need to pick up the pace in these 13 minutes, because there are any number of subjects that we have not covered. So, let me, with your permission, change the subject very quickly. I do ask for brevity here. We'll try to work everybody in. But, Senator Kerry, what's wrong with gay marriage? 11:46:30 KERRY: I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a personal belief. RATHER: Well, what's wrong with a man and a man committing to each other for life? 11:46:40 KERRY: What I think -- I think it's a distinction between what you believe the institution of marriage is, but what's important, Dan, is that you give people rights. I'm for rights, not for terminology or status -- rights. RATHER: But who does it hurt, Senator? KERRY: I think all -- that's not the issue. The issue is... RATHER: Well, that's the question. KERRY: ... are we prepared to provide rights to all Americans, so that they share the same rights as other people, not the same terminology or status? I believe that the right, the spousal rights -- the right of inheritance, the right with respect to taxes, the right with respect to visitation in a hospital -- there are a whole series of rights. I am for those rights being afforded to every single American without distinction. KUCINICH: May I respond? RATHER: But who does it hurt, Congressman? 11:47:29 KUCINICH: First of all, I'm glad that Senator Kerry says he's for rights. I think it would be instructive to review the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, because I think that many Americans believe that equality of opportunity should not be denied on account of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. And so what we're really talking about is having people be able to avail themselves of the same protections of civil law, that 1,047 different protections that people have when they're married, and to enable those privileges to be extended to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. This is really about who we are, not just as a party, but as a nation. And we have to show capacity to expand. And I think any of us who are up here should be willing to take a stand on behalf of those people who are about to be excluded by the president of the United States from the protection... (CROSSTALK) 11:48:24 KIRTZMAN: I'm kind of curious, Senator Kerry. If one of your children came to you and said, "First of all, I'm gay; second of all, I've met someone of the same gender that I want to marry," would you go to the wedding? Would you respect that relationship? 11:48:41 KERRY: I've been to the wedding of somebody who has gotten married who's gay, and I just happen to have a different opinion about what you call it and what the status is. But I believe they deserve all the rights, all the support, all the love, all the affection, all of the rights that the state can afford. That's why... (CROSSTALK) 11:48:59 KERRY: That's why I am for civil union. That's why I'm for partnership rights. That's why I'm for even the federal extension, with respect to tax code and other rights. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:49:08 SHARPTON: I think that's states' rights. I think you cannot have any civil or human rights left up to the states. RATHER: So you're for a constitutional amendment? SHARPTON: I am for the constitutional right for human beings to decide what they want to do with human beings. Which is why I think the likeable thing is one issue here, is not who runs against the president, it's what runs against the president. RATHER: All right, let me again move on... SHARPTON: And I think what must run against the president is the rights of American citizens to have fair and equal rights. RATHER: Let me just say... BUMILLER: Let me ask John... 11:49:39 EDWARDS: Can I just say, though, how extraordinarily political what this president is doing is. I mean, here -- first of all, there's no issue... BUMILLER: No, no. Here's the question. EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am. 11:49:47 BUMILLER: Do you see a difference between gay rights and civil rights? Why is one right a federal right, and the other one you're saying leave it to the states? What's the difference here? 11:49:54 EDWARDS: Here's what I say. I say that the federal government plays an important role in civil rights and in gay rights. I believe the federal government should recognize what the state, who has forever, now, decided what constitutes marriage... BUMILLER: Why is there a different standard here? 11:50:09 EDWARDS: But wait a second, wait a second. We're talking about what the definition of marriage is, which is something that has always been decided by states, not rights. Now, see, this is one place that actually Senator Kerry and I largely agree. If we're talking about a bundle of rights, with what rights you'd get under federal law for partners, the problems with adoption... 11:50:27 SHARPTON: But they used to say that blacks were three-fifths of a human. What do you mean? Are gays and lesbians human or not? 11:50:33 EDWARDS: Of course they're human. SHARPTON: Then why can't they have the same human rights? 11:50:39 BUMILLER: I hate to ask this question because I never get an answer, but what is the difference between a gay marriage and a gay civil union, when you have heterosexuals getting married at city hall, and there's no religion involved and it's called a civil ceremony? What is the difference? 11:50:47 SHARPTON: They say you can shack up, just don't get married. That's the difference. RATHER: If I may, we need to move on. BUMILLER: But the answer? 11:50:54 EDWARDS: The answer is, I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be respected. I think they're entitled to rights. And that's what I think the role... BUMILLER: But you just can't call it marriage. EDWARDS: I think it's for the states to decide that. RATHER: We're at 11:51 eastern time. We are all going to get criticized if we don't move to at least some foreign policy questions. Senator Kerry... KERRY: What about the economy, health care, education... RATHER: I wish we had another three hours. Here's the question... (CROSSTALK) 11:51:20 RATHER: I want to talk about North Korea. You're president of the United States, and you get information, absolutely unequivocal information, that the North Koreans, not only do they nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver those nuclear weapons, but that they are real and present threats to Japan and some of their neighbors (ph). Are you prepared, under those circumstances, to move and move decisively with American military power? 11:51:44 KERRY: Of course I'd do whatever is necessary to protect the security of the United States of America. Bill Clinton moved quite authoritatively when the Straits of Taiwan were being threatened by China. I would do the same thing. KERRY: But here is what is important with respect to North Korea. I believe that between China, Japan and South Korea and our own interests, and the state of the economy in North Korea and their own interests, there is a deal to be struck. And what is quite extraordinary is that this administration did not follow up on the extraordinary work of Bill Perry, of Bill Clinton, President Clinton, and the work that they did to actually get inspectors and television cameras into the Pyongyang reactor. Now they're gone. This administration has made the world less safe because they were unwilling to continue that dialogue. RATHER: Senator Edwards? KERRY: I will go back immediately to that dialogue. And I believe we can avoid the very situation you describe. 11:52:39 BUMILLER: But, Senator Kerry, they did make some progress this weekend in those talks. How can you... KERRY: Yes, but, Elizabeth, let me tell you something. The 11:52:44 progress is so minimal, it is so slow, and it's begrudging. And they are not doing the kind of direct, head-to-head negotiations. And I have said that I would put all of the issues of the peninsula on the table, not just the nuclear issue, but the economic, the human rights, the deployment of forces. There are major issues there... RATHER: Senator Edwards, is this talking the question to death? 11:53:04 And as president, would you be prepared to commit American military power to subdue North Korea under the circumstances I outlined? 11:53:13 EDWARDS: I would never take that option off the table. I think the starting place, the starting place -- first of all, these negotiations that have just taken place, and John mentioned all of the countries -- Russia, in addition to that -- that were participating in these discussions, we need all of these countries involved. But the problem is, we weren't leading the discussions. We were sitting in the background. The South Koreans were making proposals; others were making proposals. We weren't leading. The reality is that this is a serious, serious threat. They have allowed this to get to crisis situation. I said that at the very beginning about the whole problem with Haiti. This is a pattern. This is not an isolated incident. This is a pattern. Now we're in crisis, and now they're doing something. But why 11:53:55 was Colin Powell not there? Why were we not seriously leading these negotiations? What we need is we need to demand that they stop their nuclear weapons program. We need to have absolute ability to verify that that's occurring. And we need to be willing to give something in return. 11:54:13 KUCINICH: And in order to have credibility, in order to have credibility, John, we should be canceling our nuclear programs. We're building new nuclear weapons. How can we tell North Korea, you shouldn't have a nuclear program... BUMILLER: Let's move on... RATHER: Sorry, I have to call a television time-out here. KUCINICH: Dan, we have to work for nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear abolition. And as president, I would meet with the leader of North Korea and assure him that we mean North Korea no harm; he can put away is weapons. We need to do that with the whole... 11:54:36 RATHER: Congressman, what I need to do is to point out that we need a two-minute drill here now. We're inside the two-minute mark. If we have a two-minute grill, please. The fence or wall in the Middle East -- the Israelis say it's a fence, the Palestinians call it a wall. Senator Kerry, what do you call it? 11:54:53 KERRY: A fence necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:55:00 SHARPTON: I think it's a fence, but I think that we must keep Palestinian rights in mind. SHARPTON: And I think it will not work unless we have cooperation of all sides, and we not in any way, shape or form have an unbalanced Middle East policy that we've had so far. RATHER: Fence or a wall? 11:55:15 EDWARDS: It is a fence, both symbolically and in reality. There are only a very few miles of it that are made of concrete. And the Israelis have the right to protect themselves. And I agree that until we get to the place that they have a real partner, which America has to play an enormous role in, they're entitled to build the fence. RATHER: Congressman? 11:55:34 KUCINICH: When Israel builds something on its territory, it's a fence. But when they build something on the Palestinians' territory, it's a wall. And I think that we need to help bring the parties together, for peaceful coexistence and restart the peace talks. RATHER: I want you to keep in mind, we have about a minute-15. Ms. Bumiller? 11:55:54 BUMILLER: Really fast, on a Sunday morning, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on America's side. Really quick, is God on America's side? 11:56:07 KERRY: Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence. BUMILLER: Senator? 11:56:27 EDWARDS: Well, there's a wonderful story about Abraham Lincoln during the middle of the Civil War bringing in a group of leaders, and at the end of the meeting one of the leaders said, "Mr. President, can we pray, can we please join in prayer that God is on our side?" And Abraham Lincoln's response was, "I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side." 11:56:47 SHARPTON: And I think that's the point... BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton? SHARPTON: I think it's important we're on God's side, as I said earlier, that we must (inaudible). But I also think we've got to heal this president from feeling like he and America is the same thing. God is on America's side. That does not mean He supports what George Bush... RATHER: Fifteen seconds, Congressman. 11:57:05 KUCINICH: We need to break the spell of fear which is over this country. Remember where we come from as a country. When Francis Scott Key wrote that "Star-Spangled Banner," he made the connection when he said, "Does that star-spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave?" The connection between democracy and courage. I would call out the courage of the American people, and defend our rights, cancel the Patriot Act, reestablish the fullness of our democracy. 11:57:28 RATHER: Congressman and Senators, Reverend, our time is up. We want to thank the Democratic candidates for president, all of you, for joining us here today, and particularly for participating in this kind of discussion. Senator John Kerry, Senator John Edwards, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton. 11:57:44 President James Madison once said, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with knowledge." We hope we've added some of that this morning. Thank you all very much. END
CBS / New York Times Democratic presidential debate with Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton
[CBS / New York Times Democratic presidential debate with Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton] [SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC) / SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MASS) / CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH) AND CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER REVEREND AL SHARPTON / CBS / NY TIMES DEBATE] [EDWARDS, KERRY, KUCINICH AND SHARPTON / CBS / NY TIMES DEBATE] [NEW YORK, NY USA] DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' DEBATE SPONSORED BY CBS AND THE NEW YORK TIMES FEBRUARY 29, 2004 SPEAKERS: DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ELIZABETH BUMILLER, THE NEW YORK TIMES ANDREW KIRTZMAN, WCBS-TV CHANNEL 2, NEW YORK U.S. SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (NC) U.S. SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (MA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH (OH) THE REVEREND AL SHARPTON (+) (JOINED IN PROGRESS) RATHER: ... and Al Sharpton of New York. The Democratic candidates are here this morning for their final joint appearance before Super Tuesday. We intend this hour to be a free-wheeling, informative discussion of the issues. Joining me in the questioning are reporters Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times and Andrew Kirtzman of WCBS-TV Channel 2 here in New York. This broadcast is being carried on many CBS radio and television stations, and by the Discovery Times channel. The candidates' campaigns have drawn for positions around the table. There are no set rules, no time limits, although we hope things will move along fairly quickly and that the answers will be at least reasonably brief, gentlemen. And we have only one goal, and that is to help you, the voters, make an informed decision. 11:01:37 So let's get to it. It's a big day in the news. Haiti is in the news. We have questions about that. But first, I want each on of you in turn, in one sentence, in 11:01:42 terms of your own spirituality, if you prefer religiosity to complete the sentence, "This I believe..." Senator Kerry? 11:01:55 KERRY: I believe in God. And I believe in the power of redemption, and the capacity of individual human beings to be able to make a difference, because, as President Kennedy said, "Here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own." RATHER: Senator Edwards? 11:02:09 EDWARDS: I believe we live in a country where there are two different Americas, one for people who get everything they need every single day, and one for everybody else. And I believe that the president of the United States, with the Lord's help, has the power to change that. RATHER: Congressman? 11:02:25 KUCINICH: I believe that we're here to bring spiritual principles into the material world. And reflecting the words in Matthew 25, "When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you shelter me?" We have a purpose here on this earth to try to help this -- lift this world up. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, "This I believe..." 11:02:47 SHARPTON: I believe in God, but I believe that God created us for a purpose. I believe that God has blessed this country immeasurably. The question is whether this country will bless God. So the way we can judge that is how we treat each other, human rights, in the many Americas. I believe there are many Americas, not just poor and rich, but of many colors, of many religions, of many sexual orientations. How we deal with one another, how with provide for one another, how we protect one another, is how we determine whether we are worthy of the blessings that God has given us. RATHER: Thank you, Reverend. 11:03:22 Let me say again, that it is not scriptural, but around this table, at least, blessed are the brief. (LAUGHTER) SHARPTON: For they shall inherit the debate. RATHER: Very probably. 11:03:35 Senator Kerry, President Bush has made it clear that the United States will be part of an international force going to Haiti. You've been critical of that action. Tell me what your beef is with what the president is doing. 11:03:48 KERRY: He's late, as usual. This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier. BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, what would you have done in this situation? 11:04:04 KERRY: Well, first of all, I never would have allowed it to get out of control the way it did. KERRY: This administration empowered the insurgents, and it empowered -- look, Aristide... BUMILLER: How did it empower the insurgents? 11:04:17 KERRY: I'll tell you precisely how, but first let me say this. President Aristide has made plenty of mistakes, and his police have run amok, and other things have happened, I understand that. But the fact is that, by giving to the insurgents the power to veto an agreement, they effectively said, "Unless you two reach an agreement on the sharing of power, we're not going to provide aid and assistance." So he empowered the insurgents to say, "No, we're not going to reach agreement." And they continued to battle, continued to have no services provided in Haiti, and then it started to spiral downwards. So the result is that you almost inevitably had the clash that 11:04:59 you have today. And innocent Haitians, the people of Haiti, deserved better than that over the course of the last year. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards, could we ask what you think of this? Did you agree with the president's decision? And you've been critical in the past of his policy toward Haiti. 11:05:10 EDWARDS: Yes, that's because he's ignored Haiti the same way he's ignored most of the countries in this hemisphere. Now, we have -- this is a country that's extraordinarily unstable. I think this is the 33rd government that they've had. One of the poorest nations, if not the poorest nation, in the world. We should have been engaged over a long period of time, in a serious way, at least through diplomacy, not to allow this to get to a crisis situation where it now is. I do believe that now, that now the proper thing to do is for America to be part of the United Nations force to secure the country. That is the right thing to do. But there are very serious issues here. The Haitian constitution, for example, provides that the chief justice is a successor to Aristide. The chief justice is apparently very close to Aristide. I mean, we have to put a political process in place, stabilize the country first, then put a political process in place that allows us to move toward a serious democratic election, so that the people of Haiti are satisfied with the result. 11:06:09 RATHER: Senator, do you have any argument with anything that Senator Kerry just said about Haiti? 11:06:14 EDWARDS: We have a slight difference. I think it is true that, at its best, for the president and the administration, this has been neglect. In other words, they've paid no attention, they haven't been engaged. At its worst, they have actually facilitated the ouster of Aristide. SHARPTON: I have a difference with both of those... (CROSSTALK) EDWARDS: Al, if you would let me finish, please. 11:06:32 BUMILLER: But no one says he's a good president, so why is it so terrible he's gone? You've all agreed on that. 11:06:38 EDWARDS: The reason is because it should be a democratic process that leads to his leaving, not the... KERRY: George Bush... EDWARDS: Excuse me, John, if you let me finish. It should be a democratic process that provides for someone else to rule Haiti. And that's the problem with this. I mean, if you look at what's happened in Haiti over a relatively long period of time, it's been extraordinarily unstable. As I mentioned earlier, 33rd regime change. We need to put a process in place that makes sure that the people of Haiti are satisfied with who's governing them. 11:07:12 KIRTZMAN: Senator, he was installed by Democrats, not by Republicans. Why are you blaming Bush, when you could be blaming Clinton, who was the one who was responsible for him being in power in the first place? 11:07:21 EDWARDS: But, remember, prior to that time, he was elected in elections that weren't even questioned or challenged, number one. And number two, when this problem began to develop, this president did exactly what he's done with other problems around the world, which is do nothing, do nothing, and when it gets to crisis stage, then we act. EDWARDS: And that's what's, by the way -- if we can just little elevation on this... KIRTZMAN: Not much, Senator. EDWARDS: One of the most serious problems with this with this administration is they talk about a doctrine preemption. How about a 11:07:49 doctrine of prevention, where America leads and stays engaged with this problems? KIRTZMAN: Reverend Sharpton, you've been patient. SHARPTON: First all, I talked with the opposition leaders and 11:07:59 President Aristide by phone this week. Second of all, I've been to Haiti several times. And I think that I'm speaking as one who has been close to this situation more than anyone on this stage. One of the things I think we're seeing (inaudible) is that we only want certain people to talk, but we want everybody to vote. And we need to rid ourselves of that. What we need to do, first of all, is allow Haiti to have the resources. The World Bank had approved a $500 million loan that this country has blocked. That's one. RATHER: Was that the Bush administration or the Clinton administration? SHARPTON: This administration, as well as prior administrations, should have made sure the World Bank loans had gone through. The resources were available. You almost set up a situation where Aristide had to fail. Now, Aristide... 11:08:47 BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton, can we just go to domestic politics for a moment? SHARPTON: No, we're going to finish on this. BUMILLER: I would... SHARPTON: If you don't want us to participate, say that, ma'am. I listened to them go back and forth. BUMILLER: Let's go back to Haiti. SHARPTON: Let's deal with Haiti. I think that what we're trying to say is that the president... BUMILLER: No, no. Mr. Kucinich, would you like to say... 11:08:58 SHARPTON: ... should not come now, late, after he ignored what was going on all along. And I think that it is too little too late to just talk about military action. RATHER: Congressman? 11:09:11 KUCINICH: I'd like to answer your question directly. What the president is advocating, in terms of international intervention, is the right thing to do. Now, let me talk to you about what I would do as president, in terms of creating a Department of Peace, a Cabinet-level position, where you would track the kind of percolation of conflict that goes on and intervene in a nonviolent way before it gets out of hand. I mean, we need to take a prospective look at all of our international relations. RATHER: Senator Edwards, we need to move on. We have a lot of 11:09:37 ground we want to cover. We could spend this whole hour talking about Haiti and, I think, substantively so. EDWARDS: Yes. RATHER: But we're a couple days away from possibly decisive Super Tuesday. There are any number of voters out there who are in the process of making up their minds. RATHER: Is there any question that you can ask Senator Kerry, speaking directly to him, that you think is important for those voters who haven't made up their mind, are in the process of making up their mind, to draw him out on some difference between the two of you? Or are you in the position of saying, "Listen, it's late on, and I'm pretty much playing for vice president now, and I don't want to ask him the tough questions"? 11:10:16 EDWARDS: Oh, no. Oh, no, no. Far from it. I think there are tough questions. Let me tell you what I think, first of all, the fundamental difference is between John Kerry and myself. And then I'll ask him a question if you'd like me to do that directly. The fundamental issue in this election is whether the people of this country believe that we're going to get change that originates in Washington or change that has to come from out here in the real world. And the differences between us on this -- I have multiple examples; I'll just give you one. John Kerry has said he and I are in the same position -- we have basically the same position on trade. That's not true. We have a very different record on trade. But more importantly, my approach to trade is fundamentally different than his. What he has suggested is that when he becomes president, he'll set up a committee to study for 120 days our trade agreements to see what needs to be done. Now, in the real world, in Ohio, if you live in Ohio and you lose your job during that 120 days, think about that. What you're going to say to a family that's lost their job because of bad trade agreements is, "Don't worry, we've got a Washington committee that's studying this for you." I mean, what we should -- we know what's wrong with these trade agreements. They need to be changed. The president of the United States needs to be willing to change them. 11:11:28 (UNKNOWN): Senator Edwards, can I just ask, if you lose all 10 primaries on Tuesday, are you still in this race? 11:11:33 EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am, I'm going to be... (CROSSTALK) (UNKNOWN): Why? EDWARDS: Because the American people deserve this choice. And we are a very different choice, for the reasons we just talked about. 11:11:43 RATHER: I'd like to hear your question to Senator Kerry. 11:11:46 EDWARDS: My question is, do you believe we're going to change this country out of Washington, D.C.? 11:11:51 KERRY: Yes, because that's where the Congress of the United States is, and that's where 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is. And the answer is, we're going to need a president who has the experience and the proven ability -- proven ability -- to be able to stand up and take on tough fights. Now, I just listened to John talk about Washington, D.C. Last time I looked, John ran for the United States Senate, and he's been in the Senate for the last five years. That seems to me to be Washington, D.C. Secondly, when he tried to say there's a difference between us on trade just now, he said there's a difference in the record versus what we're going to do. That's not what people are looking for. 11:12:33 On the record, I have consistently fought to put in the trade agreements enforceable measures that allow us to stand up and fight for workers. In the China trade agreements, which incidentally John voted for, we have anti-surge, anti-dumping provisions. The president hasn't enforced them. Moreover, John has just misrepresented the position that I've taken. KERRY: I am not only going to have a 120-day review of every trade agreement, so that we have smart, thoughtful people look and see what's working and what isn't working, but he knows very well that I have also pledged for a number of years that we should have no trade agreement that does not also have labor and environment standards contained within it. Now, that's exactly the same position... 11:13:20 RATHER: Senator, you look nervous over... 11:13:23 EDWARDS: He is dead wrong. Dead wrong. If you look at -- I mean, it's all fine to say, "Going forward, this is what I'm going to do." But what you've done in the past gives some indication to the American people about what you're, in fact, going to do. Let me just give you some differences between us on the record. There's no way to dispute this. First, I voted against final fast track authority for this president to continue to negotiate these trade agreements; he voted for it. I voted against the Singapore trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the African trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the Caribbean trade agreement; he supported it. It's just simply not the truth... (CROSSTALK) 11:14:06 EDWARDS: If you'll allow me to finish. These are great arguments about what he intends to do going forward. But it's similar, for example, Senator Kerry has consistently said that he can pay for all the things that he's proposing and substantially reduce the deficit, I think I've heard him say cut it in half, in his first term. Well, The Washington Post today just analyzed his proposals, and its the same old thing. Here we go again. In fact, in fact, he overspends, in terms of being able to pay for all of his proposals, he overspends by $165 billion in his first term, which means he would drive us deeper and deeper into deficit. My point is very simple about all this. This is the same old Washington talk that people have been listening to for decades. They want something different, Dan. RATHER: Let me give Senator Kerry a chance to respond to... KUCINICH: Dan, let's talk about the same old Washington... KERRY: Wait, wait, can I respond, Dennis... 11:15:05 KUCINICH: No, this is my turn. And I'm saying that we could talk about the same old Washington talk, but with all due respect, John, you told the New York Times that NAFTA should exist. And I think that NAFTA should not exist. Now, when we're going back to what both, you know, Senator Kerry and you are -- and we've been back on it a lot. Senator Kerry, you knew full well that when NAFTA was passed, and when the WTO passed, that it was written specifically so as not to provide for workers' rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. It's kind of like crying crocodile tears for workers, after millions of jobs have been lost in this country, to say, "Well, we're going to fix it." The fact of the matter is, the WTO does not permit any modification. It was written that way. And so I've said as president I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO, and go back to bilateral trade, which will save those jobs in Ohio. RATHER: Let's give Senator Kerry a chance to respond. 11:15:55 KERRY: Well, yes, we need to go on, but these are central issues. KERRY: And John has just made some very important statements, and I want to respond to them. I think John would have learned by now not to believe everything he reads in a newspaper. And he should do his homework, because the fact is that what's printed in The Washington Post today is inaccurate. A stimulus is by definition something that you do outside of the budget for one year or two years. The Washington Post included the stimulus when they figured the numbers. The stimulus is what you do to kick the economy into gear so that you can reduce the deficit. 11:16:40 Secondly, they did not include the reduction of the $139 billion of the Medicare bill which I have said I am sending back to Congress because it's a bad bill. I voted against it, it's bad. Now, when you add up my stimulus that's outside of the budget and the Medicare numbers that they didn't even include, you do not go over, I do not spend more... BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, let me... KERRY: No, no, I insist on being able to finish. 11:17:06 BUMILLER: I want to ask a really important question. KERRY: This is important. (CROSSTALK) 11:17:12 SHARPTON: If we're going to have a discussion just between two -- in your arrogance (ph), you can try that, but that's one of the reasons we're going to have delegates, so that you can't just limit the discussion. And I think that your attempt to do this is blatant, and I'm going to call you out on it, because I'm not going to sit here and be window dressing. BUMILLER: Well, I'm not going to be addressed like this. SHARPTON: Well, then, let all of us speak. (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: I want us to be able to respond, or then tell us you want a two-way debate. 11:17:45 RATHER: Here's where the thing is. We certainly want to hear, I think you will agree, the voters have spoken. 11:17:52 SHARPTON: No, the voters have not spoken. We've only had -- he's won one primary. He's come in fourth seven times. BUMILLER: How many delegates... SHARPTON: What you're trying to do is trying to decide for the voters how we go forward. The voters need to hear this morning from four candidates, or say the media now is going to select candidates. 11:18:07 RATHER: Reverend, we've heard from you, we're going to hear from you. I don't understand what the argument is. SHARPTON: I had to fight to speak on Haiti, I had to fight to speak on trade. You got a guy with one primary that you're pretending he's -- Gary Hart won more primaries than Mondale. 11:18:12 Let's have an open debate and go into Super Tuesday, or say that you guys want to decide the nominee. 11:18:25 RATHER: Reverend, debate them, not me. SHARPTON: If I get time, I would love to do that. RATHER: You've been on, but the clock's been running on you. I wanted to hear what you had to say... KERRY: Can I just finish? RATHER: Finish what you have to say, Senator, then we're going to go to Reverend Sharpton. 11:18:33 KERRY: On trade, there is no difference between what John Edwards would do today and what I would do today. And to listen to John try to carve out this -- what I think is sort of a protectionist point of view in the past, actually is not documented by the record. John Edwards has been in the Senate for five years. He's talked more in the last five weeks about trade than he has in the entire five years. KERRY: The fact is that he didn't vote in the 1994 election when he had a chance to vote about trade. He didn't talk about it, against it, in his election in 1998 when he ran for the Senate. And he went to The New York Times last week and said that he thought that NAFTA, in fact, was good for the prosperity of our country. 11:19:22 RATHER: Senator, I'm going to call time. KERRY: I think you have to be consistent in this... EDWARDS: After Reverend Sharpton speaks, I deserve a chance to respond to that. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:19:28 SHARPTON: I think that, again, NAFTA and the WTO were wrong from its beginning. You cannot change it; you must rescind it. It has cost thousands upon thousands of jobs. We talk about it being a "patriotic" thing to protect American businesses, but we call it "protectionism" to protect American workers. I think there are a lot of differences among us. I think clearly Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards voted for the war. They support trade agreements. They supported what I think is the most anti-civil rights act of our time, the Patriot Act. But I also think that that's why we have a convention, that's why we have delegates, that's why we'll come to a consensus and have a candidate to beat Bush. But as long as we try to stifle the discussion, it feeds into the Ralph Naders of the world that say the only way to deal with this is to leave the party. KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards, didn't you tell The New York Times editorial board last week that your plan would not, in fact, significantly cut the export of jobs? 11:20:26 EDWARDS: No, what I said was we need a trade policy in this country that works for American workers, that allows them to compete. I want to go back to something that the senator... KIRTZMAN: Before you do, though, are you saying flatly now that your NAFTA proposal would stem the flight of jobs abroad, and by how much? EDWARDS: I think it would help. Not just NAFTA, I think that all our trade policy can have a significant impact on the outflow of jobs, plus our outsourcing policy. Taking away, for example... 11:20:36 KIRTZMAN: Can you quantify it somehow? EDWARDS: No, of course not. There's no way to do that. What we 11:20:52 know is there are millions of jobs leaving, millions of jobs leaving this country. We need a trade policy and a tax policy that allows American workers to be competitive. But you've got to give me just at least 60 seconds to respond to what Senator Kerry said. The suggestion -- the suggestion -- that I came late to this? I 11:21:27 want to say to Senator Kerry, I have lived with this my entire life. I saw what happened when the mill in my hometown closed that my own father worked at. I respect your -- you have a right to have a different view than I do. But to suggest for a moment that this is not personal to me? I have lived... KERRY: I never said that. I never said that. EDWARDS: Excuse me, if you'll let me finish, I have lived with this my entire life. I have seen the effect not just on the economy, but on the families who are involved when families lose jobs. RATHER: Senator, can I come back... EDWARDS: This is something I take very seriously and very personally. And there is, in fact, a significant difference between us on our records. BUMILLER: Can I just change the topic for a minute, just ask a plain political question? 11:21:43 The National Journal, a respected, nonideologic publication covering Congress, as you both know, has just rated you, Senator Kerry, number one, the most liberal senator in the Senate. You're number four. How can you hope to win with this kind of characterization, in this climate? 11:22:00 KERRY: Because it's a laughable characterization. It's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life. BUMILLER: Are you a liberal? KERRY: Let me just... BUMILLER: Are you a liberal? 11:22:12 KERRY: ... to the characterization. I mean, look, labels are so silly in American politics. I was one of the first Democrats in the United States Senate in 1985 to join with Fritz Hollings in deficit reduction. Now, does that make me a conservative? I fought to put 100,000 police officers on the streets of America. Am I a conservative? BUMILLER: But, Senator Kerry, the question is... KERRY: I know. You don't let us finish answering questions. 11:22:28 BUMILLER: You're in New York. (LAUGHTER) 11:22:31 KERRY: Well, I'm going to fight for it. And that's exactly what I'm going to do, I'm going to fight for it. BUMILLER: All right. KERRY: Do you know what they measured in that? First of all, they measured 62 votes. I voted 37 times; 25 votes they didn't even count because I wasn't there to vote for them. Secondly, secondly, they counted my voting against the Medicare bill, which is a terrible bill for seniors in America, they called that being liberal. Lots of conservatives voted against that. In addition, they counted my voting against George Bush's tax cut that we can't afford. I thought it was fiscally conservative to vote against George Bush's tax cut. They call it liberal. BUMILLER: Is this a helpful characterization in this campaign? 11:23:14 KERRY: I think it's the silliest thing I've ever heard. 11:23:18 KUCINICH: Let me answer directly. I'm liberal, and I'm co- chairman of the Progressive Caucus in the United States Congress. And as such, I stand for full-employment economy, universal health care, protection of Social Security, canceling NAFTA and the WTO, creating a Department of Peace. These are the kinds of things that relate to creating a sustainable society where people can have peace and prosperity simultaneously. 11:23:39 RATHER: Congressman, do you consider Senator Kerry a liberal by your definition? KUCINICH: I think it's important to hear how the senator describes himself. RATHER: But my question is, how do you describe him? Is he a liberal? KUCINICH: I don't think so, because he voted for the war. He voted for the Patriot Act. He supported NAFTA and the WTO. I would say that... RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, do you consider Senator Kerry a liberal? 11:24:00 SHARPTON: No. I think that anyone -- if you want to use George Bush as the definition of conservative, most of America is liberal now, because most of America would vote against Bush. (LAUGHTER) So in that broad definition, he is. But I think that compared to some of us, no. I think we've made ourselves clear on that. But I don't think -- "liberal" is going to lose this dirty name in 2004, because George Bush has so let down what conservative -- I remember when conservatives were respectable. BUMILLER: Thank you, yes. RATHER: Senator Edwards, I want to... 11:24:31 EDWARDS: May I respond to just to this question, Dan... RATHER: Sure. EDWARDS: ... because all three others have. RATHER: Well, I'm coming to you. Are you a liberal? EDWARDS: I don't believe anybody -- this is actually a subject that John and I agree about. I don't think anybody in America cares about what some inside-Washington publication says about your ideology. What they care about is: What are your values, where you come from, what do you believe in, and who are you fighting for? And do you understand the real world and the problems that people face every day in their life? That's what the people of the United States are looking for. KIRTZMAN: Let me pick on that. 11:25:04 EDWARDS: This president... KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards... EDWARDS: ... this president does not understand what's going on in people's lives. EDWARDS: He is completely out of touch. I wish he would so one day what the four of us do every single day, which is go out, campaign, conduct town-hall meetings, not ticketed events, not when you make people pay $2,000 to get in the door, but actual real people and listening to what their problems are. This president does not know what's going on in the real world. KERRY: Can I say one other thing? RATHER: If it's brief. KERRY: Well, I will be brief. But is this president a legitimate Republican or conservative? Because there's nothing conservative about driving deficits up as far as the eye can see. There's nothing conservative about trampling on the line of division between church and state in America. There is nothing conservative about letting your attorney general trample on civil liberties and civil rights, and be twice cited by his own inspector general for doing so. This administration is extreme. And I believe we're offering America mainstream American values. 11:26:03 RATHER: But, if you will, Andrew has a question and I wanted to get to it. But I let me pick up on that and what Senator Edwards said. The latest poll I've seen shows that a combination, that a Kerry- Edwards ticket or an Edwards-Kerry ticket, would at this moment get more votes than a Bush-Cheney ticket. It would be stronger than either one of you, Senator Kerry or Senator Edwards, running alone, and Reverend Sharpton, with you or the congressman alone. My question is, Senator Kerry, are you prepared here and now to say, if you get the nomination, you will run with John Edwards and that's a strong ticket? 11:26:43 KERRY: No, and I don't think John Edwards would be prepared to say that he would necessarily run with me. RATHER: Would you, Senator Edwards? EDWARDS: I think there's no way to say that. We're still in a fight for the nomination. KERRY: We're vying for the nomination. 11:26:56 KUCINICH: And let me say why neither Senator Kerry nor my good friend, Senator Edwards, would be appropriate as nominees: Because they supported the president on the war, said there were weapons of mass destruction, which you actually embroidered, Senator Kerry. And you know what? Think of the 2004 debate, standing next to President Bush where he says, "Oh, look, I said there were weapons. Senator, you said there were weapons. I was for the war; you supported the war. I was for the occupation; you supported the occupation. And Senator, thank you, you want to send more troops to the armed services." You know what? I'm in the best position to challenge this president, because the war should be the singular issue. They lied to get the American people to accept the war. We have 130,000 troops there who are still at risk. We've spent over $200 billion of money that's needed for our domestic agenda. Over 10,000 Iraqis have lost their lives. I mean, this war ought to be the single issue. And frankly, John... BUMILLER: Let me ask a question about Iraq. I have an Iraq question. KIRTZMAN: This morning you have -- go ahead. (LAUGHTER) KERRY: You're having to work to get in. (LAUGHTER) KIRTZMAN: Tough crowd. 11:27:44 Senator Edwards, through the campaign, and again this morning, you have spoken very eloquently and movingly about the fight against the rich and the powerful on behalf of the working class. And yet, you yourself are rich and powerful. You're worth upwards of $36 million. KIRTZMAN: You have a $4 million house in Georgetown, a $1 million beachhouse in North Carolina, a $1 million home in Raleigh. Do you think your supporters know that you live this way? 11:28:20 EDWARDS: Well, first of all, in fairness, if you're going to list our assets, I hope you'll list John Kerry's too... (LAUGHTER) ... because he's got a lot more than I've got. CROSSTALK) EDWARDS: Here's the truth. The truth is that I come from the same place most Americans have come from. I grew up in a family where my father worked in the mill, working -- didn't make me any different than most people in this country. I mean, he worked hard, he had a high school education. I was the first person in my family to go to college. KIRTZMAN: But they've heard that part, but have they heard the other part, is the question. KUCINICH: Why should that disqualify him? I mean, that's crazy. You know what? He has spoken... (CROSSTALK) KUCINICH: John, let me defend you on this. (LAUGHTER) Because I'm saying that the fact that he's speaking about these issues relating to two Americas, that there's poverty in this country, and those issues ought to be addressed, I'm glad you're talking about it, John, and I... 11:29:11 SHARPTON: And I am, too. But I think, Andrew, the point is... (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: I will let you finish, like you did me. I think the point is, though, the reason I say there's more than two Americas is because he could come from there to where he is. And many of us can't because of other obstacles: because of race, because of sex, because of sexual orientation. So the reason I disagree with just two Americas is, he could go from a mill to $36 million. Many people can't do it. And I might add, there was nothing more biased in the South than some of those mill towns, where some of us couldn't even work in the mills. So I think that his story should be told, but it should be told in the broader context of why everyone can't have the same kind of achievement. (CROSSTALK) 11:29:55 KIRTZMAN: I've got to interrupt you, because Dennis was defending... (CROSSTALK) 11:30:01 KIRTZMAN: I will give you the turn. I just want to remind you of the question that I... EDWARDS: I remember the question. KIRTZMAN: Do you think your supporters know you live this way? EDWARDS: Yes, sir, I think that most of them do. They know I've done very well. And the truth is this. Let me just put this in the simplest terms I know how. I come from the same place that most Americans come from. I am running for president of the United States so that millions of American get the same chances that I've had. I mean, it's just that simple. And Al Sharpton is completely right about one thing. This is not just wealth and class. It's race -- we have two health-care systems in America. We have two public school systems. We have two governments, one for the insiders and the lobbyists and one for everybody else. What this is about for me, in its simplest terms, is trying to make sure that other Americans get the same chance that I've had. I don't want to see us, those of us who've had the great luck to have done pretty well in this country, to pull the ladder up behind us. We want to make it available to more people, no matter where they live, who their family is or what the color of their skin is. 11:30:58 BUMILLER: Senator, let's move this around the world to Iraq for just a minute. KERRY: Can we also move it around the table? (LAUGHTER) BUMILLER: I'll ask you, and then I'll ask the Reverend Sharpton. As you know, Iraq is to begin ruling itself on June 30th, when the U.S. is transferring authority. Now, there's a lot of people in Washington and Baghdad who are saying this is completely set on a political timetable at the convenience for President Bush. Should we put off the June 30th transfer? 11:31:23 KERRY: I think the transfer should depend entirely on the ability to guarantee a stable Iraq. It should not be set arbitrarily, certainly not by an election date. What is critical is that you have... BUMILLER: Is that a yes or no? 11:31:37 KERRY: It's, obviously, it's a... BUMILLER: It's a what? KERRY: You should put it off if it's needed to be put off. I mean, look, if the date works, terrific. But the test is not a date. The test is the stability and viability of Iraq. And what is critical... BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton, what do you think? 11:31:54 SHARPTON: I think the date was set for political reasons. If it, by some miracle -- and I don't foresee it -- that we could see a stabilized enough situation to meet the date, we should do it. But I don't see how we can do it. I think I am part of those that think that this was set in time for the '04 election, time for George Bush, when he's trailing in the fall, to say that they're already in self-government, and try to take it off the table. I think that we cannot take Iraq off the table. I think the president misleading the country, and those that supported his misleading it, while hundreds of thousands of us marched, must be a central issue in the fall campaign. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards? 11:32:32 EDWARDS: First of all, I think the date has now been embraced by the United Nations. The key to this is that there be legitimacy. There will not be legitimacy as long as this to the Iraqis has the stamp, "Made in America." This has to be changed. And in order for it to be changed, the United Nations has to be involved in setting up this provisional government. That way, it'll be more acceptable to the Iraq people, more acceptable to the rest of the world. KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards... 11:32:58 EDWARDS: And the administration, by the way, the Bush administration, is completely responsible for us being in this place. They have squandered our credibility around the world, which is why we're in this place. RATHER: Just before you answer, let me remind people who may 11:33:13 have just turned in, we have just passed the halfway mark. We're roughly 33 and a half minutes into an hour program with the four remaining contenders to the Democratic presidential nomination. Now, Congressman, the question is whether you think that date should be postponed. 11:33:26 KUCINICH: Well, I'd say that the date is not as significant as the fact that the United States wants to maintain control over the oil assets of Iraq, wants to privatize Iraq, run the contracts in Iraq and continue an occupation of Iraq. See, that's the key issue. Because you have 130,000 troops there. You have all kinds of families who are wondering when are my sons and daughters, mothers and fathers going to come home. And you know what? I've been the only one up here to, throughout this whole campaign, talk about a specific plan for withdrawal. We have to find a way to bring U.N. peacekeepers in and to bring our troops home. And that's what we ought to be talking about here. I mean, it would be good to hear from Senator Kerry, who the other day said that there's a right way and wrong way to do it, and that we're in there for the long haul -- it'd be good for you to tell the American people what are you going to do with those other 40,000 troops you say you're going to bring in the first 100 days? And also, are you going to have a draft? Are you going to get us out of Iraq, or are you going to be the Democratic version of the Republican war that you voted for? 11:34:29 KERRY: No, I'm not going to have a draft. Yes, I will get us out of Iraq. KUCINICH: How? KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000. That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country. KUCINICH: How are we going to get another 40,000 troops, John? 11:34:57 KERRY: Dennis, I laid out -- I think I was the first United States senator to stand up and lay out a very specific plan for how you approach the rest of the world and bring them to the table with respect to Iraq. And the way -- you can't just cut and run, Dennis. KUCINICH: I've never suggested that, John. KERRY: Well, then, you've adopted my plan, because my plan... KUCINICH: No, John, I've... 11:35:22 BUMILLER: Can I ask a more personal question about Iraq and funerals? Could I just -- let me just ask that, because... KERRY: But wait a minute, we actually have an issue that's on the table here, and I'd like to finish it. BUMILLER: Can you do it quickly? 11:35:31 KERRY: There is a better way to do what George Bush is doing, which is to bring the international community in. He refuses to share responsibility in the reconstruction. He refuses to share responsibility for the decisionmaking of the transformation of the country. And both of those are prerequisites to being able to get other countries to share in the responsibility. BUMILLER: OK. KERRY: And what is incredible is that all of Europe has a huge interest in not having Iraq as a failed state on its doorstep, all of the Arab countries have a huge interest in not having a failed Iraq... BUMILLER: Let me... KERRY: ... as their neighbor, and notwithstanding... BUMILLER: Senator... KERRY: ... the president has none of them legitimately involved. BUMILLER: Thank you. 11:36:07 Here's the question. As you well know, more than 500 American men and women have died in Iraq, and the president has been criticized for not attending a single funeral. Now, the argument of the White House is that he can't attend one without attending them all. KERRY: I disagree with that. BUMILLER: What would you do? 11:36:23 KERRY: That is just profoundly wrong. I've talked to a number of families, many families, and those families have said to me, you know, we haven't really from the president or anybody, why can't you make phone calls to those families? 11:36:36 BUMILLER: How can you go to 500 funerals and be president? 11:36:37 KERRY: You don't go to 500 funerals. But you can certainly say to people -- and it shows respect to all the families, if you pick a funeral, go to that funeral. And then, you know what else... SHARPTON: Or reach out to the families. (CROSSTALK) BUMILLER: The president does do that. 11:36:52 SHARPTON: I preached at one of the funerals of one of the young men killed, Darius Jennings. It's not about going to all of the funerals, it's showing compassion. These people lost their lives in the service of this country. The real question, though, is why they lost their lives in the first place. And that's why I said we've got a debate out in this party. There were those that supported the president doing that. You can't give a man a blank check, and then go back and ask how come there's no money in the account. They gave him a blank check. He used it. 11:37:25 KUCINICH: There's a point that's being missed here, and the point that's being missed is, we should be taking action to make sure there are no funerals. SHARPTON: That's correct. KUCINICH: We should be bringing our troops home. KIRTZMAN: OK, fair enough. Fair enough. Everyone... (CROSSTALK) KERRY: ... allowing those those caskets to be viewed when they come in to Dover Air Force Base... BUMILLER: Well, do you think they should be photographed when they come back? 11:37:39 KERRY: I think you should give them full honors after their return to the United States. KIRTZMAN: OK. Fair enough. Fair enough. Senator Edwards, one of the main issues of the general election is going to be whether the president can keep you safe. There has not been a terrorist attack on United States soil for two-and-a-half years since the destruction of the World Trade Center. Now, is that just luck, or can you credit President Bush with that? 11:38:02 EDWARDS: Oh, I think -- first of all, I don't credit the president. I think there are a number of things that the administration and the Congress have done that have moved the country in the right direction toward keeping the American people safe. We have not done enough. There are a whole group of things that need to be done to keep the American people safer. KIRTZMAN: Has George Bush kept the country safe, in your opinion? 11:38:21 EDWARDS: No, that's what I'm trying to tell you. I think there are a whole group of things that we need to do in addition to what's being done now. For example, a better job at our ports. We have thousands of containers coming in every day. We inspect 4 or 5 percent of them. All of the experts tell us if we don't inspect at least 10 to 20 percent, it's very difficult to have a deterrent effect. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are extraordinary vulnerable. But by the way, this is a perfect example of Bush being married to special interests, because the chemical industry -- what happened was, they recognized the problem that I recognized, and others, about the vulnerability of chemical plants. We have over a hundred... KIRTZMAN: But put yourself in the place... EDWARDS: You just asked -- you just asked me what he's not done... KIRTZMAN: We just have limited time, so we want to try to give everybody... 11:39:02 EDWARDS: ... you'll let me finish this, please. This is a perfect example of what this administration does. We have chemical plants, over 100, any one of which, if they were attacked, could cost a million lives or more. All of us recognized this was a problem. We wanted to take action. The chemical industry pushed back, lobbied against it, and the Bush administration caved. 11:39:23 KIRTZMAN: With all due respect, Senator, I'm trying to get to the bottom line of my question, though... EDWARDS: Yes, sir. KIRTZMAN: ... which is that the typical American, when he or she goes to a voting booth in November, has got to make a bottom-line decision: Who is going to keep me safe? Now, we've got Bush in the White House already or a one-term senator who doesn't have that much foreign policy experience. Number one, how do you convince that person that you can keep him as safe or safer than Bush? And number two, would you consider running with a running-mate, perhaps, who has more foreign policy credentials than you do to make up for that deficiency? 11:39:53 EDWARDS: First of all, there is no deficiency. The issue here is not the length of your resume. The issue is the strength of your vision, what it is you believe needs to be done to keep the American people safe, convincing them that -- for example, when I have been campaigning around the country, I have consistently asked to groups of people, "What would you do differently today than you would have done on September 11th if a terrorist attack occurred in your community?" EDWARDS: People don't have a clue. They have no idea what they're supposed to do. KUCINICH: Well, there's another aspect to that. (CROSSTALK) 11:40:24 EDWARDS: Excuse me, if I could -- I'll finish. In 30 seconds, I'll finish. But that's a perfect example of what's happening in the real world -- not in Washington -- in the real world. People do not know what needs to be done. They don't how to respond if an attack occurs. They don't know, in fact, if an attack occurred in the middle of night, how they're going to find out about it. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? SHARPTON: I think that the first thing you've got to deal with, Andrew, on that question is we've got to finish investigating what 11:40:43 happened 9/11 to find out if the Bush administration could have done more to avoid that attack. I mean, maybe I missed something here, but that attack happened under George Bush. It didn't happen under someone else. So are you now suggesting that Bush's answer to Americans are, be glad you're alive? I mean, I think that that is absurd. I think that we need to finish investigating what happened 9/11, could this administration have done more, before we start giving them bouquets and talk about... 11:41:19 KIRTZMAN: It's an interesting point. It's an interesting -- well, let me just pivot off of what Sharpton says, an interesting point. Do you agree with Wesley Clark that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the World Trade Center attacks? 11:41:27 KERRY: I think we could have done -- absolutely, we could have done more. No question about it. But we should have done more since then, too. And let me just say something. We've spent -- this debate is now getting towards its end. We're in New York City. Fifty percent of the African-Americans in New York City are unemployed between the ages of 16 and 64. One of the things the president could have done in order to make this city more safe, frankly -- he's only given it one-tenth of the money that they need with respect to protection of water supply. He's cut $250 million for firefighters. They're cutting firefighters and closing firehouses. They're cutting the COPS program. There's a $5 billion to $6 billion deficit in the state of New York. The governor, therefore, has started to raise taxes or cut services. George Bush's priority: tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. My priority: a $50 billion fund as a tax relief education fund, which is part of the stimulus counted in my numbers... 11:42:23 BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a... KERRY: Can I finish? KIRTZMAN: You haven't gotten the direct answer... KERRY: I'd like to finish. (CROSSTALK) KUCINICH: You haven't gotten a direct answer on this, and I want 11:42:31 to answer you directly. This is about national security. And you asked the question, essentially, are we safer? And I will submit to you, we are not. We are not safer, because we attacked a country that did not attack us and have created a resurgence of Al Qaida as a result. We are not safer, because we don't know about 9/11 because the commission can't even get the information from the White House. RATHER: Thank you, Congressman. KUCINICH: Excuse me. We are not safer because the president has a doctrine of unilateralism and preemption and is building new nuclear weapons, sending a signal to the rest of the world that they better watch out, and follows up in saying, "You better get us first before we get you." BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a question... KUCINICH: We're not safer. 11:43:07 BUMILLER: ... about likeability. You know, even your Democratic fans say that the president beats you hands down on likability, which, like it or not, is a major factor in a television era. So what have you learned from your -- one of your competitors, John Edwards, about campaigning and what's important in a 2004 race? 11:43:32 KERRY: Actually, Elizabeth, I learned it from the people who I've campaigned with all across the country. I learned it in Iowa, and I learned it in New Hampshire. And I think the reason I've won 18 or 20 contests so far, and I'm now campaigning hard to win others, is that give me a living room, give me a barn, give me a VFW hall, give me a one-on-one, and I think I can talk to anybody in this country. BUMILLER: Senator Edwards, what do you think... KERRY: And that is precisely what I'm doing today and precisely what I'm going to keep doing. 11:44:05 RATHER: If I may, Elizabeth, let me ask Senator Edwards the same question in a somewhat different way. EDWARDS: Yes, OK. RATHER: I want to use a Texas expression here. We know... EDWARDS: Somehow I knew this... (LAUGHTER) RATHER: No, but, in understandable terms, we're dealing with something really important here. That is, who is going to run against George Bush in November. We're talking the presidency of the United States. But we know that likability, as Ms. Bumiller said, is very important to the campaign -- charisma, whatever you want to call it. 11:44:44 Does Senator Kerry have enough Elvis to beat George Bush... (LAUGHTER) ... enough excitement factor, enough charisma, enough likeability? You know what I'm talking about, and people in North Carolina and elsewhere will know what I'm talking about when I say, "Does he have enough Elvis," because when he gets down to November, a lot of people are going to vote on who they like the best, whether we want them to vote that way or not. 11:44:59 EDWARDS: Yes. Let me answer your question directly. First of all, I know John Kerry. I like him very much. And he and I have known each other for years. Here's what I would say, though, in answer to both of your questions. I don't think this is a personality contest. I think what people are looking for in a president is somebody who, when they hear them speak, speaks their language, understands what their lives are like, shares their values. And I sometimes hear journalists say, "Well, you know, the people who vote, they just don't understand the issues well enough. They don't understand the subtleties of the difference between you and John Kerry at the fourth level of tax policy." Well, here's the truth about that. The truth about that is the American people get it right. What they know is they know in their gut when somebody's telling them the truth. They have a radar for the truth, and they know who they can trust. They know whether you're honest and sincere, and whether they can rely on you and trust you... 11:46:03 RATHER: But excuse me, one second... EDWARDS: But that, I think -- if I could just finish -- that, I think, is the ultimate issue. When they look in your eyes, when they hear what you have to say, do they trust you, and do they want you to be their president? RATHER: Let me call time out for just one second, because this is necessary. We are inside roughly the 13-minute mark here, and I have to do something now that I wish I didn't have to do. I wish we had the rest of the afternoon to talk about it, but we need to pick up the pace in these 13 minutes, because there are any number of subjects that we have not covered. So, let me, with your permission, change the subject very quickly. I do ask for brevity here. We'll try to work everybody in. But, Senator Kerry, what's wrong with gay marriage? 11:46:30 KERRY: I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a personal belief. RATHER: Well, what's wrong with a man and a man committing to each other for life? 11:46:40 KERRY: What I think -- I think it's a distinction between what you believe the institution of marriage is, but what's important, Dan, is that you give people rights. I'm for rights, not for terminology or status -- rights. RATHER: But who does it hurt, Senator? KERRY: I think all -- that's not the issue. The issue is... RATHER: Well, that's the question. KERRY: ... are we prepared to provide rights to all Americans, so that they share the same rights as other people, not the same terminology or status? I believe that the right, the spousal rights -- the right of inheritance, the right with respect to taxes, the right with respect to visitation in a hospital -- there are a whole series of rights. I am for those rights being afforded to every single American without distinction. KUCINICH: May I respond? RATHER: But who does it hurt, Congressman? 11:47:29 KUCINICH: First of all, I'm glad that Senator Kerry says he's for rights. I think it would be instructive to review the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, because I think that many Americans believe that equality of opportunity should not be denied on account of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. And so what we're really talking about is having people be able to avail themselves of the same protections of civil law, that 1,047 different protections that people have when they're married, and to enable those privileges to be extended to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. This is really about who we are, not just as a party, but as a nation. And we have to show capacity to expand. And I think any of us who are up here should be willing to take a stand on behalf of those people who are about to be excluded by the president of the United States from the protection... (CROSSTALK) 11:48:24 KIRTZMAN: I'm kind of curious, Senator Kerry. If one of your children came to you and said, "First of all, I'm gay; second of all, I've met someone of the same gender that I want to marry," would you go to the wedding? Would you respect that relationship? 11:48:41 KERRY: I've been to the wedding of somebody who has gotten married who's gay, and I just happen to have a different opinion about what you call it and what the status is. But I believe they deserve all the rights, all the support, all the love, all the affection, all of the rights that the state can afford. That's why... (CROSSTALK) 11:48:59 KERRY: That's why I am for civil union. That's why I'm for partnership rights. That's why I'm for even the federal extension, with respect to tax code and other rights. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:49:08 SHARPTON: I think that's states' rights. I think you cannot have any civil or human rights left up to the states. RATHER: So you're for a constitutional amendment? SHARPTON: I am for the constitutional right for human beings to decide what they want to do with human beings. Which is why I think the likeable thing is one issue here, is not who runs against the president, it's what runs against the president. RATHER: All right, let me again move on... SHARPTON: And I think what must run against the president is the rights of American citizens to have fair and equal rights. RATHER: Let me just say... BUMILLER: Let me ask John... 11:49:39 EDWARDS: Can I just say, though, how extraordinarily political what this president is doing is. I mean, here -- first of all, there's no issue... BUMILLER: No, no. Here's the question. EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am. 11:49:47 BUMILLER: Do you see a difference between gay rights and civil rights? Why is one right a federal right, and the other one you're saying leave it to the states? What's the difference here? 11:49:54 EDWARDS: Here's what I say. I say that the federal government plays an important role in civil rights and in gay rights. I believe the federal government should recognize what the state, who has forever, now, decided what constitutes marriage... BUMILLER: Why is there a different standard here? 11:50:09 EDWARDS: But wait a second, wait a second. We're talking about what the definition of marriage is, which is something that has always been decided by states, not rights. Now, see, this is one place that actually Senator Kerry and I largely agree. If we're talking about a bundle of rights, with what rights you'd get under federal law for partners, the problems with adoption... 11:50:27 SHARPTON: But they used to say that blacks were three-fifths of a human. What do you mean? Are gays and lesbians human or not? 11:50:33 EDWARDS: Of course they're human. SHARPTON: Then why can't they have the same human rights? 11:50:39 BUMILLER: I hate to ask this question because I never get an answer, but what is the difference between a gay marriage and a gay civil union, when you have heterosexuals getting married at city hall, and there's no religion involved and it's called a civil ceremony? What is the difference? 11:50:47 SHARPTON: They say you can shack up, just don't get married. That's the difference. RATHER: If I may, we need to move on. BUMILLER: But the answer? 11:50:54 EDWARDS: The answer is, I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be respected. I think they're entitled to rights. And that's what I think the role... BUMILLER: But you just can't call it marriage. EDWARDS: I think it's for the states to decide that. RATHER: We're at 11:51 eastern time. We are all going to get criticized if we don't move to at least some foreign policy questions. Senator Kerry... KERRY: What about the economy, health care, education... RATHER: I wish we had another three hours. Here's the question... (CROSSTALK) 11:51:20 RATHER: I want to talk about North Korea. You're president of the United States, and you get information, absolutely unequivocal information, that the North Koreans, not only do they nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver those nuclear weapons, but that they are real and present threats to Japan and some of their neighbors (ph). Are you prepared, under those circumstances, to move and move decisively with American military power? 11:51:44 KERRY: Of course I'd do whatever is necessary to protect the security of the United States of America. Bill Clinton moved quite authoritatively when the Straits of Taiwan were being threatened by China. I would do the same thing. KERRY: But here is what is important with respect to North Korea. I believe that between China, Japan and South Korea and our own interests, and the state of the economy in North Korea and their own interests, there is a deal to be struck. And what is quite extraordinary is that this administration did not follow up on the extraordinary work of Bill Perry, of Bill Clinton, President Clinton, and the work that they did to actually get inspectors and television cameras into the Pyongyang reactor. Now they're gone. This administration has made the world less safe because they were unwilling to continue that dialogue. RATHER: Senator Edwards? KERRY: I will go back immediately to that dialogue. And I believe we can avoid the very situation you describe. 11:52:39 BUMILLER: But, Senator Kerry, they did make some progress this weekend in those talks. How can you... KERRY: Yes, but, Elizabeth, let me tell you something. The 11:52:44 progress is so minimal, it is so slow, and it's begrudging. And they are not doing the kind of direct, head-to-head negotiations. And I have said that I would put all of the issues of the peninsula on the table, not just the nuclear issue, but the economic, the human rights, the deployment of forces. There are major issues there... RATHER: Senator Edwards, is this talking the question to death? 11:53:04 And as president, would you be prepared to commit American military power to subdue North Korea under the circumstances I outlined? 11:53:13 EDWARDS: I would never take that option off the table. I think the starting place, the starting place -- first of all, these negotiations that have just taken place, and John mentioned all of the countries -- Russia, in addition to that -- that were participating in these discussions, we need all of these countries involved. But the problem is, we weren't leading the discussions. We were sitting in the background. The South Koreans were making proposals; others were making proposals. We weren't leading. The reality is that this is a serious, serious threat. They have allowed this to get to crisis situation. I said that at the very beginning about the whole problem with Haiti. This is a pattern. This is not an isolated incident. This is a pattern. Now we're in crisis, and now they're doing something. But why 11:53:55 was Colin Powell not there? Why were we not seriously leading these negotiations? What we need is we need to demand that they stop their nuclear weapons program. We need to have absolute ability to verify that that's occurring. And we need to be willing to give something in return. 11:54:13 KUCINICH: And in order to have credibility, in order to have credibility, John, we should be canceling our nuclear programs. We're building new nuclear weapons. How can we tell North Korea, you shouldn't have a nuclear program... BUMILLER: Let's move on... RATHER: Sorry, I have to call a television time-out here. KUCINICH: Dan, we have to work for nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear abolition. And as president, I would meet with the leader of North Korea and assure him that we mean North Korea no harm; he can put away is weapons. We need to do that with the whole... 11:54:36 RATHER: Congressman, what I need to do is to point out that we need a two-minute drill here now. We're inside the two-minute mark. If we have a two-minute grill, please. The fence or wall in the Middle East -- the Israelis say it's a fence, the Palestinians call it a wall. Senator Kerry, what do you call it? 11:54:53 KERRY: A fence necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate. RATHER: Reverend Sharpton? 11:55:00 SHARPTON: I think it's a fence, but I think that we must keep Palestinian rights in mind. SHARPTON: And I think it will not work unless we have cooperation of all sides, and we not in any way, shape or form have an unbalanced Middle East policy that we've had so far. RATHER: Fence or a wall? 11:55:15 EDWARDS: It is a fence, both symbolically and in reality. There are only a very few miles of it that are made of concrete. And the Israelis have the right to protect themselves. And I agree that until we get to the place that they have a real partner, which America has to play an enormous role in, they're entitled to build the fence. RATHER: Congressman? 11:55:34 KUCINICH: When Israel builds something on its territory, it's a fence. But when they build something on the Palestinians' territory, it's a wall. And I think that we need to help bring the parties together, for peaceful coexistence and restart the peace talks. RATHER: I want you to keep in mind, we have about a minute-15. Ms. Bumiller? 11:55:54 BUMILLER: Really fast, on a Sunday morning, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on America's side. Really quick, is God on America's side? 11:56:07 KERRY: Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence. BUMILLER: Senator? 11:56:27 EDWARDS: Well, there's a wonderful story about Abraham Lincoln during the middle of the Civil War bringing in a group of leaders, and at the end of the meeting one of the leaders said, "Mr. President, can we pray, can we please join in prayer that God is on our side?" And Abraham Lincoln's response was, "I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side." 11:56:47 SHARPTON: And I think that's the point... BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton? SHARPTON: I think it's important we're on God's side, as I said earlier, that we must (inaudible). But I also think we've got to heal this president from feeling like he and America is the same thing. God is on America's side. That does not mean He supports what George Bush... RATHER: Fifteen seconds, Congressman. 11:57:05 KUCINICH: We need to break the spell of fear which is over this country. Remember where we come from as a country. When Francis Scott Key wrote that "Star-Spangled Banner," he made the connection when he said, "Does that star-spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave?" The connection between democracy and courage. I would call out the courage of the American people, and defend our rights, cancel the Patriot Act, reestablish the fullness of our democracy. 11:57:28 RATHER: Congressman and Senators, Reverend, our time is up. We want to thank the Democratic candidates for president, all of you, for joining us here today, and particularly for participating in this kind of discussion. Senator John Kerry, Senator John Edwards, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton. 11:57:44 President James Madison once said, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with knowledge." We hope we've added some of that this morning. Thank you all very much. END
Iraq Briefing - US military official on Fallujah attack
TAPE: EF04/0208 IN_TIME: 10:21:07:02 DURATION: 02:10:04 SOURCES: APTN RESTRICTIONS: DATELINE: Baghdad - 16 Feb 2004 SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of Coalition press conference 2. Cutaway security 3. SOUNDBITE: (English), Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Director of Coalition Operations: "Here you have a case with a large number of paramilitary forces that looked like they had prior paramilitary training and used some level of skill and military tactics. That would cause us to lean first towards former regime elements, former military but then there was some other intelligence tippers that we got in terms of who we captured, how we captured and what we captured that doesn''t make it as conclusive. So (we have to be) a little bit ambiguous on this one, but first leanings are towards former regime elements." 4. Cutaway journalists 5. SOUNDBITE: (English), Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Director of Coalition Operations: "There were initial reports that some of the people either wounded or killed were of foreign nationality. I think that was probably some of the initial reports that came in, but I can tell you the reports that we got from the 82nd (US Airborne Division) indicates that they were all Iraqi citizens. That may turn out not to be the case after the investigation but right now, the sensing of the commander on the ground was that these were all Iraqi citizens." 6. Wide of presser 7. SOUNDBITE: (English), Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Director of Coalition Operations: "Four people that were attempting to break out, I''m not sure if they were Iranians, these were people who were being held in the local jail because they fired on an ICDC (Iraqi civil defence) bus the week before. There''s still much that we don''y know about that incident but as regards to why didn''t the security forces go check, as matter of fact we had an MP unit that was moving through the town that actually was stopped and took rocket propelled grenade fire and they were pinned down, but it also important to understand that the entire operation conducted against the IPS (Iraqi police) on the order of 15 minutes. This was a very well trained unit that came in, did their business and got out very quickly." 8. Cutaway presser 9. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt and Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor STORYLINE: A senior US officer said on Monday it appeared all the attackers wounded or killed in a weekend raid in Fallujah were Iraqis, despite reports that foreigners including Lebanese and Iranians were involved. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt also said a number of Iraqis were undergoing questioning in connection with the attack, including the mayor of Fallujah who had submitted his resignation a few days before the Saturday attack. Kimmitt acknowledged that initial reports spoke of foreigners having taken part in the Saturday attack, in which 25 people were killed in simultaneous attacks on the police station and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps compound. Iraqi authorities said two attackers were captured and at least four were killed. "The reports that we''ve gotten from the 82nd (Airborne Division) indicate that they were all Iraqi citizens," Kimmitt said of the killed and captured attackers. He said the final report could have a different finding "but right now the sensing of the commander on the ground was these were all Iraqi citizens." Kimmit also said there were indications that the attack may have been staged to free four Iraqis held for firing at an Iraqi civil defence bus. On Sunday, US administrator Paul Bremer repeated claims that foreign fighters were involved in the Fallujah attack. However, US military officials said privately they doubted the attack was carried out by foreign fighters or al-Qaida terrorists but rather by veterans of Saddam Hussein''s army.
MEDICINE AND THE CULTURE WAR DOCTORS WHO ARE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
FTG FOR DAN HARRIS CS VO ON THE GROWING RANKS OF DOCTORS WHO REFUSE TO PRESCRIBE THE MORNING AFTER PILL TO PATIENTS BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THEIR RELIGION BELIEFS / INTV W/ JENNIFER PIZER, SENOR COUNSEL AT LAMBDA LEGAL Jennifer Pizer Interview Sr. Counsel, Lambda Legal 1:00:54 This case is about a patient, Lupita Benitez, who has a common infertility problem and through her health care, she was referred to a specialist - an infertility specialist. There was only this one clinic that was in her health plan and so she went there. They accepted her as a patient. However, in the first interview with the doctor that she was assigned to, she was told that the doctor would only give her some of the treatment that she might need. And the doctor was very up front about this - 10132 this is a doctor who describes herself as a Christian fundamentalist and the doctor said she would provide some treatment but she wouldn't do an insemination for Lupita because Lupita is lesbian (13) and 10146 in California, there are civil rights laws that require that everybody be treated the same - by doctors and by other kinds of businesses in the state. (8) So this is a case about the right of everybody to be treated as equals (14) and that 10202 religion is very important, but it doesn't give anyone the right to engage in anti-gay discrimination. (6) 1:02:20 the California Supreme Court has agreed to take this case, and we're doing a briefing now. The court has looked at similar types of issues in the past and has decided in a number of different cases that religious belief is protected but conduct based on religious belief has to be within the limits that apply to everyone. So the California Supreme Court I think recognized that there was a question here about the right of doctors to have rights of conscience that are very important, but 10252 a belief about a procedure is one thing and beliefs about different types of people are different (6) and that's the question the Supreme Court will be looking at now - the appropriate freedom to believe, but the requirement that everyone be treated equally. 1:03:19 we're a very diverse country and California is particularly diverse. Religious pluralism is obvious and very important and we celebrate religious pluralism and we also celebrate the diversity of types of people in our society. So 10333 the issue here I think is very clear. 10336 all of us have a right when we go into a doctors office to expect that we will be treated based on our medical needs, not based on somebody else's religious judgment about who we are. (13) I really hope and believe the Supreme Court understands this principle of equal treatment for all and that this case is about protecting religious belief as very important and also requiring equal treatment, equal conduct, for all of us. 1:04:11 well, we're looking at a legal issue here - we're trying to get the legal issue decided before a trial so that the judge will understand what the rules are that would apply here. We know that there is a lot of discrimination in this country against lesbians and gay men and we also know that it's very important that religious belief be respected. So we hope that the Supreme Court will give clarity here, as it has in other cases and to really reinforce the idea that we all are entitled to be treated equally and that religious belief can be respected without permitting people to harm each other. A big fear here is that if the Supreme Court doesn't give clarity that we will see more harm, more discrimination in the name of religion - and that's terribly damaging. I think we can all look around the world and unfortunately look around our own country - and see how much harm, how much injury to people is being done based on religious belief - based on religious differences - and what's allowed our country to thrive has been the basic principle that we can respect each other's beliefs and yet have a rule of equal treatment. So let me just say that maybe a slightly shorter way. 10538 the principle here that needs to be upheld is that in a religiously diverse and socially diverse society, we can respect religious beliefs and yet have clear civil rights laws (12) We can't have people hurting each other and discriminating against each other in the name of religion. Our society has come to be strong and successful by respecting differences and ensuring that businesses - including doctors' offices - are open to all on equal terms. 10611 No matter what anybody's religious beliefs, we need to have equal treatment for everyone, especially in the doctor's office (7) 1:06:40 doctors certainly have ethics and freedom of conscience as anyone else in society does. At the same time, I think the law has been clear and needs to be clear in this instance - that 10654 a religious believer has a responsibility to choose a way to make a living that the person can do in conformance with the laws that apply to everyone (10) an example that I might give you is that 10706 if a doctor has a sincere belief that blood transfusions are against God's will, that person should not be a surgeon (8) 10715 there's a basic duty that the doctor has to choose an area of practice that the doctor can do without causing harm to other people (15, 7) - and discrimination is harm, let's have no confusion about that. And so 10728 these doctors chose to practice infertility medicine, rather than general medical care or general obstetrical care. 10736 They chose to practice a specialty in fertility medicine that involves certain procedures. 10742 If they can't do those procedures based on medical need, their religious beliefs require them to discriminate, they need to not be engaged in that particular specialty field (9) they don't have to stop being doctors - they said their religious belief had to do with this particular procedure. Well if they have brought on themselves a clash between their own religious views and what society requires - and what medical ethics requires - they need to not do that procedure. An example might be that there is a freedom of religion not to perform abortions, for example. And yet 10819 if a doctor were to object to doing that procedure based on the race or religion of the patient with the sincere belief that their religion tells them they have to make that distinction, they can't be engaged in the practice of medicine. (15) It's medically unethical to discriminate and it's also against the civil rights laws. 1:09:10 I would say you have to look at the laws that we have and the civil rights laws are very specific - they talk about personal characteristics that are inherent to a person - race and religion, national origin, sexual orientation - are covered; owning slaves is not covered and in fact it's against all of our laws in our constitution. I think there is an interesting question whether anyone has to provide equal services to somebody who breaks the law - and certainly a slaveowner breaks terribly important laws and there are other laws that we have and the civil rights laws do not require equal treatment of criminals. But Lupita Benitez is not a criminal and lesbians and gay men as a group are not criminals, and that's part of the problem here is distinctions that go against the laws of having society be open to all and sort of confusing things that are based on somebody - you know, breaking the law is a serious thing. 11008 Lupita and her longterm partner Joanne wanted to start a family. They love each other, they've been together for a long time and Lupita had a medical condition. There's nothing illegal about her. And when people's religious views make judgments, pass judgments on other people who are good people, law abiding people who just want to have medical treatment and start a family - we have a real problem and that's when, that's when discriminatory religious views need to give way to medical ethics and civil rights laws. 1:11:32 well, let me give you another example - and I do think this case is important because these issues are on the minds of many people in our country right now. Imagine the doctor who has sincere religious beliefs that all women must be covered from head to toe, mustn't reveal their faces, and that their religious belief causes them to feel that they should not treat a woman who doesn't dress that way, who walks in without her head covered, for example. 11203 The doctor may have that sincere belief, but the doctor doesn't have the right to place that belief on other people. (5) Religious beliefs are really very diverse, and of course, many people would believe that their religion teaches them that they should not interact with people of different religions. 11219 If we allow that type of religious belief to trump the civil laws that apply to everyone, our society will become very factionalized (9) and so - if a doctor has a religious belief that, about, that has to do with reproduction and treating families, that doctor needs to be practicing an area of medicine where the doctor can treat everyone equally. If there's a conflict between those beliefs and the laws that apply - that regulate that particular area of medicine, 11253 the doctor needs to follow the rules that are there to protect third parties. It isn't requiring that the doctors give up the doctor's beliefs, but those civil laws are there to protect all of us (11) because any of us may have religious beliefs that would draw us to cause harm to others - and as I said, discrimination is a harm - we know that from American history. At different times, there have been different groups that have been particularly vulnerable to discrimination - the core lesson, though, is there to protect all of us. In a sense to protect all of us from each other because religious beliefs are deeply held and sometimes people cause harm to others in the name of religion. That's something I think America, if you will, has learned the hard way. And it's a lesson that we need to hold dear. Gay and lesbian people are entitled to be treated as equals and in particular to have medical needs addressed as medical needs, based on their own medical needs, not based on somebody else's religious views. 11357 If a doctor sincerely believes that the doctor cannot treat everybody equally, then as I said, they need to select an area of medicine where they can help people, they can deal with medical problems, they can make a living - but without causing harm (15) and of course there are many, many areas of medical need that doctors can specialize in without dealing with these questions about infertility, creating children, having families. This isn't to say everyone has to have the same views about family, but it is to say that doctors need to practice medicine. 11431 Doctors are given a license by the state to practice medicine, not to engage in religious worship and not to be meting out different kinds of religious judgment (9) that affect other people. They can hold those beliefs themselves, but they have a duty not to impose those views on others when it violates civil rights laws - and medical ethics, as well. 1:15:15 START BROLL OF JENNY. 1:18:30 START VS EXTERIORS OF NORTH COAST WOMEN'S CARE, MEDICAL CLINIC WHERE LUPITA WAS REFUSED TREATMENT
John Ashcroft Farewell Ceremony 1430 - 1530
Attorney General John Ashcroft Farewell Ceremony at the Justice Department. January 24, 2005 Slugged: 1430 ASHCROFT x86 US Attorney General Ashcroft Farewell Ceremony, Assistant Attorney General Dan Brians, Karen Tandy Administrator Drug Administration 14:45:34 please join in me and bureau of Honor Guard 14:45:57 friends w/ attorney general for 54 years.University Pastor, spends time leadership. Dr. Fowley(?) 14:46:29 Shall we pray. Heavenly father, more secure being in the universe. A day for gratefulness, a day for achievement, a day for closure. 14:48:16 we are privileged to have leaders,,,no better place to begin than Robert McKell(?) 14:48:40 leadership at the department of justice. Speak of a great man, right man to lead this dept. of justice in one of the most critical times in history. Truly remarkable, legacy of success, what would've been considered impossible goals. Perspective passage of time, fully realize what he has done for all of us. Lowest crime rate in 30 years. Financial markets, affected prosecutions of corporations, to an astounding 5.7 billion dollars, increase of more than 20%. More civil penalties, clean air enforcements, can go on and on. No further terrorist attacks 14:50:15 dismantle, and disrupt terrorist threats, rather than merely.always seeks to deflect credit. "heavy lifting" however, we recognize, his responsibility for this record, tradition of excellence. Provided us with courageous.respect for the rule of law. Job for the leader to lead. Done it magnificently. Based on what is right, inaccurately characterized, political opponents and media, secure from further attacks, proper ballots enhances and improves national security. 14:51:38 constantly challenged us after 9/11 attack. Think outside the box, never outside the constitution. Reminded us, greater good we're serving. Touch our hearts, energized our efforts. Strengthen commitments. 14:52:32 been a distinct honor to serve under this general, high point of my career. My leader, colleague, my friend. Join me in thanking him. Godspeed in all of his future. 14:53:01 (Shakes hands with Ashcroft, people standing up clapping) 14:53:26 Paul Clemente(?) 14:53:50 9/11, before 9/11 14:54:52 constitutional duties.faith in the constitution separation of powers, successfully defended. 14:55:32 great challenge.everything possible to prevent another attack. He did so at this cost. 15:00:09 future information, days weeks, months after 9/11. Remember at ground zero, at the Pentagon, flight 93 in shanksville, PA. I will remember our morning meetings, we would spend our time together to meet the President, during the day. Know the attorney general as the man of principle, forceful advocate, we in the FBI, General Ashcroft, been instrumental. 9/11 attacks, he has enable us to do our jobs more effectively. Patriot Act, most valuable, vital tools need to fight the war of terror. Locate terrorist cells. Days, months years, remark on 3 aspects of the man. 15:02:06 never head a person who is better at inspiring others when it come to freedom. Speak so eloquently. Ask questions for variety, not so much to get answer, but to assure you are asking those questions. I come out and scratch my head why didn't I think to ask those questions. 15:03:13 gen. Ashcroft says, "we're living in the era, the values we hold as Americans.under assault in the world. We have learned a great lesson..must be defended, not just military, but with deeper devotion." Demonstrated deeper devotion, to a steadfast leadership. True patriot, committed leader, friend of FBI, honor and privilege. Thanks, and wish him and his family all the best. 15:04:37 represent out unites states attorneys 15:05:01 on behalf of the US attorneys, thank John Ashcroft for his commitment 15:05:17 Ashcroft has led by example, devoted his entire life to public service, 15:05:34 he instilled in each attorney the importance of our roles in our communities, we knew early on that we would be led by a man and strength 15:05:56 I am certain there is not a single attorney who left a meeting uncertain. 15:06:30 one of the first things he did after joining the dept of justice, was to redefine 15:06:43 combat drug traffic, children exploitation 15:07:02 crime is down to a 30 year low, relentless, keeping illegal guns off the streets 15:07:22 attorney general john Ashcroft, president bush called all federal prosecutors 15:07:37 responsibility to defend America, courageously fought to stop terrorism 15:08:01 I think that we would all agree, leaving the department of justice in much better condition than he left it. 15:08:37 the first one is easy, from the executive office of attorneys, 15:08:57 your strength, efforts to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans 15:09:18 (presents the award), walk across to the other side of the stage 15:09:42 this was a gift that the US attorneys decided upon, In the wake of September 11th, 2001, we are proud to have served such a distinguished leader. Asst. attorney DAN BRIANS 15:10:43 colleagues, we gather today to thank, atty. Gen Ashcroft 15:11:25 apparently he wants to spend more time spying on his family (joke) 15:11:41 a real john Ashcroft is an extraordinary man, warm and light hearted, he's been known to let loose with a pun, focused and hardworking, 15:12:17 half the people in this room, he wiggles his toes, and balances them against each other 15:12:37 competitive, basketball bruises, willing to take himself out of the game, family man.. 15:12:57 he's efficient, known to detour, careful and prudent, ride dirt bikes, known to ski like a maniac, feels the need for speed 15:13:24 formidable thinker, content to build something with his hands, routinely writes a note to someone he's never met. 15:13:50 to know General Ashcroft is to know someone who is passionate about freedom 15:14:09 distinguished career of public service, great cause on which he has spend himself 15:14:26 William Haslett observed that the love of freedom. 15:14:43 every life matters, each has profound dignity, potential, 15:15:00 to honor and thank you, our great privilege to follow you, you leave behind a legacy of inspiration 15:15:22 no one can guarantee success in war, you have labored, well deserved. 15:15:59 KAREN TANDY, food and drug administration 15:16:11 you have set the bar very high for us, helped us all achieve it. 15:16:28 along the way we have been inspired by your courage and integrity, safeguard the citizens of this country 15:16:48 you can't put two women at the top, as he id just that, along with that first came other firsts 15:17:17 it would have been so easy for any attorney general to put the drug enforcement battles on autopilot, but not this general, a rich legacy in the drug enforcement arena 15:17:50 exacting accountability systems, will long stand after all of us 15:18:05 lastly and more importantly, glorious success with 600,000 fewer teenagers turning to drugs 15:18:32 never before in the history of our nation brought a war, a certainly no attorney general since the civil war had to wrestle with such complex issues 15:19:05 general Ashcroft stood firm, that our nation has ever faced, much less the department of justice 15:19:24 with incredible integrity, confidence and bravery, despite personal risk 15:19:53 and when at some future date, whether in our brief span of service, our responsibilities to the state 15:20:16 first, were we truly men of courage, judgment, integrity, were we truly men of dedication, the answer to each of those questions is a resounding yes 15:20:44 for the privilege and honor for sharing this slice of history with you, thank you. 15:21:15 which we actually ran out of room to put the accolades from the news media, 15:21:34 along with a rather large DEA badge, you steadfastly, studied wisdom and bravery 15:22:01 we will eventually win against the dark forces of terrorism and drug trafficking 15:22:34 DR PAUL COURTS 15:25:16 we are so very very far from where we were in 2001, 15:25:38 in the state of Missouri, so he pays great attention to the audit, this year although we were thrown a curve ball, insisted that we will get this right, so we have privately pledged, that we stick with this so that the attorney general can have 4 clean audits. 15:26:41 every person, issues that hit really at home like paycheck, that we care for the people of justice, as they care for this land 15:27:04 a display of pictures throughout the building, a big picture contest, ability to represent the American people 15:27:28 common folks, pictures of folks all over the building remind us who we serve 15:27:42 we need to express what it is we are about here, by featuring people, things around our country, we seek to serve the dept of justice 15:28:24 been the kind of leader for all of us, and I congratulate you 15:28:51 the assistant attorney general has given a. wrapped it too well 15:29:21 among the many things, (Ashcroft holds up the seal) 15:29:44 badges, to present this shadow box with badges of the agencies here at the department of justice.
1992 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
17:59:49 CONCLUSION OF BOB MILLER SPEECH. 18:00:14 (VIDEO) CU HEALTH CARE SIGNS. CU BLACK MAN. MS BLACK MAN AND WOMAN JUMPING. MS CONGA LINE. VS DELEGATES CLAPPING. 18:02:25 (AUDIO) BEGINNING ROBERTA ACHTENBERG OF CALIFORNIA SPEECH. CALLS FOR JUSTICE. 18:03:56 (VIDEO) MS CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:04:00 (AUDIO) FAIR ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES. PLATFORM PROMISES JUSTICE. 18:04:42 (VIDEO) MS WOMAN W/ T SHIRT READING VERMONT, 100% HEALTH CARE. MS SIGN CALLING FOR LESBIAN AND GAY RIGHTS. 18:05:23 (AUDIO) CALLS FOR GAY RIGHTS, AIDS RESEARCH. PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS. 18:05:54 (VIDEO) GAY RIGHTS SIGNS. 18:06:01 (AUDIO) GAYS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SERVE IN MILITARY. WOMEN FORCED FOR RIGHT TO CONTROL OWN BODY. AS LESBIAN AND JEW HAD TO FEAR FOR SAFETY. 18:07:06 (VIDEO) MS WOMAN W/ GAY RIGHTS SIGN. 18:07:24 (AUDIO) WE YEARN OF R OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THESE THINGS REALIZED. CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THESE THINGS HAPPEN. 18:08:06 (AUDIO) BEGINNING CONGRESSMAN FERNANDO FERRER SPEECH. GEORGE "WHAT RECESSION" BUSH COMMENTS. TAX BREAKS FRO PRIVILEGED BUDDIES. JOBS FOLLOW BUSH LEAD: GOING OVERSEAS. 18:09:16 (VIDEO) MS BLONDE WOMAN. 18:09:24 (AUDIO) PRESIDENT OF HOOVER. 18:09:42 (VIDEO) MS GRAY HAIRED WOMAN. 18:09:49 (AUDIO) GEORGE HERBERT HOOVER BUSH COMMENTS. 18:10:30 (VIDEO) MS HISPANIC MAN AND WOMAN. 18:10:45 (AUDIO) SORRY, OUT OF MONEY. PEROT NOT OFF EASY. PEROT SINGLE LARGEST WELFARE RECIPIENT. 18:11:17 (VIDEO) CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:11:22 (VIDEO) RICH RICHER, POOR GETTING SHAFT. BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE POISED TO LEAD WITH VISION OF HOPE. INCLUDING, NOT EXCLUDING. NEW ROAD MAP. 18:12:27 (VIDEO) SIGN READING GEORGE HERBERT HOOVER BUSH. 18:12:44 (AUDIO) BEGINNING KIKA DE LA GARZA SPEECH. SPEAKS OF COMMITMENT TO FARMERS. SAFEST AND MOST AFFORDABLE FOOD SUPPLIES. 18:13:52 (VIDEO) MS BLACK WOMAN W/ BUTTONS. 18:14:01 (VIDEO) CU NAPA VALLEY SIGN. 18:14:16 (AUDIO) COMMENTS ON SUBMARINE STAYING UNDERWATER. FARMERS AND RANCHERS DID IT BECAUSE THEY COULD STAY UNDER AS LONG AS THEY HAD FOOD. 18:15:44 (VIDEO) MS HEALTH CARE SIGNS. 18:15:52 (AUDIO) VIVA BILL CLINTON , VIVA AL GORE . 18:16:02 (AUDIO) PELOSI INTRO RESPONSIBILITY SECTION OF PLATFORM. MAKE MOST OF OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED US. NEW SOCIAL CONTRACTS. 18:17:02 (VIDEO) MS WOMAN READING. 18:17:07 (AUDIO) BEGINNING MIKE ESPY SPEECH. 18:17:36 (VIDEO) WE LOVE ESPY SIGNS. 18:17:46 (AUDIO) RECANTS STORY OF YOUNG WOMAN SAVING FOR COLLEGE. 18:18:10 (VIDEO) CU CLINTON PLAYING SAX T SHIRT. 18:18:20 (AUDIO) WELFARE SYSTEM THAT PENALIZES THOSE THAT WANT TO DO BETTER. PLATFORM OFFERS CHANCE TO MOVE OUT OF POVERTY. NEW SOCIAL CONTRACTS. TICKET OFFERS 18:20:19 (VIDEO) MS MIDDLE AGED WOMAN. 18:20:29 (AUDIO) THESE THINGS ARE GOOD FOR SANDRA ROSADO, MISSISSIPPI, GOOD FOR US. 18:21:00 (AUDIO) BEGINNING DAN MORALES SPEECH. WE STAND ON EDGE OF NEW FRONTIER. INGENUITY LED TO MOON AFTER KENNEDY CHALLENGE. 18:22:14 (VIDEO) SIGN FOR DC STATEHOOD. 18:22:26 (AUDIO) AS CHIEF LAW ENFORCER IN TEXAS, IMPORTANT TO ENFORCE SYSTEM SYSTEM MORE CRIMINAL THAN JUST. 18:23:21 (VIDEO) MS JACKIE MASON ON CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:23:30 (VIDEO) GENERATION OF VICTIMS. 18:23:54 (VIDEO) VS DELEGATES IN HATS AND T SHIRTS. 18:24:21 (VIDEO) RIP RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS OF DC SIGN. 18:24:39 (VIDEO) CU YOUNG GIRL. 18:24:49 (AUDIO) WINSTON CHURCHILL QUOTE.MUST SHOW THEM RESPONSIBILITY MORE THAN BLAMING OTHERS. DON'T POINT FINGERS. 18:25:33 (VIDEO) SIGN FOR DAN MORALES. 18:25:41 (AUDIO) BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE WE WILL SUCCEED TOGETHER. 18:25:53 (VIDEO) MS TEXAS DELEGATES . 18:26:05 INTRO AND BEGINNING ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON SPEECH. PROUD TO BE AMERICAN. 18:26:47 (VIDEO) SIGNS FOR DC STATEHOOD. 18:26:56 (AUDIO) CALL FOR DC AS 51ST STATE. DEMOCRAT MORE THAN A NAME. COMMITTMENT TO GIVING NEW MEANING TO DEMOCRATIC. EMBRACED EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS. WE ARE PARTY OF PEOPLE , PARTY OF REFORM. 18:28:12 (VIDEO) CU BLACK MAN IN HAT. 18:28:23 (AUDIO) OVER SHOULDER OF CROWD. REPUBLICANS BREED CYNICISM. DEMS MUST BEGIN NEW BY ADMITTING NEW STATE TO UNION. TO LATE TO ACCEPT COLONIAL RULE. NO PAY FEDERAL TAXES WITH NO VOTE IN HOW SPENT. GIVE US A PRESIDENT WHO'LL SUPPORT FAIRNESS AT HOME. 18:30:44 (VIDEO) DC DELEGATES W/ SIGNS FOR STATEHOOD. 18:31:03 (AUDIO) BEGINNING GASTON CAPERTON SPEECH. STARVATION CAUSED BY INADEQUATE EDUCATION. 18:32:21 (VIDEO) MS WOMEN IN AUDIENCE. 18:32:37 (VIDEO) CU WOMAN W/ NEA HAT. 18:33:21 (VIDEO) MS BLACK AND WHITE WOMAN TALKING. 18:33:58 (VIDEO) WEST VIRGINIA SIGN EDUCATION FIRST. 18:34:13 (AUDIO) WVA PROPOSED EDUCATION SYSTEM SECOND TO NONE. NEED SOMEONE WHO'LL JUST DO IT. LEADER OF SUBSTANCE. 18:35:51 (VIDEO) MS WEST VIRGINIA DELEGATES . MS MAN W/ YARMULKE. 18:36:29 (AUDIO) DEM PARTY OF EDUCATION AND RECLAIM PLACE OF HOPE, OPPORTUNITY. 18:36:51 (VIDEO) CU WEST VIRGINIA DELEGATES . 18:37:15 (AUDIO) BEGINNING MARCH FONG EU SPEECH. EXPAND NOT SHRINK ELECTORATE. DEMS NOT AFRAID OF ORDINARY PEOPLE EXERCISING RIGHT TO VOTE. 18:38:19 (VIDEO) MS CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:38:34 (AUDIO) CITIZENS NOT DENIED RIGHT SINCE WORK FOR GOVT. 18:39:00 (VIDEO) MS MAN IN GREEN HAT. 18:39:15 (AUDIO) DEMS VOW TO OPPOSE PRESSURE GROUPS TRYING TO PASS ENGLISH ONLY LEGISLATION. 18:39:51 (VIDEO) CU BLACK WOMAN FIXING MAKEUP. MS WOMAN BUTTON HAT. 18:40:14 (VIDEO) STOP RACISM NOW SIGN. 18:40:27 (AUDIO) BEGINNING HOWARD DEAN SPEECH. ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOU WERE FOUR YEARS AGO. 18:41:24 (VIDEO) WS DELEGATES . 18:41:31 (AUDIO) SEEM WHAT HAPPENS WHEN KIDS NOT IMMUNIZED. 18:41:49 (VIDEO) CU DR. DEAN SIGN. 18:41:55 (AUDIO) SPEND MONEY ON AIDS RESEARCH, FAMILY PLANNING. WHO UNDERSTANDS HEALTH NEEDS, BUSH OR BILL CLINTON ? 18:42:31 (VIDEO) CU SMILING WOMAN FACE. 18:42:51 (AUDIO) WHILE BUSH AND QUAYLE FISHING, BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE WORKING. 18:43:18 (AUDIO) BEGINNING MARY LANDREAU SPEECH. 18:44:20 HARDSHIP OF AMERICAN FAMILY AND LIVING ON BUDGET 18:44:36 WHAT WOULD JEFFERSON SAY SIGN CU 18:45:08 CU MAN IN SUIT LAUGHING AND SHAKING HEAD 18:45:19 BILL CLINTON PLANS AND POLICY AS CHANGE FROM BUSH 18:45:41 BILL CLINTON IN CONTRAST TO BUSH 18:45:50 EDUCATION AND JOB CREATION, LOW TAX BURDEN IN AK 18:46:03 CU ELDERLY BLACK FEMALE DELEGATE 18:46:19 WE LOVE LANDREAU SIGN 18:46:35 END MARY LANDREAU SPEECH 18:46:46 INTRO TO WELLINGTON WEBB BY ROY ROMER 18:47:12 HEAL DIVISIONS THROUGH UNITY BUT DIVERSITY 18:47:47 PEOPLE FIRST 18:47:57 ROMER SHAKES HANDS WITH WEBB 18:48:10 BEGINNING WELLINGTON WEBB SPEECH 18:48:33 MENTIONS JULIA NEPTUNE, SINGLE MOTHER IN DENVER 18:49:03 JULIA'S STORY 18:49:07 WEBB SIGNS HELD BY SUPPORTER 18:49:29 JULIA AND CHILDREN AND HARDSHIPS 18:49:40 JULIA'S WISDOM, COURAGE, PRUDENCE 18:49:50 CU DELEGATE PICKING HIS TEETH 18:49:58 JULIA'S PERSEVERANCE IN RAISING CHILDREN AND IMPROVING LIFE 18:50:18 DIFFICULTIES NOT HER FAULT, WASN'T GOING TO STAY ON WELFARE 18:50:32 JULIA'S JOB 18:50:36 CU HEALTH CARE OUR FAMILIES CAN AFFORD SIGN 18:50:52 JULIA'S STORY IS REAL STORY OF AMERICA 18:51:08 JULIA'S A SURVIVOR NOT A CHEAT 18:51:20 GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T KNOW THEY EXIST 18:51:28 CURRENT ADMINISTRATION DISMANTLES SUPPORT SYSTEM, ABANDONS THOSE WHO NEED ASSISTANCE 18:51:54 MUST HELP PEOPLE BECOME SELF RELIANT 18:52:04 DELEGATES WITH WEBB SIGNS 18:52:24 AMERICA FORSAKEN BY BUSH AND QUAYLE 18:52:38 PULL AWAY NEW JERSEY DELEGATION TO WEBB AT PODIUM 18:52:53 BILL CLINTON IS CONTRAST 18:53:02 END WELLINGTON WEBB SPEECH 18:53:09 JILL LONG APPROACHES PODIUM AND WAVES 18:53:23 BEGINNING JILL LONG SPEECH 18:53:30 INDIANA DELEGATION VS 18:53:42 LONG'S HOMETOWN VALUES 18:53:51 HOOSIER VALUES ARE AMERICAN VALUES 18:54:06 CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS TURNED ITS BACK TO THESE VALUES 18:54:22 CONCERN FOR PUBLIC OPINION NOT REAL PEOPLE 18:54:32 CU WOMAN DELEGATE WITH WHITE HAT 18:54:41 HELEN BROWN, LONG'S FRIEND, AND HER STORY 18:55:14 CU YOUNG MALE DELEGATE IN UNCLE SAM HAT 18:55:26 DEMOCRATS AND THEIR FAITH 18:55:39 QUOTES BIBLE 18:55:45 VICTORY FOR AMERICA 18:55:54 INTRO 18:56:17 BEGINNING BILL JEFFERSON SPEECH 18:56:35 PULL AWAY CONVENTION FLOOR 18:56:45 PO CONVENTION FLOOR 18:56:48 PARTY AND ITS VALUES 18:56:58 I'D RATHER BE AT THE ALL STAR GAME SIGN 18:57:07 DISCUSSES PARTY PLATFORM 18:57:16 CA DELEGATION, I LOVE BILL JEFFERSON SIGN 18:57:30 EMPOWERING OF COMMUNITIES 18:57:36 LA SUPPORTERS 18:57:58 LOUISIANA SUPPORTERS 18:58:11 CU BLACK DELEGATE IN OPEN SHIRT AND GOLD CHAIN 18:58:26 PLATFORM DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN WIN ON 18:58:36 DELEGATES IN MICKEY MOUSE HATS 18:58:50 DELEGATES IN BROWN DERBY (18:59:04)
1992 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
17:59:49 CONCLUSION OF BOB MILLER SPEECH. 18:00:14 (VIDEO) CU HEALTH CARE SIGNS. CU BLACK MAN. MS BLACK MAN AND WOMAN JUMPING. MS CONGA LINE. VS DELEGATES CLAPPING. 18:02:25 (AUDIO) BEGINNING ROBERTA ACHTENBERG OF CALIFORNIA SPEECH. CALLS FOR JUSTICE. 18:03:56 (VIDEO) MS CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:04:00 (AUDIO) FAIR ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES. PLATFORM PROMISES JUSTICE. 18:04:42 (VIDEO) MS WOMAN W/ T SHIRT READING VERMONT, 100% HEALTH CARE. MS SIGN CALLING FOR LESBIAN AND GAY RIGHTS. 18:05:23 (AUDIO) CALLS FOR GAY RIGHTS, AIDS RESEARCH. PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS. 18:05:54 (VIDEO) GAY RIGHTS SIGNS. 18:06:01 (AUDIO) GAYS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SERVE IN MILITARY. WOMEN FORCED FOR RIGHT TO CONTROL OWN BODY. AS LESBIAN AND JEW HAD TO FEAR FOR SAFETY. 18:07:06 (VIDEO) MS WOMAN W/ GAY RIGHTS SIGN. 18:07:24 (AUDIO) WE YEARN OF R OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THESE THINGS REALIZED. CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THESE THINGS HAPPEN. 18:08:06 (AUDIO) BEGINNING CONGRESSMAN FERNANDO FERRER SPEECH. GEORGE "WHAT RECESSION" BUSH COMMENTS. TAX BREAKS FRO PRIVILEGED BUDDIES. JOBS FOLLOW BUSH LEAD: GOING OVERSEAS. 18:09:16 (VIDEO) MS BLONDE WOMAN. 18:09:24 (AUDIO) PRESIDENT OF HOOVER. 18:09:42 (VIDEO) MS GRAY HAIRED WOMAN. 18:09:49 (AUDIO) GEORGE HERBERT HOOVER BUSH COMMENTS. 18:10:30 (VIDEO) MS HISPANIC MAN AND WOMAN. 18:10:45 (AUDIO) SORRY, OUT OF MONEY. PEROT NOT OFF EASY. PEROT SINGLE LARGEST WELFARE RECIPIENT. 18:11:17 (VIDEO) CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:11:22 (VIDEO) RICH RICHER, POOR GETTING SHAFT. BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE POISED TO LEAD WITH VISION OF HOPE. INCLUDING, NOT EXCLUDING. NEW ROAD MAP. 18:12:27 (VIDEO) SIGN READING GEORGE HERBERT HOOVER BUSH. 18:12:44 (AUDIO) BEGINNING KIKA DE LA GARZA SPEECH. SPEAKS OF COMMITMENT TO FARMERS. SAFEST AND MOST AFFORDABLE FOOD SUPPLIES. 18:13:52 (VIDEO) MS BLACK WOMAN W/ BUTTONS. 18:14:01 (VIDEO) CU NAPA VALLEY SIGN. 18:14:16 (AUDIO) COMMENTS ON SUBMARINE STAYING UNDERWATER. FARMERS AND RANCHERS DID IT BECAUSE THEY COULD STAY UNDER AS LONG AS THEY HAD FOOD. 18:15:44 (VIDEO) MS HEALTH CARE SIGNS. 18:15:52 (AUDIO) VIVA BILL CLINTON , VIVA AL GORE . 18:16:02 (AUDIO) PELOSI INTRO RESPONSIBILITY SECTION OF PLATFORM. MAKE MOST OF OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED US. NEW SOCIAL CONTRACTS. 18:17:02 (VIDEO) MS WOMAN READING. 18:17:07 (AUDIO) BEGINNING MIKE ESPY SPEECH. 18:17:36 (VIDEO) WE LOVE ESPY SIGNS. 18:17:46 (AUDIO) RECANTS STORY OF YOUNG WOMAN SAVING FOR COLLEGE. 18:18:10 (VIDEO) CU CLINTON PLAYING SAX T SHIRT. 18:18:20 (AUDIO) WELFARE SYSTEM THAT PENALIZES THOSE THAT WANT TO DO BETTER. PLATFORM OFFERS CHANCE TO MOVE OUT OF POVERTY. NEW SOCIAL CONTRACTS. TICKET OFFERS 18:20:19 (VIDEO) MS MIDDLE AGED WOMAN. 18:20:29 (AUDIO) THESE THINGS ARE GOOD FOR SANDRA ROSADO, MISSISSIPPI, GOOD FOR US. 18:21:00 (AUDIO) BEGINNING DAN MORALES SPEECH. WE STAND ON EDGE OF NEW FRONTIER. INGENUITY LED TO MOON AFTER KENNEDY CHALLENGE. 18:22:14 (VIDEO) SIGN FOR DC STATEHOOD. 18:22:26 (AUDIO) AS CHIEF LAW ENFORCER IN TEXAS, IMPORTANT TO ENFORCE SYSTEM SYSTEM MORE CRIMINAL THAN JUST. 18:23:21 (VIDEO) MS JACKIE MASON ON CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:23:30 (VIDEO) GENERATION OF VICTIMS. 18:23:54 (VIDEO) VS DELEGATES IN HATS AND T SHIRTS. 18:24:21 (VIDEO) RIP RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS OF DC SIGN. 18:24:39 (VIDEO) CU YOUNG GIRL. 18:24:49 (AUDIO) WINSTON CHURCHILL QUOTE.MUST SHOW THEM RESPONSIBILITY MORE THAN BLAMING OTHERS. DON'T POINT FINGERS. 18:25:33 (VIDEO) SIGN FOR DAN MORALES. 18:25:41 (AUDIO) BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE WE WILL SUCCEED TOGETHER. 18:25:53 (VIDEO) MS TEXAS DELEGATES . 18:26:05 INTRO AND BEGINNING ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON SPEECH. PROUD TO BE AMERICAN. 18:26:47 (VIDEO) SIGNS FOR DC STATEHOOD. 18:26:56 (AUDIO) CALL FOR DC AS 51ST STATE. DEMOCRAT MORE THAN A NAME. COMMITTMENT TO GIVING NEW MEANING TO DEMOCRATIC. EMBRACED EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS. WE ARE PARTY OF PEOPLE , PARTY OF REFORM. 18:28:12 (VIDEO) CU BLACK MAN IN HAT. 18:28:23 (AUDIO) OVER SHOULDER OF CROWD. REPUBLICANS BREED CYNICISM. DEMS MUST BEGIN NEW BY ADMITTING NEW STATE TO UNION. TO LATE TO ACCEPT COLONIAL RULE. NO PAY FEDERAL TAXES WITH NO VOTE IN HOW SPENT. GIVE US A PRESIDENT WHO'LL SUPPORT FAIRNESS AT HOME. 18:30:44 (VIDEO) DC DELEGATES W/ SIGNS FOR STATEHOOD. 18:31:03 (AUDIO) BEGINNING GASTON CAPERTON SPEECH. STARVATION CAUSED BY INADEQUATE EDUCATION. 18:32:21 (VIDEO) MS WOMEN IN AUDIENCE. 18:32:37 (VIDEO) CU WOMAN W/ NEA HAT. 18:33:21 (VIDEO) MS BLACK AND WHITE WOMAN TALKING. 18:33:58 (VIDEO) WEST VIRGINIA SIGN EDUCATION FIRST. 18:34:13 (AUDIO) WVA PROPOSED EDUCATION SYSTEM SECOND TO NONE. NEED SOMEONE WHO'LL JUST DO IT. LEADER OF SUBSTANCE. 18:35:51 (VIDEO) MS WEST VIRGINIA DELEGATES . MS MAN W/ YARMULKE. 18:36:29 (AUDIO) DEM PARTY OF EDUCATION AND RECLAIM PLACE OF HOPE, OPPORTUNITY. 18:36:51 (VIDEO) CU WEST VIRGINIA DELEGATES . 18:37:15 (AUDIO) BEGINNING MARCH FONG EU SPEECH. EXPAND NOT SHRINK ELECTORATE. DEMS NOT AFRAID OF ORDINARY PEOPLE EXERCISING RIGHT TO VOTE. 18:38:19 (VIDEO) MS CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:38:34 (AUDIO) CITIZENS NOT DENIED RIGHT SINCE WORK FOR GOVT. 18:39:00 (VIDEO) MS MAN IN GREEN HAT. 18:39:15 (AUDIO) DEMS VOW TO OPPOSE PRESSURE GROUPS TRYING TO PASS ENGLISH ONLY LEGISLATION. 18:39:51 (VIDEO) CU BLACK WOMAN FIXING MAKEUP. MS WOMAN BUTTON HAT. 18:40:14 (VIDEO) STOP RACISM NOW SIGN. 18:40:27 (AUDIO) BEGINNING HOWARD DEAN SPEECH. ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOU WERE FOUR YEARS AGO. 18:41:24 (VIDEO) WS DELEGATES . 18:41:31 (AUDIO) SEEM WHAT HAPPENS WHEN KIDS NOT IMMUNIZED. 18:41:49 (VIDEO) CU DR. DEAN SIGN. 18:41:55 (AUDIO) SPEND MONEY ON AIDS RESEARCH, FAMILY PLANNING. WHO UNDERSTANDS HEALTH NEEDS, BUSH OR BILL CLINTON ? 18:42:31 (VIDEO) CU SMILING WOMAN FACE. 18:42:51 (AUDIO) WHILE BUSH AND QUAYLE FISHING, BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE WORKING. 18:43:18 (AUDIO) BEGINNING MARY LANDREAU SPEECH. 18:44:20 HARDSHIP OF AMERICAN FAMILY AND LIVING ON BUDGET 18:44:36 WHAT WOULD JEFFERSON SAY SIGN CU 18:45:08 CU MAN IN SUIT LAUGHING AND SHAKING HEAD 18:45:19 BILL CLINTON PLANS AND POLICY AS CHANGE FROM BUSH 18:45:41 BILL CLINTON IN CONTRAST TO BUSH 18:45:50 EDUCATION AND JOB CREATION, LOW TAX BURDEN IN AK 18:46:03 CU ELDERLY BLACK FEMALE DELEGATE 18:46:19 WE LOVE LANDREAU SIGN 18:46:35 END MARY LANDREAU SPEECH 18:46:46 INTRO TO WELLINGTON WEBB BY ROY ROMER 18:47:12 HEAL DIVISIONS THROUGH UNITY BUT DIVERSITY 18:47:47 PEOPLE FIRST 18:47:57 ROMER SHAKES HANDS WITH WEBB 18:48:10 BEGINNING WELLINGTON WEBB SPEECH 18:48:33 MENTIONS JULIA NEPTUNE, SINGLE MOTHER IN DENVER 18:49:03 JULIA'S STORY 18:49:07 WEBB SIGNS HELD BY SUPPORTER 18:49:29 JULIA AND CHILDREN AND HARDSHIPS 18:49:40 JULIA'S WISDOM, COURAGE, PRUDENCE 18:49:50 CU DELEGATE PICKING HIS TEETH 18:49:58 JULIA'S PERSEVERANCE IN RAISING CHILDREN AND IMPROVING LIFE 18:50:18 DIFFICULTIES NOT HER FAULT, WASN'T GOING TO STAY ON WELFARE 18:50:32 JULIA'S JOB 18:50:36 CU HEALTH CARE OUR FAMILIES CAN AFFORD SIGN 18:50:52 JULIA'S STORY IS REAL STORY OF AMERICA 18:51:08 JULIA'S A SURVIVOR NOT A CHEAT 18:51:20 GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T KNOW THEY EXIST 18:51:28 CURRENT ADMINISTRATION DISMANTLES SUPPORT SYSTEM, ABANDONS THOSE WHO NEED ASSISTANCE 18:51:54 MUST HELP PEOPLE BECOME SELF RELIANT 18:52:04 DELEGATES WITH WEBB SIGNS 18:52:24 AMERICA FORSAKEN BY BUSH AND QUAYLE 18:52:38 PULL AWAY NEW JERSEY DELEGATION TO WEBB AT PODIUM 18:52:53 BILL CLINTON IS CONTRAST 18:53:02 END WELLINGTON WEBB SPEECH 18:53:09 JILL LONG APPROACHES PODIUM AND WAVES 18:53:23 BEGINNING JILL LONG SPEECH 18:53:30 INDIANA DELEGATION VS 18:53:42 LONG'S HOMETOWN VALUES 18:53:51 HOOSIER VALUES ARE AMERICAN VALUES 18:54:06 CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS TURNED ITS BACK TO THESE VALUES 18:54:22 CONCERN FOR PUBLIC OPINION NOT REAL PEOPLE 18:54:32 CU WOMAN DELEGATE WITH WHITE HAT 18:54:41 HELEN BROWN, LONG'S FRIEND, AND HER STORY 18:55:14 CU YOUNG MALE DELEGATE IN UNCLE SAM HAT 18:55:26 DEMOCRATS AND THEIR FAITH 18:55:39 QUOTES BIBLE 18:55:45 VICTORY FOR AMERICA 18:55:54 INTRO 18:56:17 BEGINNING BILL JEFFERSON SPEECH 18:56:35 PULL AWAY CONVENTION FLOOR 18:56:45 PO CONVENTION FLOOR 18:56:48 PARTY AND ITS VALUES 18:56:58 I'D RATHER BE AT THE ALL STAR GAME SIGN 18:57:07 DISCUSSES PARTY PLATFORM 18:57:16 CA DELEGATION, I LOVE BILL JEFFERSON SIGN 18:57:30 EMPOWERING OF COMMUNITIES 18:57:36 LA SUPPORTERS 18:57:58 LOUISIANA SUPPORTERS 18:58:11 CU BLACK DELEGATE IN OPEN SHIRT AND GOLD CHAIN 18:58:26 PLATFORM DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN WIN ON 18:58:36 DELEGATES IN MICKEY MOUSE HATS 18:58:50 DELEGATES IN BROWN DERBY (18:59:04)
1992 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
17:59:49 CONCLUSION OF BOB MILLER SPEECH. 18:00:14 (VIDEO) CU HEALTH CARE SIGNS. CU BLACK MAN. MS BLACK MAN AND WOMAN JUMPING. MS CONGA LINE. VS DELEGATES CLAPPING. 18:02:25 (AUDIO) BEGINNING ROBERTA ACHTENBERG OF CALIFORNIA SPEECH. CALLS FOR JUSTICE. 18:03:56 (VIDEO) MS CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:04:00 (AUDIO) FAIR ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES. PLATFORM PROMISES JUSTICE. 18:04:42 (VIDEO) MS WOMAN W/ T SHIRT READING VERMONT, 100% HEALTH CARE. MS SIGN CALLING FOR LESBIAN AND GAY RIGHTS. 18:05:23 (AUDIO) CALLS FOR GAY RIGHTS, AIDS RESEARCH. PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS. 18:05:54 (VIDEO) GAY RIGHTS SIGNS. 18:06:01 (AUDIO) GAYS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SERVE IN MILITARY. WOMEN FORCED FOR RIGHT TO CONTROL OWN BODY. AS LESBIAN AND JEW HAD TO FEAR FOR SAFETY. 18:07:06 (VIDEO) MS WOMAN W/ GAY RIGHTS SIGN. 18:07:24 (AUDIO) WE YEARN OF R OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THESE THINGS REALIZED. CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THESE THINGS HAPPEN. 18:08:06 (AUDIO) BEGINNING CONGRESSMAN FERNANDO FERRER SPEECH. GEORGE "WHAT RECESSION" BUSH COMMENTS. TAX BREAKS FRO PRIVILEGED BUDDIES. JOBS FOLLOW BUSH LEAD: GOING OVERSEAS. 18:09:16 (VIDEO) MS BLONDE WOMAN. 18:09:24 (AUDIO) PRESIDENT OF HOOVER. 18:09:42 (VIDEO) MS GRAY HAIRED WOMAN. 18:09:49 (AUDIO) GEORGE HERBERT HOOVER BUSH COMMENTS. 18:10:30 (VIDEO) MS HISPANIC MAN AND WOMAN. 18:10:45 (AUDIO) SORRY, OUT OF MONEY. PEROT NOT OFF EASY. PEROT SINGLE LARGEST WELFARE RECIPIENT. 18:11:17 (VIDEO) CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:11:22 (VIDEO) RICH RICHER, POOR GETTING SHAFT. BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE POISED TO LEAD WITH VISION OF HOPE. INCLUDING, NOT EXCLUDING. NEW ROAD MAP. 18:12:27 (VIDEO) SIGN READING GEORGE HERBERT HOOVER BUSH. 18:12:44 (AUDIO) BEGINNING KIKA DE LA GARZA SPEECH. SPEAKS OF COMMITMENT TO FARMERS. SAFEST AND MOST AFFORDABLE FOOD SUPPLIES. 18:13:52 (VIDEO) MS BLACK WOMAN W/ BUTTONS. 18:14:01 (VIDEO) CU NAPA VALLEY SIGN. 18:14:16 (AUDIO) COMMENTS ON SUBMARINE STAYING UNDERWATER. FARMERS AND RANCHERS DID IT BECAUSE THEY COULD STAY UNDER AS LONG AS THEY HAD FOOD. 18:15:44 (VIDEO) MS HEALTH CARE SIGNS. 18:15:52 (AUDIO) VIVA BILL CLINTON , VIVA AL GORE . 18:16:02 (AUDIO) PELOSI INTRO RESPONSIBILITY SECTION OF PLATFORM. MAKE MOST OF OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED US. NEW SOCIAL CONTRACTS. 18:17:02 (VIDEO) MS WOMAN READING. 18:17:07 (AUDIO) BEGINNING MIKE ESPY SPEECH. 18:17:36 (VIDEO) WE LOVE ESPY SIGNS. 18:17:46 (AUDIO) RECANTS STORY OF YOUNG WOMAN SAVING FOR COLLEGE. 18:18:10 (VIDEO) CU CLINTON PLAYING SAX T SHIRT. 18:18:20 (AUDIO) WELFARE SYSTEM THAT PENALIZES THOSE THAT WANT TO DO BETTER. PLATFORM OFFERS CHANCE TO MOVE OUT OF POVERTY. NEW SOCIAL CONTRACTS. TICKET OFFERS 18:20:19 (VIDEO) MS MIDDLE AGED WOMAN. 18:20:29 (AUDIO) THESE THINGS ARE GOOD FOR SANDRA ROSADO, MISSISSIPPI, GOOD FOR US. 18:21:00 (AUDIO) BEGINNING DAN MORALES SPEECH. WE STAND ON EDGE OF NEW FRONTIER. INGENUITY LED TO MOON AFTER KENNEDY CHALLENGE. 18:22:14 (VIDEO) SIGN FOR DC STATEHOOD. 18:22:26 (AUDIO) AS CHIEF LAW ENFORCER IN TEXAS, IMPORTANT TO ENFORCE SYSTEM SYSTEM MORE CRIMINAL THAN JUST. 18:23:21 (VIDEO) MS JACKIE MASON ON CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:23:30 (VIDEO) GENERATION OF VICTIMS. 18:23:54 (VIDEO) VS DELEGATES IN HATS AND T SHIRTS. 18:24:21 (VIDEO) RIP RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS OF DC SIGN. 18:24:39 (VIDEO) CU YOUNG GIRL. 18:24:49 (AUDIO) WINSTON CHURCHILL QUOTE.MUST SHOW THEM RESPONSIBILITY MORE THAN BLAMING OTHERS. DON'T POINT FINGERS. 18:25:33 (VIDEO) SIGN FOR DAN MORALES. 18:25:41 (AUDIO) BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE WE WILL SUCCEED TOGETHER. 18:25:53 (VIDEO) MS TEXAS DELEGATES . 18:26:05 INTRO AND BEGINNING ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON SPEECH. PROUD TO BE AMERICAN. 18:26:47 (VIDEO) SIGNS FOR DC STATEHOOD. 18:26:56 (AUDIO) CALL FOR DC AS 51ST STATE. DEMOCRAT MORE THAN A NAME. COMMITTMENT TO GIVING NEW MEANING TO DEMOCRATIC. EMBRACED EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS. WE ARE PARTY OF PEOPLE , PARTY OF REFORM. 18:28:12 (VIDEO) CU BLACK MAN IN HAT. 18:28:23 (AUDIO) OVER SHOULDER OF CROWD. REPUBLICANS BREED CYNICISM. DEMS MUST BEGIN NEW BY ADMITTING NEW STATE TO UNION. TO LATE TO ACCEPT COLONIAL RULE. NO PAY FEDERAL TAXES WITH NO VOTE IN HOW SPENT. GIVE US A PRESIDENT WHO'LL SUPPORT FAIRNESS AT HOME. 18:30:44 (VIDEO) DC DELEGATES W/ SIGNS FOR STATEHOOD. 18:31:03 (AUDIO) BEGINNING GASTON CAPERTON SPEECH. STARVATION CAUSED BY INADEQUATE EDUCATION. 18:32:21 (VIDEO) MS WOMEN IN AUDIENCE. 18:32:37 (VIDEO) CU WOMAN W/ NEA HAT. 18:33:21 (VIDEO) MS BLACK AND WHITE WOMAN TALKING. 18:33:58 (VIDEO) WEST VIRGINIA SIGN EDUCATION FIRST. 18:34:13 (AUDIO) WVA PROPOSED EDUCATION SYSTEM SECOND TO NONE. NEED SOMEONE WHO'LL JUST DO IT. LEADER OF SUBSTANCE. 18:35:51 (VIDEO) MS WEST VIRGINIA DELEGATES . MS MAN W/ YARMULKE. 18:36:29 (AUDIO) DEM PARTY OF EDUCATION AND RECLAIM PLACE OF HOPE, OPPORTUNITY. 18:36:51 (VIDEO) CU WEST VIRGINIA DELEGATES . 18:37:15 (AUDIO) BEGINNING MARCH FONG EU SPEECH. EXPAND NOT SHRINK ELECTORATE. DEMS NOT AFRAID OF ORDINARY PEOPLE EXERCISING RIGHT TO VOTE. 18:38:19 (VIDEO) MS CONVENTION FLOOR . 18:38:34 (AUDIO) CITIZENS NOT DENIED RIGHT SINCE WORK FOR GOVT. 18:39:00 (VIDEO) MS MAN IN GREEN HAT. 18:39:15 (AUDIO) DEMS VOW TO OPPOSE PRESSURE GROUPS TRYING TO PASS ENGLISH ONLY LEGISLATION. 18:39:51 (VIDEO) CU BLACK WOMAN FIXING MAKEUP. MS WOMAN BUTTON HAT. 18:40:14 (VIDEO) STOP RACISM NOW SIGN. 18:40:27 (AUDIO) BEGINNING HOWARD DEAN SPEECH. ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOU WERE FOUR YEARS AGO. 18:41:24 (VIDEO) WS DELEGATES . 18:41:31 (AUDIO) SEEM WHAT HAPPENS WHEN KIDS NOT IMMUNIZED. 18:41:49 (VIDEO) CU DR. DEAN SIGN. 18:41:55 (AUDIO) SPEND MONEY ON AIDS RESEARCH, FAMILY PLANNING. WHO UNDERSTANDS HEALTH NEEDS, BUSH OR BILL CLINTON ? 18:42:31 (VIDEO) CU SMILING WOMAN FACE. 18:42:51 (AUDIO) WHILE BUSH AND QUAYLE FISHING, BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE WORKING. 18:43:18 (AUDIO) BEGINNING MARY LANDREAU SPEECH. 18:44:20 HARDSHIP OF AMERICAN FAMILY AND LIVING ON BUDGET 18:44:36 WHAT WOULD JEFFERSON SAY SIGN CU 18:45:08 CU MAN IN SUIT LAUGHING AND SHAKING HEAD 18:45:19 BILL CLINTON PLANS AND POLICY AS CHANGE FROM BUSH 18:45:41 BILL CLINTON IN CONTRAST TO BUSH 18:45:50 EDUCATION AND JOB CREATION, LOW TAX BURDEN IN AK 18:46:03 CU ELDERLY BLACK FEMALE DELEGATE 18:46:19 WE LOVE LANDREAU SIGN 18:46:35 END MARY LANDREAU SPEECH 18:46:46 INTRO TO WELLINGTON WEBB BY ROY ROMER 18:47:12 HEAL DIVISIONS THROUGH UNITY BUT DIVERSITY 18:47:47 PEOPLE FIRST 18:47:57 ROMER SHAKES HANDS WITH WEBB 18:48:10 BEGINNING WELLINGTON WEBB SPEECH 18:48:33 MENTIONS JULIA NEPTUNE, SINGLE MOTHER IN DENVER 18:49:03 JULIA'S STORY 18:49:07 WEBB SIGNS HELD BY SUPPORTER 18:49:29 JULIA AND CHILDREN AND HARDSHIPS 18:49:40 JULIA'S WISDOM, COURAGE, PRUDENCE 18:49:50 CU DELEGATE PICKING HIS TEETH 18:49:58 JULIA'S PERSEVERANCE IN RAISING CHILDREN AND IMPROVING LIFE 18:50:18 DIFFICULTIES NOT HER FAULT, WASN'T GOING TO STAY ON WELFARE 18:50:32 JULIA'S JOB 18:50:36 CU HEALTH CARE OUR FAMILIES CAN AFFORD SIGN 18:50:52 JULIA'S STORY IS REAL STORY OF AMERICA 18:51:08 JULIA'S A SURVIVOR NOT A CHEAT 18:51:20 GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T KNOW THEY EXIST 18:51:28 CURRENT ADMINISTRATION DISMANTLES SUPPORT SYSTEM, ABANDONS THOSE WHO NEED ASSISTANCE 18:51:54 MUST HELP PEOPLE BECOME SELF RELIANT 18:52:04 DELEGATES WITH WEBB SIGNS 18:52:24 AMERICA FORSAKEN BY BUSH AND QUAYLE 18:52:38 PULL AWAY NEW JERSEY DELEGATION TO WEBB AT PODIUM 18:52:53 BILL CLINTON IS CONTRAST 18:53:02 END WELLINGTON WEBB SPEECH 18:53:09 JILL LONG APPROACHES PODIUM AND WAVES 18:53:23 BEGINNING JILL LONG SPEECH 18:53:30 INDIANA DELEGATION VS 18:53:42 LONG'S HOMETOWN VALUES 18:53:51 HOOSIER VALUES ARE AMERICAN VALUES 18:54:06 CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS TURNED ITS BACK TO THESE VALUES 18:54:22 CONCERN FOR PUBLIC OPINION NOT REAL PEOPLE 18:54:32 CU WOMAN DELEGATE WITH WHITE HAT 18:54:41 HELEN BROWN, LONG'S FRIEND, AND HER STORY 18:55:14 CU YOUNG MALE DELEGATE IN UNCLE SAM HAT 18:55:26 DEMOCRATS AND THEIR FAITH 18:55:39 QUOTES BIBLE 18:55:45 VICTORY FOR AMERICA 18:55:54 INTRO 18:56:17 BEGINNING BILL JEFFERSON SPEECH 18:56:35 PULL AWAY CONVENTION FLOOR 18:56:45 PO CONVENTION FLOOR 18:56:48 PARTY AND ITS VALUES 18:56:58 I'D RATHER BE AT THE ALL STAR GAME SIGN 18:57:07 DISCUSSES PARTY PLATFORM 18:57:16 CA DELEGATION, I LOVE BILL JEFFERSON SIGN 18:57:30 EMPOWERING OF COMMUNITIES 18:57:36 LA SUPPORTERS 18:57:58 LOUISIANA SUPPORTERS 18:58:11 CU BLACK DELEGATE IN OPEN SHIRT AND GOLD CHAIN 18:58:26 PLATFORM DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN WIN ON 18:58:36 DELEGATES IN MICKEY MOUSE HATS 18:58:50 DELEGATES IN BROWN DERBY (18:59:04)