Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Martin Luther King Holiday Stirs Affirmative Action Debate; Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Travel to Iowa for Early Campaigning

Aired January 20, 2003 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: INSIDE POLITICS begins right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(SINGING)

ANNOUNCER: On this Martin Luther King holiday, do President Bush's actions on affirmative action undermine his words?

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There is still a need for us to hear the words of Martin Luther King to make sure the hope of America extends its reach into every neighborhood across this land.

ANNOUNCER: Anatomy of a cattle call: are early showcases for presidential candidates effective, or just exhausting?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd like to stumble over a presidential candidate everywhere, every weekend (ph).

ANNOUNCER: The North Korean standoff: we'll talk to a journalist who says the White House wants Kim Jong Il's head on a platter.

Award season politics: from the glamorous Golden Globes to the Surprisingly Sexy Pollies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... shows just how little she values her reputation and wedding vows.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, this is INSIDE POLITICS with Judy Woodruff.

WOODRUFF: Thank you for joining us. President Bush says there is still more to do to realize Martin Luther King's dream. And on this MLK holiday, there is renewed debate about what Mr. Bush has and has not done to promote civil rights and diversity.

In this "NewsCycle," the president and Mrs. Bush will warmly received in an African-American church in Maryland. Mr. Bush did not bring up his controversial decision to challenge an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist joined the King family at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, his latest effort to reach out to minorities after the Trent Lott controversy.

Let's bring in now our White House correspondent, Dana Bash. Dana, in the wake of the announcement about the administration's position on the University of Michigan program, now we have the president going out, appearing at a black church today. How worried are they about appearances, about their views towards African- Americans?

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Judy, certainly the African-American vote has been a sector of the vote that the president has been courting since, really, he was governor of Texas. The president only got 9 percent of that vote in 2000, and they were really hoping to get that percentage up in 2004, and they have been trying to -- saying that they want to make the African-American community more a part of the Republican party.

But if you asked them, civil rights leaders, and certainly some Democrats, they'll say that the president stands not only on affirmative action, which was such a big story last week, but also on his nomination of some controversial judicial nominees like Charles Pickering and also the Trent Lott controversy has really muddled that push.

Now, the president did use today's holiday to go to a church in Maryland, not too far from here at the White House. He used the occasion to say that he understands that America is not yet a color- blind society.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Even though progress has been made, there's more to do. There are still people in our society who hurt. There is still prejudice holding people back. There is still a school system that doesn't elevate every child so they can learn.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Now, on the issue of learning, the White House last night put out a statement in advance of today's holiday, saying the president supports a 5 percent increase in funding for grants for predominantly African-American and Hispanic universities. That's $371 million that he supports.

The president also used this occasion to make reference to programs the White House is trying to work with the African-American community on, like his faith-based initiative, the president did gets lots of applause, but another person who he brought along with him who got applause was his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. She got a big round of applause, and she blew kisses to the crowd there -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Dana, we know that when it comes to affirmative action, Condoleezza Rice was relatively supportive of the president in the last few days, with some difference, saying she does think that race can be used as one factor in these decisions, but when it comes to the secretary of state, Colin Powell, he's making a real distinction. Let's listen, just quickly, to what the secretary had to say on CNN's "LATE EDITION" yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I am, as you know, a strong proponent of affirmative action. I wish it was possible for everything to be race neutral in this country, but I'm not afraid we're not yet at that point where things are race neutral.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODRUFF: So, Dana, it's pretty clear the secretary of state is making some distinctions between his own view and those of the president.

Does this make it uncomfortable for the White House?

BASH: Well, Colin Powell said that he made it very clear that his views on affirmative action are that he supports it, to the president before he was even president, way back during the campaign. He also said that he -- when the president was making his decision about what to do about the University of Michigan case, whether to file a brief and what to say in that brief, that Secretary Powell said that he did have a discussion with the president, and again he made his views known. The secretary saying that, yes, they might have a difference of opinion, but he also was very, very clear in saying that he does believe that the president is striving for diversity in America, and at universities, but they just have a different take on how to get there -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All interesting to watch. Dana, thank you very much.

BASH: My pleasure.

WOODRUFF: Well, Martin Luther King Day is the common theme of our edition today of our "Campaign News Daily." Most of the Democrats considering or actively running for the presidency attended King Day events around the nation. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman joined hundreds of volunteers at a community service event in Detroit. Later, he planned to help out on a Habitat for Humanity work site.

Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, spoke at a King Day celebration in Richmond, Virginia after spending much of his weekend in Iowa.

Other Democratic hopefuls attending events included the Reverend Al Sharpton, who made stops in South Carolina and New York, Senator John Edwards, who spoke in both North and South Carolina, Congressman Dick Gephardt, who attended an event here in Washington, and Senator Bob Graham, who spoke at a King Day breakfast in Florida.

And one more note on the Democratic hopefuls, Bob Graham told reporters this morning that while he still has not made up his mind about a White House run, he has interviewed two or three people for the job of campaign manager.

Well, even as politicians and many Americans embrace Dr. King's legacy on this day, some are too young to remember how much civil rights activists have had to overcome, but our Bruce Morton remembers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRUCE MORTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He marched. He wrote and preached, and went to jail, but he marched. Marched then against old wrongs, the legal segregation imposed on black Americans in the South after the Civil War, separate schools and lunchrooms, no vote. He marched, and many black and white marched with him, and those walls of legal segregation came tumbling down.

His creed was non-violence. It was the whites who bombed churches and clubbed marchers. He was non-violent, and he won. The walls came down. Blacks got to vote, blacks held office, some in Congress had seniority, real power. Only a couple in the Senate, though, and just one governor, ever, Douglas Wilder of Virginia.

Blacks elected mayors and old segregationists like Governor George Wallace of Alabama bargained with black mayors as they had with white ones. Old segregationist senators like Strom Thurmond put blacks on their staffs.

Legal segregation was over, which didn't mean that racism was gone. Some Americans clung to it. A civil rights law can't reform a mind. Trent Lott meant whatever he meant, and in Georgia, several hundred marched demanding a vote over whether to make the Confederate emblem on the state flag bigger. Heritage, race -- who knows.

By the time he was murdered, Dr. King had moved past segregation. He was concerned with economics. No way to know what he'd say about reparations for slavery, but he would certainly be urging anti-poverty programs, urging good schools that would give every American child an equal start in life, something we are far from achieving.

Blacks succeed in business, of course, the new head of AOL Time Warner is one example, but no one suggests every American gets a good high school education.

King's other issue by the time he died was the Vietnam War, which he, like many Americans opposed. He was non-violent anyway, of course, and thought the war was wrong.

This past Saturday, thousands of Americans marched here in Washington to protest what they think will be the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Many of the signs they carried bore a picture of Dr. King, a non-violent man who changed America.

He'd be 74 if he had lived, and we don't know where he'd stand on all the issues of this time, but you know where he'd have been last Saturday, out there, on those cold Washington streets of course, marching.

Bruce Morton, CNN, Washington. (END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: And it was cold the day they marched.

Well, there is much more ahead on INSIDE POLITICS.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: I'm Bill Schneider in Washington. Whether or not U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are much of an influence on President Bush, they do seem to have made an impression on the American people.

WOODRUFF: Also ahead, a provocative report that after Iraq, the Bush White House plans to target North Korea's leader. I'll talk to journalist Seymour Hersh.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Daryn Kagan in Los Angeles. Ahead, the year of the woman in politics. After last night's Golden Globes, could this be the year of the woman in the movies?

WOODRUFF: Time to check your "I.P., I.Q." What state became the first to adopt Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday. Was it A, Massachusetts, B, Illinois, or C, Georgia. We'll tell you the answer later on INSIDE POLITICS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Now, in the case of Iraq, we are nearing the end of a long road, and with every other option exhausted. With North Korea, by contrast, that is not yet the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODRUFF: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once again drawing a distinction between the threat posed to the U.S. by both Iraq and North Korea.

Our Bill Schneider some new poll numbers that reveal how the American people think the U.S. should approach both countries.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: The American's public view of the Iraq situation is changing. Now that the United Nations inspectors are there, more Americans believe the U.S. should act only with U.N. support.

Back in October, before the U.N. inspectors went in, 40 percent of Americans said the U.S. should send ground troops only if the U.N. supported such action. Thirty percent felt the U.S. Should send troops even if the U.N. is opposed. Twenty-two percent opposed sending any troops at all. And now -- the inspectors are there. A majority of Americans says the U.S. should act only with U.N. support. Just over a quarter say, to hell with U.N. And only 17 percent say, no war no way. There's an inspection process in place. The public's view is -- let the process run its course. Especially since the public is getting more and more worried about North Korea. Ten days ago, we asked people, which country they thought was the bigger threat to the U.S.? The answer was clearly -- Iraq. Only 18 percent said North Korea. While 28 percent called the two equal threats.

That's changed. Now, almost half the public says Iraq and North Korea are equal threats. The view that Iraq is more serious has dropped substantially. Iraq seems to be cooperating with the United Nations. North Korea is defying the world. We know North Korea has a nuclear weapons program. We're not sure about Iraq. Moreover, there are military and diplomatic plans in place for dealing with Iraq. A majority of Americans told us they do not believe President Bush has a clear plan for dealing with North Korea.

Judy, back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: Well, Bill Schneider.

The North Korean government today rejected a U.S. offer to take the dispute over North Korea's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council. The North Koreans describe the proposal and the potential for new sanctions as equal to a declaration of war.

Here in the United States, the latest "New Yorker" magazine features an article documenting alleged links between Pakistani scientists in the North Korea nuclear program. The author of that article is investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who joins me here in Washington.

Hi Hersh. What exactly did you learn about what Pakistani have been doing now for several years to help the North Koreans.

SEYMOUR HERSH, "THE NEW YORKER": Well, an awful lot.

One of the more important things is, of course, we knew all in June. In June, the Central Intelligence Agency, last June, gave the White House, a highly classified estimate that said North Korea is there, doing a lot, cheating on the agreements we made during the Clinton administration. But more importantly, the estimate also said that the Pakistanis have been giving the North Koreans the ability to manufacture nuclear materials not only plutonium but a different generation, enriched uranium, which is a whole separate process, which is actually easier.

You can make a bomb, a smaller bomb, out of it, too, just as deadly, and the Pakistanis beginning in '97 according to this estimate, really began a deal, to deal wholesale. They gave the North Koreans the wherewithal, the prototypes you need to make enriched material. They gave them bomb designs and more importantly, also gave them tips on how to cheat. How to avoid having our CIA, our spies find them. WOODRUFF: What's the significance of this? All this coming out at a time when the U.S. is depending on Pakistan to support them with the war on al Qaeda and terrorist?

HERSH: You got it. The significance, of course, this one of our biggest allies. Turns out, behind our back, before and after 9/11, they've been helping North Korea. Pakistan is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) . It can make nuclear bombs by itself. It doesn't need us or anybody else to do it. And the idea a country like this is beginning to spread it around is a little scary.

WOODRUFF: Well, Pakistan, of course, has its own problems with India. That's reason it was developing a nuclear program in the first place. Needed the resources, presumably and started dealing with North Korea.

But now, the potential is for what?

HERSH: The cat's out of the bag. What's to stop the Pakistanis from going to Iran or anyplace else.

WOODRUFF: The administration when you asked for their comment, what was the reaction?

HERSH: Are you kidding, nil. I sent messages to the CIA, to the State Department and the White House, and what I said was, look guys, the story you told is that all of a sudden last fall, Assistant Secretary Kelly goes to North Korea, says we have a problem and you confess and were surprised.

But it turns out in June, last June, the CIA told you everything that the North Koreans confessed to. So what happened between June and October? For four months, this administration, I think because of the fixation on Iraq, simply low balled the real problem with North Korea. And that's wrong.

WOODRUFF: Another aspect of your story. Very provocative and interesting. You quote an American intelligence official as saying what President Bush and Vice President Cheney Really want, there's so much loathing, we've heard that word before, for, Kim Jong Il, the leader of the North Koreans. They want, "his head on a platter." After they deal with Iraq, they want North Korea.

Now yesterday, some colleagues, Wolf Blitzer, here asked Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, they all said, no. That's never been said. That's not U.S. policy.

HERSH: I would say it's policy, but there certainly is a personal feeling on be have of the president and Vice President Cheney, this guy is really, the head of North Korea, has really broken the rules, he is trying to blackmail us. They are going to deal with him now because they want to get done with Iraq. Then after Iraq, it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) bar the door. I think they think after Iraq the world will be a changed world, see we're tough, they think it's going to be easier in Iraq than a lot of other people do and people like the North Koreans and others will respect us more. WOODRUFF: But they're not ready to talk about it yet.

HERSH: You know, the truth of the matter is, this is a very -- this president sees people -- your white and black. Your either for us, against us. And the North Koreans are certainly not for us in their eyes.

WOODRUFF: Investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, your piece appeared in this week's "New Yorker."

Thanks for coming by.

Canceled Palestinian elections tops our world news. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were supposed to go to the polls for the first time in seven years to elect a new president and parliament, but the elections were postponed. Yasser Arafat blames Israel saying their forces must first withdraw from Palestinian territories.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Arafat also said he is actively looking for new political politicians to succeed him.

From the Middle East to Cuba, where votes from yesterday's election votes are being counted. But there's no doubt the winner will be the Communist party. All 609 the national assembly candidates ran unopposed. Dissidents labeled the vote a farce. Among the candidates, Juan Gonzalez, the father of Elian Gonzalez. The at the heart of an international custody battle several years ago.

Still ahead, Democratic presidential candidates head to Iowa, early and often. We'll take you behind the scenes of a weekend get- together for contenders and political junkies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Are they on the rebound or in critical condition? A prognosis for the Democratic Party coming on INSIDE POLITICS.

Plus, will it be back to the future for Gary Hart? We ask, "Is the former senator from Colorado ready to make another run?"

(voice-over): It's time to check your "I.P. I.Q."

Earlier we asked: "What state became the first to adopt Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday? Was it, A., Massachusetts, B., Illinois or, C., Georgia?

The correct answer is B. In 1973, Illinois became the first state to adopt Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday. It was first celebrated as a federal holiday in 1986.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Iowa's Democratic Party chairman says that his party's presidential race is wide open in the leadoff caucus state. All the more reason for Democrats to try to distinguish themselves now, a year before the caucuses. Our Candy Crowley went to a so-called cattle call in Iowa over the weekend to watch the candidates and the party faithful in action.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's Saturday afternoon in Linn County, Iowa, temperature in the single digits, windchill: subzero.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're having pork loins, a smothered chicken breast, green beans (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and tossed salad.

CROWLEY: Chicken is the first hint, this is your second.

Yes, indeedy, the '04 presidential campaign has opened in Iowa.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's like heroin for a political junkie this weekend.

CROWLEY: Tonight is for the hardcore; the people who live and breathe this stuff. Sure, there are a few kinks to work out, but if you throw a political event, they will come, and pay for it, too.

And if you think it's enough to brave a subzero night to attend a political event a year and ten months before the next election, you might want to consider these people, who showed up to stand out in a subzero night to protest.

Meanwhile, where it's warm, the cattle call is under way, but only half the cattle have come to call. On his first trip as a declared candidate, John Kerry is dogged by something he said in '96 about hating to go to places like Dubuque to raise money, which explains why Kerry is so relentlessly thrilled to be here.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I've had a wonderful chance to meet a lot of people. We've got a great exchange. It's been a great learning experience. I'm having a lot of fun.

CROWLEY: This is the 18th time Howard Dean has been to Iowa; the first time he's had so much attention.

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: How did I know it was going to turn into a media circus?

CROWLEY: Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt can't count the times he's been to Iowa. He won the caucus here in '88. Now he begins again.

(on camera): Looks like all three candidates here have their own banners, but so far as we can tell, only one has a goody bag.

The doctor is in. That's Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont. He's a doctor. This has Excedrin, in case this all gets a little too much; some ear plugs, no comment; and then a local delicacy from Cedar Rapids, Quaker Oats Oatmeal.

(voice-over): The menu proved perfect. Chicken at the table, and red meat from the podium.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Democrats are good for everybody. Republicans are good for nobody!

DEAN: Let us not make a mistake about which party it is that wants inclusiveness and diversity in this country. It is not the Republicans.

CROWLEY: John Kerry drew the short straw and was the last to speak.

KERRY: You all are extraordinary gluttons for punishment here.

CROWLEY: They began arriving before 5:00 and left shortly before 11:00 and the truth is a good time was had by all.

For Democrats, '04 can't come early enough.

Candy Crowley, CNN, Linn County, Iowa.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: First cattle call and there's a lot more to come.

Well, former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart wasn't there, but he has said he will decide in March whether to run for the White House again.

But Hart already has a Web site touting what he calls his contribution to the "primary of ideas leading up to the 2004 election."

Ron Brownstein of "The Los Angeles Times" spoke with Gary Hart just a few days ago.

And what do you think? Is he going to run?

RON BROWNSTEIN, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": I think he wants to run if he finds any response that is positive. The word he used in the interview and also on Sunday on ABC was resonance, whether he gets resonance from his audience. He's going to go out and give four speeches between now and the end of March, and resonance, I think, like beauty, is a lot in the eye of the beholder. And a candidate can often find it if he's looking for it.

His one concern, I think, his principle concern, my sense from talking to him, was whether he gets past the issues of scandal that drove him out of the '87 race, whether he can be heard on his ideas.

WOODRUFF: What would be the rationale? Why would he run? I mean, after all, he's not a new face. I mean, even Dick Gephardt has been running into some flak over that and he ran in '88. Gary Hart ran before that.

BROWNSTEIN: He was the candidate of the future, now a man of the past. I mean, that's sort of an irony for Gary Hart. He certainly was voice of a new generation, as he presented himself in the 1980s.

I think he would run largely for two reasons. One is he believes that none of the Democrats are making the case on homeland security. And, as you know, his reemergence from that long exile after the '88 race really began with his work with Warren Rudman on the U.S. -- the national commission that looked at national security, and warned of a September 11th-like attack eight months before it occurred.

The other reason I think he might run, Judy, is to make a sort of anti-politics, clean up the system reform argument. A sort of outsider arguing the system is overrun by special interest money and no longer asks enough of Americans.

I mean, he -- while he was gone, he got a Phd at Oxford, which would make him, I think, only the second president ever with a Phd if he won. And that was based on the idea of a restoration of the republic. He made a book out of it, encouraging more civic engagement, devolving more authority for programs for local people -- vote to improve services, but also to get people more involved in government. He wants to go out and deliver that message.

WOODRUFF: Ron, if he did get in, what affect would that have on the field as we now know it?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, look, this is some one who knows how to run insurgency campaigns. His 1984 campaign against Walter Mondale was one of the most successful insurgency campaigns. And he was George McGovern's campaign manager in 1972.

He would have an unpredictable effect. He would certainly affect the debate. He is someone who knows how to shape and present ideas. He would also probably affect some of the candidates, who are themselves trying to organize themselves as outsiders.

Howard Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire would probably be hurt by hart's appeal on campus, and even John Edwards, I think, who, despite being a senator, is largely presenting himself as someone outside from outside of Washington might face competition from some of those same voters from a Hart campaign that, even if it did not break into the first tier, you could imagine the sort of lame in the Democratic primary that allows you to get 6, 8, 10 percent in some of those early primaries. And that could affect the overall order of finish.

WOODRUFF: Interesting concept. The guy who was running in the 80s is now the outsider...

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

WOODRUFF: ...if he gets in.

BROWNSTEIN: Always more comfortable as the outsider than the insider. Very uncomfortable in '88 when he was the frontrunner.

WOODRUFF: We know another politician like that.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. WOODRUFF: OK. Ron, thanks very much.

BROWNSTEIN: All right.

WOODRUFF: Well, we will turn to another high-stakes competition when we return. Are this year's Golden Globe winners making a political statement? Our Daryn Kagan went roaming the red carpet for an answer.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Thirty years after Roe vs. Wade, the battle over abortion is as bitter as ever -- the arguments from both sides coming up on INSIDE POLITICS.

(NEWS BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Well, if you wanted to compare Hollywood award shows and presidential politics -- and, of course, we do -- then you could say that last night's Golden Globes were the primaries for the Oscars. And, in keeping with the election analogy, a political theme of the past may apply to the most celebrated movies, with this being the year of the woman.

My colleague Daryn Kagan is in Los Angeles after a long night of covering the Golden Globes.

Daryn, you're looking pretty glamorous to have been up all night. So, is this the year of the woman?

KAGAN: I will tell you, Judy -- and, by the way, that was a very good analogy. I like that.

Right now, it's feeling like the year of the sore feet. But on the red carpet last night, there was a sense of -- there are so many great roles out there for women, so many great performances and not just -- let's be honest about we usually see here in Hollywood. It's a young woman playing a prostitute. That's her best opportunity. These have been roles of significance and roles for women over 30 who have lived and some substance.

Let's show you a couple of people who won last night. Meryl Streep, one of the greatest actresses of our generation, she got the first award of the night. And she won for best supporting actress in a musical or comedy for a role in a little movie a lot of people haven't seen. It's called "Adaptation." You're seeing a little behind the scenes right there. Also, Meryl Streep was in another significant movie for women, "The Hours."

Now, she didn't win for that. But her co-star, Nicole Kidman, won for best actress in a drama. Let's listen to what Nicole Kidman had to say about roles for women this year on the stage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICOLE KIDMAN, ACTRESS: So, I just want to say, this year, I think you really see that there is an enormous amount of really, really -- I'm blushing -- really good performances by women in television and in cinema.

(APPLAUSE)

KIDMAN: And I say to the writers, please keep writing for us, because we're very interesting.

(LAUGHTER)

KIDMAN: And to the directors, please keep taking chances and giving us complicated, rich characters to play. I do believe...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: Exactly. That sentiment echoed a lot here in Hollywood.

And you know what's interesting about the movies that we're talking about this year, Judy? It's not just great roles for women, lots of women in the same movies. Of course, in "The Hours," you had Nicole Kidman and Meryl Streep and also Julianne Moore. And then, in "Chicago," which is a big musical comedy this year to take so many awards, you have both Renee Zellweger, who took home best actress. And she was up against Catherine Zeta-Jones in the best actress category.

I also just saw an Queen Latifah. She has an excellent performance in "Chicago" as well. She was up in the best supporting actress category. And you don't get a sense that these women are necessarily competing against each other, but rather banding together to bring more great roles to women in Hollywood. That could be the greatest act of all. I don't know. But they pulled it off last night. I can tell you that.

WOODRUFF: Well, very refreshing, if they're all working together. And a lot of discussion about women and what's available as they get older.

But my question for you now is, if the Golden Globes are the primaries for the Oscars, who's the front-runner? And is it going to be a woman again?

KAGAN: Well, of course, women don't necessarily compete against men at the Oscars. But this is a time when it really does get interesting.

And if I can borrow from your political analogy, it's kind of like the Golden Globes are the House, where there's lots of seats for a lot of people. And now we're moving onto the Senate, where there are not so many seats. Big difference with the Oscars and the Golden Globes, Golden Globes, they split the categories into musical comedy and drama. And, of course, in the Oscars, they don't do that.

And it will be interesting to see where these women choose to compete. Now, will Catherine Zeta-Jones take a cue and way, wow, I didn't win against Renee Zellweger in the best actress category. Do I want to move to best supporting? But look who won best supporting last night: Meryl Streep. So, the competition is very, very tough this year.

The nominations for the ballots are due nine days from now. So, this one's going to heat up very quickly, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Well, a lot of great competitors out there. We love competition and we love the fact that there are all these women still in there.

KAGAN: Absolutely.

WOODRUFF: All right, thanks a lot, Daryn.

KAGAN: Sure.

WOODRUFF: We'll see you. Thanks very much.

KAGAN: OK. You bet.

WOODRUFF: Straight ahead: Roe vs. Wade 30 years later, three decades of debate in the political battle over abortion.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: With us now: Maria Echaveste, former Clinton White House deputy chief of staff; and Betsy Hart of the Scripps Howard News Service.

It has been 30 years since the Supreme Court issued the Roe vs. Wade decision. How has the debate, which never seems to go away -- if anything, has gotten more volatile -- how has it changed?

Or do you really think it has changed, Maria?

MARIA ECHAVESTE, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, I think it has changed in that, over the last three decades, there is, I think, a great percentage of women who actually don't understand the importance of this right under the Constitution and that the Supreme Court has recognized and how close it is to being taken away.

And so, you really have two sides being very harsh in their rhetoric and I think a great percentage in the middle that don't understand what's at stake.

BETSY HART, SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE: Well, I think what Maria is actually alluding to is the fact that abortion advocates have lost so much ground in the last several decades.

What's fascinating is that, over the last 30 years, not only is this issue still around, but the polling number is moving, and has been for quite some time, in favor of what I would call the right-to- life position, which does not mean necessarily ending all abortions, but that the vast majority of Americans are against the vast majority of abortions. They want significant restrictions. And that position is growing, so much so that even internal polling, I'm told, that the abortion activist organizations recognize that. And so one of them, of course, we saw last week, NARAL, actually changed its name to reflect what they hope is a more positive view of this issue, because they realize they just don't have the support they once did.

WOODRUFF: Well, on the subject of what people want to do with regard to the laws, there's a CNN/"TIME" poll just out. People were asked: Do you favor laws making it harder to get an abortion? There were 50 percent who said yes; 44 percent said no.

So, should there be concern, do you think, Maria, among people who favor abortion rights, that you don't have more support?

ECHAVESTE: I think there is concern that people not understand that this is about not in favor of abortions, but the right to choose, for each woman to be able to have the right to decide what she's going to do with her body. And I think this notion that the right-to-life left group is in favor not of an outright elimination or ban, but only partial restrictions is disingenuous.

(CROSSTALK)

HART: No, no, I'm in favor of ending abortion. But the vast majority of Americans, while not with me on that, are with me in restricting the vast majority of abortions.

ECHAVESTE: But my point there is that the right has been very smart. Instead of going out for a total ban on the right to choose, they are looking to pick off such things as a partial ban or parental consent, which there are arguments, legitimate arguments that people can make and have an honest debate and still be in favor of choice.

WOODRUFF: Betsy.

HART: Well, but that's right.

Those numbers you cite, if you said, what about restrictions on minors? What about parental notification? What about spousal notification? What about waiting periods? You would find those numbers advocating such laws growing far beyond that 50 percent. And a lot of the sea change has had to do with not only moral conscience in some areas, but simply a factual one.

More and more women have either had sonograms or they know women who have had. They have seen those little two and four-week and six- week at gestation life figures. And either their aunts have had one or their friends. And there's beginning to be a must greater consciousness. You can even get sonograms in malls now.

So, the reality of what's happening in abortion I think is becoming far more common and people are beginning to pull back and say, wait a minute. This is a fundamentally important issue. We can't just leave it up to a woman and her doctor, because that can be a very ugly -- quote, unquote -- "choice." ECHAVESTE: Who you leave it up to? The husband? A family? You're talking about a woman who is going to either carry a pregnancy to term on not. And I think this question of suggesting that somehow this new technology's making this harder, gosh, I would say that 30 years -- people understand, this is a very difficult choice. And I would submit that the only person who has to make that choice

(CROSSTALK)

HART: But why is it a difficult choice? It's not like getting an appendix out. And that's the reality of it. The morality of the issue has, I think, taken more and more center stage with the technology.

WOODRUFF: What's for sure, there's still very strong feelings on both sides of this issue.

Thank you both for joining us on this Monday. Betsy, Maria, thank you both.

(CROSSTALK)

WOODRUFF: As the president begins the second half of his term, where do the Democrats stand? Up next, two years after the Bush inauguration, Jeff Greenfield assesses the opposition party and its chances in 2004.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Two years into the Bush presidency, Democrats could argue that their party is positioned for victory in 2004. Well, Republicans, of course, see early signs of their own future success.

Our Jeff Greenfield says both sides could be right.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): A Republican president, with his party in control of both houses of Congress. And this time, a single defector can't reshape that balance of power.

A Democratic Party shut out of power, with as many as half-a- dozen of its senators about to battle each other for the presidential nomination, as the party's different factions battle over strategies, tactics and ideas. So, at midpoint in the presidency of George W. Bush, how stands the opposition?

If you go by the numbers, you've got more than enough evidence to prove that the glass is half full or half empty. Look, say the Democratic optimists, we won the popular vote in three straight presidential elections. Only a botched Florida ballot and a politicized Supreme Court majority of one put Bush in the White House. And just before September 11, 2001, polls showed he and Gore were still tied. Even with all the impact of 9/11, we Democrats only lost the Senate because of the plane crash in Minnesota, a memorial service gone awry, and a one-point loss in Missouri. Hold it, say the pessimists, or the Republican optimists, we picked up seats in the House and Senate. No White House party ever pulled that off in the first midterm election. And the total Republican House vote, 35 million, was four million more than the total Democratic vote. Not only that, it's the third straight midterm that Republicans have outpolled Democrats. Before this streak started, Republicans had gone 28 years without pulling off even one such victory.

Well, the half-full caucus replies, look at the state races where national security wasn't a factor. Democrats won back big state governorships in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, that one for the first time in 30 years. And Democrats picked up statehouses in a lot of so-called red states, Bush country, in Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming.

Yes, let's look at those states, say the half-empty advocates. Republicans won the governors races in Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy country, for the fourth straight election. They won in Maryland for the first time since 1966. They won New York by a landslide. In fact, New York has elected Republicans three straight times for governor and for mayor of New York City as well. And, in the real grassroots, in the state legislatures, Republicans picked up nearly 300 seats. On average, the party in power loses about 350.

Well, say the half-full optimists, measured by party registration, there are still more Democrats than Republicans. And, for the first time in years, the party is debt-free. But, on the other hand, when people are asked in a telephone survey what they consider themselves, more now call themselves Republicans than Democrats. That's a big change from a little more than two years ago.

And, as for money, the three major GOP committees outspent their Democratic counterparts by about $200 million in the last cycle. And the new limits on soft money clearly will hurt Democrats the most.

(on camera): Look, it's never easy for the party out of the White House. That presidential microphone and fund-raising clout alone would see to that. But what we're going to learn over the next few years is whether that bizarre election of 2000 was just a historical wrinkle or part of a long-term shift toward the realignment of the parties.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: A whole lot to think about.

Up next: The award goes to Bill Clinton?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Listen, David, people forget about scandals. I had the pardons, Ms. Lewinsky. You had the eight felony indictments. Heck, we were both nearly impeached. (END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODRUFF: We'll check out campaign ads that earned top honors in the annual Polly awards.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Looking ahead to what's in the works on tomorrow's INSIDE POLITICS: more on this week's 30th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision. Plus: The Reverend Al Sharpton makes it official by forming his presidential exploratory committee. Al Sharpton will join me to talk about his White House campaign.

Well, it's that time of year when the words, the envelope please, send chills down celebrities' spines.

Political ad-makers and our Bill Schneider get a thrill, too.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: It's award season. You've got the Golden Globes, the Oscars and the Pollies. That's right, the Pollies.

They're given every year by the American Association of Political Consultants for the best campaign ads. The Pollies for 2002 were awarded at a gala banquet here in Washington Saturday night. Let's check out some of the winners.

Here's the Polly winner for the best ad in a Senate campaign run by Oklahoma Republican Jim Inhofe. Who says Republicans don't have Bill Clinton to kick around anymore?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Listen, David, people forget about scandals. I had the pardons, Ms. Lewinsky. You had the eight felony indictments. Heck, we were both nearly impeached.

NARRATOR: They were ineffective governors of neighboring states. Bill Clinton has raised thousands of East Coast liberal dollars for Walters and they're both remembered most for scandal.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Just ask for forgiveness. It works every time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: Talk about tough, here's a first-place ad for a state Senate candidate in Texas. Notice that not a word is spoken.

This winning ad for a local candidate proves that, if your name happens to be Scott, you'd better not be soft on crime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): Well, it's a dangerous world and danger you'll find. Criminals walk without doing their time. He's opened up a sale, let them all cop a plea. Scott (INAUDIBLE) they got off scot-free.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Scot-free, scot-free.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: Just like in those other awards show, we think the judges overlooked some outstanding work. Here's our choice for the overlooked ads of the year.

This ad had a real impact. It's the reason why, in a big Republican year, GOP candidates Steve Largent lost the race for governor of Oklahoma.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

NARRATOR: We'll never forget where we were.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): Where were you when the world stopped turning on that September day.

REP. STEVE LARGENT (R-OK), OKLAHOMA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: That's (EXPLETIVE DELETED) No, no, all that stuff about, where were you on 9/11?

NARRATOR: Largent was hunting in Idaho, out of touch while Congress was in session. But to Largent?

LARGENT: That's (EXPLETIVE DELETED)

NARRATOR: Let's elect a governor who will treat us with respect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: Who needs this Golden Globe when we have this Kentucky ad?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why would Connie Hancock (INAUDIBLE) She expected this tape to surface. It's X-rated and it shows just how little she values her reputation and wedding vows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: Ms. Hancock was reelected, by the way, which proves that, in politics, just like in the movies, sex and scandal can pay off at the box office.

Bill Schneider, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: I wish we had been there to see all of them.

That's it for today's INSIDE POLITICS. I'm Judy Woodruff.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Debate; Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Travel to Iowa for Early Campaigning>


Aired January 20, 2003 - 16:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: INSIDE POLITICS begins right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(SINGING)

ANNOUNCER: On this Martin Luther King holiday, do President Bush's actions on affirmative action undermine his words?

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There is still a need for us to hear the words of Martin Luther King to make sure the hope of America extends its reach into every neighborhood across this land.

ANNOUNCER: Anatomy of a cattle call: are early showcases for presidential candidates effective, or just exhausting?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd like to stumble over a presidential candidate everywhere, every weekend (ph).

ANNOUNCER: The North Korean standoff: we'll talk to a journalist who says the White House wants Kim Jong Il's head on a platter.

Award season politics: from the glamorous Golden Globes to the Surprisingly Sexy Pollies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... shows just how little she values her reputation and wedding vows.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, this is INSIDE POLITICS with Judy Woodruff.

WOODRUFF: Thank you for joining us. President Bush says there is still more to do to realize Martin Luther King's dream. And on this MLK holiday, there is renewed debate about what Mr. Bush has and has not done to promote civil rights and diversity.

In this "NewsCycle," the president and Mrs. Bush will warmly received in an African-American church in Maryland. Mr. Bush did not bring up his controversial decision to challenge an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist joined the King family at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, his latest effort to reach out to minorities after the Trent Lott controversy.

Let's bring in now our White House correspondent, Dana Bash. Dana, in the wake of the announcement about the administration's position on the University of Michigan program, now we have the president going out, appearing at a black church today. How worried are they about appearances, about their views towards African- Americans?

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Judy, certainly the African-American vote has been a sector of the vote that the president has been courting since, really, he was governor of Texas. The president only got 9 percent of that vote in 2000, and they were really hoping to get that percentage up in 2004, and they have been trying to -- saying that they want to make the African-American community more a part of the Republican party.

But if you asked them, civil rights leaders, and certainly some Democrats, they'll say that the president stands not only on affirmative action, which was such a big story last week, but also on his nomination of some controversial judicial nominees like Charles Pickering and also the Trent Lott controversy has really muddled that push.

Now, the president did use today's holiday to go to a church in Maryland, not too far from here at the White House. He used the occasion to say that he understands that America is not yet a color- blind society.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Even though progress has been made, there's more to do. There are still people in our society who hurt. There is still prejudice holding people back. There is still a school system that doesn't elevate every child so they can learn.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Now, on the issue of learning, the White House last night put out a statement in advance of today's holiday, saying the president supports a 5 percent increase in funding for grants for predominantly African-American and Hispanic universities. That's $371 million that he supports.

The president also used this occasion to make reference to programs the White House is trying to work with the African-American community on, like his faith-based initiative, the president did gets lots of applause, but another person who he brought along with him who got applause was his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. She got a big round of applause, and she blew kisses to the crowd there -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Dana, we know that when it comes to affirmative action, Condoleezza Rice was relatively supportive of the president in the last few days, with some difference, saying she does think that race can be used as one factor in these decisions, but when it comes to the secretary of state, Colin Powell, he's making a real distinction. Let's listen, just quickly, to what the secretary had to say on CNN's "LATE EDITION" yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I am, as you know, a strong proponent of affirmative action. I wish it was possible for everything to be race neutral in this country, but I'm not afraid we're not yet at that point where things are race neutral.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODRUFF: So, Dana, it's pretty clear the secretary of state is making some distinctions between his own view and those of the president.

Does this make it uncomfortable for the White House?

BASH: Well, Colin Powell said that he made it very clear that his views on affirmative action are that he supports it, to the president before he was even president, way back during the campaign. He also said that he -- when the president was making his decision about what to do about the University of Michigan case, whether to file a brief and what to say in that brief, that Secretary Powell said that he did have a discussion with the president, and again he made his views known. The secretary saying that, yes, they might have a difference of opinion, but he also was very, very clear in saying that he does believe that the president is striving for diversity in America, and at universities, but they just have a different take on how to get there -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All interesting to watch. Dana, thank you very much.

BASH: My pleasure.

WOODRUFF: Well, Martin Luther King Day is the common theme of our edition today of our "Campaign News Daily." Most of the Democrats considering or actively running for the presidency attended King Day events around the nation. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman joined hundreds of volunteers at a community service event in Detroit. Later, he planned to help out on a Habitat for Humanity work site.

Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, spoke at a King Day celebration in Richmond, Virginia after spending much of his weekend in Iowa.

Other Democratic hopefuls attending events included the Reverend Al Sharpton, who made stops in South Carolina and New York, Senator John Edwards, who spoke in both North and South Carolina, Congressman Dick Gephardt, who attended an event here in Washington, and Senator Bob Graham, who spoke at a King Day breakfast in Florida.

And one more note on the Democratic hopefuls, Bob Graham told reporters this morning that while he still has not made up his mind about a White House run, he has interviewed two or three people for the job of campaign manager.

Well, even as politicians and many Americans embrace Dr. King's legacy on this day, some are too young to remember how much civil rights activists have had to overcome, but our Bruce Morton remembers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRUCE MORTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He marched. He wrote and preached, and went to jail, but he marched. Marched then against old wrongs, the legal segregation imposed on black Americans in the South after the Civil War, separate schools and lunchrooms, no vote. He marched, and many black and white marched with him, and those walls of legal segregation came tumbling down.

His creed was non-violence. It was the whites who bombed churches and clubbed marchers. He was non-violent, and he won. The walls came down. Blacks got to vote, blacks held office, some in Congress had seniority, real power. Only a couple in the Senate, though, and just one governor, ever, Douglas Wilder of Virginia.

Blacks elected mayors and old segregationists like Governor George Wallace of Alabama bargained with black mayors as they had with white ones. Old segregationist senators like Strom Thurmond put blacks on their staffs.

Legal segregation was over, which didn't mean that racism was gone. Some Americans clung to it. A civil rights law can't reform a mind. Trent Lott meant whatever he meant, and in Georgia, several hundred marched demanding a vote over whether to make the Confederate emblem on the state flag bigger. Heritage, race -- who knows.

By the time he was murdered, Dr. King had moved past segregation. He was concerned with economics. No way to know what he'd say about reparations for slavery, but he would certainly be urging anti-poverty programs, urging good schools that would give every American child an equal start in life, something we are far from achieving.

Blacks succeed in business, of course, the new head of AOL Time Warner is one example, but no one suggests every American gets a good high school education.

King's other issue by the time he died was the Vietnam War, which he, like many Americans opposed. He was non-violent anyway, of course, and thought the war was wrong.

This past Saturday, thousands of Americans marched here in Washington to protest what they think will be the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Many of the signs they carried bore a picture of Dr. King, a non-violent man who changed America.

He'd be 74 if he had lived, and we don't know where he'd stand on all the issues of this time, but you know where he'd have been last Saturday, out there, on those cold Washington streets of course, marching.

Bruce Morton, CNN, Washington. (END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: And it was cold the day they marched.

Well, there is much more ahead on INSIDE POLITICS.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: I'm Bill Schneider in Washington. Whether or not U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are much of an influence on President Bush, they do seem to have made an impression on the American people.

WOODRUFF: Also ahead, a provocative report that after Iraq, the Bush White House plans to target North Korea's leader. I'll talk to journalist Seymour Hersh.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Daryn Kagan in Los Angeles. Ahead, the year of the woman in politics. After last night's Golden Globes, could this be the year of the woman in the movies?

WOODRUFF: Time to check your "I.P., I.Q." What state became the first to adopt Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday. Was it A, Massachusetts, B, Illinois, or C, Georgia. We'll tell you the answer later on INSIDE POLITICS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Now, in the case of Iraq, we are nearing the end of a long road, and with every other option exhausted. With North Korea, by contrast, that is not yet the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODRUFF: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once again drawing a distinction between the threat posed to the U.S. by both Iraq and North Korea.

Our Bill Schneider some new poll numbers that reveal how the American people think the U.S. should approach both countries.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: The American's public view of the Iraq situation is changing. Now that the United Nations inspectors are there, more Americans believe the U.S. should act only with U.N. support.

Back in October, before the U.N. inspectors went in, 40 percent of Americans said the U.S. should send ground troops only if the U.N. supported such action. Thirty percent felt the U.S. Should send troops even if the U.N. is opposed. Twenty-two percent opposed sending any troops at all. And now -- the inspectors are there. A majority of Americans says the U.S. should act only with U.N. support. Just over a quarter say, to hell with U.N. And only 17 percent say, no war no way. There's an inspection process in place. The public's view is -- let the process run its course. Especially since the public is getting more and more worried about North Korea. Ten days ago, we asked people, which country they thought was the bigger threat to the U.S.? The answer was clearly -- Iraq. Only 18 percent said North Korea. While 28 percent called the two equal threats.

That's changed. Now, almost half the public says Iraq and North Korea are equal threats. The view that Iraq is more serious has dropped substantially. Iraq seems to be cooperating with the United Nations. North Korea is defying the world. We know North Korea has a nuclear weapons program. We're not sure about Iraq. Moreover, there are military and diplomatic plans in place for dealing with Iraq. A majority of Americans told us they do not believe President Bush has a clear plan for dealing with North Korea.

Judy, back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: Well, Bill Schneider.

The North Korean government today rejected a U.S. offer to take the dispute over North Korea's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council. The North Koreans describe the proposal and the potential for new sanctions as equal to a declaration of war.

Here in the United States, the latest "New Yorker" magazine features an article documenting alleged links between Pakistani scientists in the North Korea nuclear program. The author of that article is investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who joins me here in Washington.

Hi Hersh. What exactly did you learn about what Pakistani have been doing now for several years to help the North Koreans.

SEYMOUR HERSH, "THE NEW YORKER": Well, an awful lot.

One of the more important things is, of course, we knew all in June. In June, the Central Intelligence Agency, last June, gave the White House, a highly classified estimate that said North Korea is there, doing a lot, cheating on the agreements we made during the Clinton administration. But more importantly, the estimate also said that the Pakistanis have been giving the North Koreans the ability to manufacture nuclear materials not only plutonium but a different generation, enriched uranium, which is a whole separate process, which is actually easier.

You can make a bomb, a smaller bomb, out of it, too, just as deadly, and the Pakistanis beginning in '97 according to this estimate, really began a deal, to deal wholesale. They gave the North Koreans the wherewithal, the prototypes you need to make enriched material. They gave them bomb designs and more importantly, also gave them tips on how to cheat. How to avoid having our CIA, our spies find them. WOODRUFF: What's the significance of this? All this coming out at a time when the U.S. is depending on Pakistan to support them with the war on al Qaeda and terrorist?

HERSH: You got it. The significance, of course, this one of our biggest allies. Turns out, behind our back, before and after 9/11, they've been helping North Korea. Pakistan is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) . It can make nuclear bombs by itself. It doesn't need us or anybody else to do it. And the idea a country like this is beginning to spread it around is a little scary.

WOODRUFF: Well, Pakistan, of course, has its own problems with India. That's reason it was developing a nuclear program in the first place. Needed the resources, presumably and started dealing with North Korea.

But now, the potential is for what?

HERSH: The cat's out of the bag. What's to stop the Pakistanis from going to Iran or anyplace else.

WOODRUFF: The administration when you asked for their comment, what was the reaction?

HERSH: Are you kidding, nil. I sent messages to the CIA, to the State Department and the White House, and what I said was, look guys, the story you told is that all of a sudden last fall, Assistant Secretary Kelly goes to North Korea, says we have a problem and you confess and were surprised.

But it turns out in June, last June, the CIA told you everything that the North Koreans confessed to. So what happened between June and October? For four months, this administration, I think because of the fixation on Iraq, simply low balled the real problem with North Korea. And that's wrong.

WOODRUFF: Another aspect of your story. Very provocative and interesting. You quote an American intelligence official as saying what President Bush and Vice President Cheney Really want, there's so much loathing, we've heard that word before, for, Kim Jong Il, the leader of the North Koreans. They want, "his head on a platter." After they deal with Iraq, they want North Korea.

Now yesterday, some colleagues, Wolf Blitzer, here asked Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, they all said, no. That's never been said. That's not U.S. policy.

HERSH: I would say it's policy, but there certainly is a personal feeling on be have of the president and Vice President Cheney, this guy is really, the head of North Korea, has really broken the rules, he is trying to blackmail us. They are going to deal with him now because they want to get done with Iraq. Then after Iraq, it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) bar the door. I think they think after Iraq the world will be a changed world, see we're tough, they think it's going to be easier in Iraq than a lot of other people do and people like the North Koreans and others will respect us more. WOODRUFF: But they're not ready to talk about it yet.

HERSH: You know, the truth of the matter is, this is a very -- this president sees people -- your white and black. Your either for us, against us. And the North Koreans are certainly not for us in their eyes.

WOODRUFF: Investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, your piece appeared in this week's "New Yorker."

Thanks for coming by.

Canceled Palestinian elections tops our world news. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were supposed to go to the polls for the first time in seven years to elect a new president and parliament, but the elections were postponed. Yasser Arafat blames Israel saying their forces must first withdraw from Palestinian territories.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Arafat also said he is actively looking for new political politicians to succeed him.

From the Middle East to Cuba, where votes from yesterday's election votes are being counted. But there's no doubt the winner will be the Communist party. All 609 the national assembly candidates ran unopposed. Dissidents labeled the vote a farce. Among the candidates, Juan Gonzalez, the father of Elian Gonzalez. The at the heart of an international custody battle several years ago.

Still ahead, Democratic presidential candidates head to Iowa, early and often. We'll take you behind the scenes of a weekend get- together for contenders and political junkies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Are they on the rebound or in critical condition? A prognosis for the Democratic Party coming on INSIDE POLITICS.

Plus, will it be back to the future for Gary Hart? We ask, "Is the former senator from Colorado ready to make another run?"

(voice-over): It's time to check your "I.P. I.Q."

Earlier we asked: "What state became the first to adopt Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday? Was it, A., Massachusetts, B., Illinois or, C., Georgia?

The correct answer is B. In 1973, Illinois became the first state to adopt Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday. It was first celebrated as a federal holiday in 1986.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Iowa's Democratic Party chairman says that his party's presidential race is wide open in the leadoff caucus state. All the more reason for Democrats to try to distinguish themselves now, a year before the caucuses. Our Candy Crowley went to a so-called cattle call in Iowa over the weekend to watch the candidates and the party faithful in action.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's Saturday afternoon in Linn County, Iowa, temperature in the single digits, windchill: subzero.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're having pork loins, a smothered chicken breast, green beans (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and tossed salad.

CROWLEY: Chicken is the first hint, this is your second.

Yes, indeedy, the '04 presidential campaign has opened in Iowa.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's like heroin for a political junkie this weekend.

CROWLEY: Tonight is for the hardcore; the people who live and breathe this stuff. Sure, there are a few kinks to work out, but if you throw a political event, they will come, and pay for it, too.

And if you think it's enough to brave a subzero night to attend a political event a year and ten months before the next election, you might want to consider these people, who showed up to stand out in a subzero night to protest.

Meanwhile, where it's warm, the cattle call is under way, but only half the cattle have come to call. On his first trip as a declared candidate, John Kerry is dogged by something he said in '96 about hating to go to places like Dubuque to raise money, which explains why Kerry is so relentlessly thrilled to be here.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I've had a wonderful chance to meet a lot of people. We've got a great exchange. It's been a great learning experience. I'm having a lot of fun.

CROWLEY: This is the 18th time Howard Dean has been to Iowa; the first time he's had so much attention.

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: How did I know it was going to turn into a media circus?

CROWLEY: Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt can't count the times he's been to Iowa. He won the caucus here in '88. Now he begins again.

(on camera): Looks like all three candidates here have their own banners, but so far as we can tell, only one has a goody bag.

The doctor is in. That's Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont. He's a doctor. This has Excedrin, in case this all gets a little too much; some ear plugs, no comment; and then a local delicacy from Cedar Rapids, Quaker Oats Oatmeal.

(voice-over): The menu proved perfect. Chicken at the table, and red meat from the podium.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Democrats are good for everybody. Republicans are good for nobody!

DEAN: Let us not make a mistake about which party it is that wants inclusiveness and diversity in this country. It is not the Republicans.

CROWLEY: John Kerry drew the short straw and was the last to speak.

KERRY: You all are extraordinary gluttons for punishment here.

CROWLEY: They began arriving before 5:00 and left shortly before 11:00 and the truth is a good time was had by all.

For Democrats, '04 can't come early enough.

Candy Crowley, CNN, Linn County, Iowa.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: First cattle call and there's a lot more to come.

Well, former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart wasn't there, but he has said he will decide in March whether to run for the White House again.

But Hart already has a Web site touting what he calls his contribution to the "primary of ideas leading up to the 2004 election."

Ron Brownstein of "The Los Angeles Times" spoke with Gary Hart just a few days ago.

And what do you think? Is he going to run?

RON BROWNSTEIN, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": I think he wants to run if he finds any response that is positive. The word he used in the interview and also on Sunday on ABC was resonance, whether he gets resonance from his audience. He's going to go out and give four speeches between now and the end of March, and resonance, I think, like beauty, is a lot in the eye of the beholder. And a candidate can often find it if he's looking for it.

His one concern, I think, his principle concern, my sense from talking to him, was whether he gets past the issues of scandal that drove him out of the '87 race, whether he can be heard on his ideas.

WOODRUFF: What would be the rationale? Why would he run? I mean, after all, he's not a new face. I mean, even Dick Gephardt has been running into some flak over that and he ran in '88. Gary Hart ran before that.

BROWNSTEIN: He was the candidate of the future, now a man of the past. I mean, that's sort of an irony for Gary Hart. He certainly was voice of a new generation, as he presented himself in the 1980s.

I think he would run largely for two reasons. One is he believes that none of the Democrats are making the case on homeland security. And, as you know, his reemergence from that long exile after the '88 race really began with his work with Warren Rudman on the U.S. -- the national commission that looked at national security, and warned of a September 11th-like attack eight months before it occurred.

The other reason I think he might run, Judy, is to make a sort of anti-politics, clean up the system reform argument. A sort of outsider arguing the system is overrun by special interest money and no longer asks enough of Americans.

I mean, he -- while he was gone, he got a Phd at Oxford, which would make him, I think, only the second president ever with a Phd if he won. And that was based on the idea of a restoration of the republic. He made a book out of it, encouraging more civic engagement, devolving more authority for programs for local people -- vote to improve services, but also to get people more involved in government. He wants to go out and deliver that message.

WOODRUFF: Ron, if he did get in, what affect would that have on the field as we now know it?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, look, this is some one who knows how to run insurgency campaigns. His 1984 campaign against Walter Mondale was one of the most successful insurgency campaigns. And he was George McGovern's campaign manager in 1972.

He would have an unpredictable effect. He would certainly affect the debate. He is someone who knows how to shape and present ideas. He would also probably affect some of the candidates, who are themselves trying to organize themselves as outsiders.

Howard Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire would probably be hurt by hart's appeal on campus, and even John Edwards, I think, who, despite being a senator, is largely presenting himself as someone outside from outside of Washington might face competition from some of those same voters from a Hart campaign that, even if it did not break into the first tier, you could imagine the sort of lame in the Democratic primary that allows you to get 6, 8, 10 percent in some of those early primaries. And that could affect the overall order of finish.

WOODRUFF: Interesting concept. The guy who was running in the 80s is now the outsider...

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

WOODRUFF: ...if he gets in.

BROWNSTEIN: Always more comfortable as the outsider than the insider. Very uncomfortable in '88 when he was the frontrunner.

WOODRUFF: We know another politician like that.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. WOODRUFF: OK. Ron, thanks very much.

BROWNSTEIN: All right.

WOODRUFF: Well, we will turn to another high-stakes competition when we return. Are this year's Golden Globe winners making a political statement? Our Daryn Kagan went roaming the red carpet for an answer.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Thirty years after Roe vs. Wade, the battle over abortion is as bitter as ever -- the arguments from both sides coming up on INSIDE POLITICS.

(NEWS BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Well, if you wanted to compare Hollywood award shows and presidential politics -- and, of course, we do -- then you could say that last night's Golden Globes were the primaries for the Oscars. And, in keeping with the election analogy, a political theme of the past may apply to the most celebrated movies, with this being the year of the woman.

My colleague Daryn Kagan is in Los Angeles after a long night of covering the Golden Globes.

Daryn, you're looking pretty glamorous to have been up all night. So, is this the year of the woman?

KAGAN: I will tell you, Judy -- and, by the way, that was a very good analogy. I like that.

Right now, it's feeling like the year of the sore feet. But on the red carpet last night, there was a sense of -- there are so many great roles out there for women, so many great performances and not just -- let's be honest about we usually see here in Hollywood. It's a young woman playing a prostitute. That's her best opportunity. These have been roles of significance and roles for women over 30 who have lived and some substance.

Let's show you a couple of people who won last night. Meryl Streep, one of the greatest actresses of our generation, she got the first award of the night. And she won for best supporting actress in a musical or comedy for a role in a little movie a lot of people haven't seen. It's called "Adaptation." You're seeing a little behind the scenes right there. Also, Meryl Streep was in another significant movie for women, "The Hours."

Now, she didn't win for that. But her co-star, Nicole Kidman, won for best actress in a drama. Let's listen to what Nicole Kidman had to say about roles for women this year on the stage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICOLE KIDMAN, ACTRESS: So, I just want to say, this year, I think you really see that there is an enormous amount of really, really -- I'm blushing -- really good performances by women in television and in cinema.

(APPLAUSE)

KIDMAN: And I say to the writers, please keep writing for us, because we're very interesting.

(LAUGHTER)

KIDMAN: And to the directors, please keep taking chances and giving us complicated, rich characters to play. I do believe...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: Exactly. That sentiment echoed a lot here in Hollywood.

And you know what's interesting about the movies that we're talking about this year, Judy? It's not just great roles for women, lots of women in the same movies. Of course, in "The Hours," you had Nicole Kidman and Meryl Streep and also Julianne Moore. And then, in "Chicago," which is a big musical comedy this year to take so many awards, you have both Renee Zellweger, who took home best actress. And she was up against Catherine Zeta-Jones in the best actress category.

I also just saw an Queen Latifah. She has an excellent performance in "Chicago" as well. She was up in the best supporting actress category. And you don't get a sense that these women are necessarily competing against each other, but rather banding together to bring more great roles to women in Hollywood. That could be the greatest act of all. I don't know. But they pulled it off last night. I can tell you that.

WOODRUFF: Well, very refreshing, if they're all working together. And a lot of discussion about women and what's available as they get older.

But my question for you now is, if the Golden Globes are the primaries for the Oscars, who's the front-runner? And is it going to be a woman again?

KAGAN: Well, of course, women don't necessarily compete against men at the Oscars. But this is a time when it really does get interesting.

And if I can borrow from your political analogy, it's kind of like the Golden Globes are the House, where there's lots of seats for a lot of people. And now we're moving onto the Senate, where there are not so many seats. Big difference with the Oscars and the Golden Globes, Golden Globes, they split the categories into musical comedy and drama. And, of course, in the Oscars, they don't do that.

And it will be interesting to see where these women choose to compete. Now, will Catherine Zeta-Jones take a cue and way, wow, I didn't win against Renee Zellweger in the best actress category. Do I want to move to best supporting? But look who won best supporting last night: Meryl Streep. So, the competition is very, very tough this year.

The nominations for the ballots are due nine days from now. So, this one's going to heat up very quickly, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Well, a lot of great competitors out there. We love competition and we love the fact that there are all these women still in there.

KAGAN: Absolutely.

WOODRUFF: All right, thanks a lot, Daryn.

KAGAN: Sure.

WOODRUFF: We'll see you. Thanks very much.

KAGAN: OK. You bet.

WOODRUFF: Straight ahead: Roe vs. Wade 30 years later, three decades of debate in the political battle over abortion.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: With us now: Maria Echaveste, former Clinton White House deputy chief of staff; and Betsy Hart of the Scripps Howard News Service.

It has been 30 years since the Supreme Court issued the Roe vs. Wade decision. How has the debate, which never seems to go away -- if anything, has gotten more volatile -- how has it changed?

Or do you really think it has changed, Maria?

MARIA ECHAVESTE, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, I think it has changed in that, over the last three decades, there is, I think, a great percentage of women who actually don't understand the importance of this right under the Constitution and that the Supreme Court has recognized and how close it is to being taken away.

And so, you really have two sides being very harsh in their rhetoric and I think a great percentage in the middle that don't understand what's at stake.

BETSY HART, SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE: Well, I think what Maria is actually alluding to is the fact that abortion advocates have lost so much ground in the last several decades.

What's fascinating is that, over the last 30 years, not only is this issue still around, but the polling number is moving, and has been for quite some time, in favor of what I would call the right-to- life position, which does not mean necessarily ending all abortions, but that the vast majority of Americans are against the vast majority of abortions. They want significant restrictions. And that position is growing, so much so that even internal polling, I'm told, that the abortion activist organizations recognize that. And so one of them, of course, we saw last week, NARAL, actually changed its name to reflect what they hope is a more positive view of this issue, because they realize they just don't have the support they once did.

WOODRUFF: Well, on the subject of what people want to do with regard to the laws, there's a CNN/"TIME" poll just out. People were asked: Do you favor laws making it harder to get an abortion? There were 50 percent who said yes; 44 percent said no.

So, should there be concern, do you think, Maria, among people who favor abortion rights, that you don't have more support?

ECHAVESTE: I think there is concern that people not understand that this is about not in favor of abortions, but the right to choose, for each woman to be able to have the right to decide what she's going to do with her body. And I think this notion that the right-to-life left group is in favor not of an outright elimination or ban, but only partial restrictions is disingenuous.

(CROSSTALK)

HART: No, no, I'm in favor of ending abortion. But the vast majority of Americans, while not with me on that, are with me in restricting the vast majority of abortions.

ECHAVESTE: But my point there is that the right has been very smart. Instead of going out for a total ban on the right to choose, they are looking to pick off such things as a partial ban or parental consent, which there are arguments, legitimate arguments that people can make and have an honest debate and still be in favor of choice.

WOODRUFF: Betsy.

HART: Well, but that's right.

Those numbers you cite, if you said, what about restrictions on minors? What about parental notification? What about spousal notification? What about waiting periods? You would find those numbers advocating such laws growing far beyond that 50 percent. And a lot of the sea change has had to do with not only moral conscience in some areas, but simply a factual one.

More and more women have either had sonograms or they know women who have had. They have seen those little two and four-week and six- week at gestation life figures. And either their aunts have had one or their friends. And there's beginning to be a must greater consciousness. You can even get sonograms in malls now.

So, the reality of what's happening in abortion I think is becoming far more common and people are beginning to pull back and say, wait a minute. This is a fundamentally important issue. We can't just leave it up to a woman and her doctor, because that can be a very ugly -- quote, unquote -- "choice." ECHAVESTE: Who you leave it up to? The husband? A family? You're talking about a woman who is going to either carry a pregnancy to term on not. And I think this question of suggesting that somehow this new technology's making this harder, gosh, I would say that 30 years -- people understand, this is a very difficult choice. And I would submit that the only person who has to make that choice

(CROSSTALK)

HART: But why is it a difficult choice? It's not like getting an appendix out. And that's the reality of it. The morality of the issue has, I think, taken more and more center stage with the technology.

WOODRUFF: What's for sure, there's still very strong feelings on both sides of this issue.

Thank you both for joining us on this Monday. Betsy, Maria, thank you both.

(CROSSTALK)

WOODRUFF: As the president begins the second half of his term, where do the Democrats stand? Up next, two years after the Bush inauguration, Jeff Greenfield assesses the opposition party and its chances in 2004.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Two years into the Bush presidency, Democrats could argue that their party is positioned for victory in 2004. Well, Republicans, of course, see early signs of their own future success.

Our Jeff Greenfield says both sides could be right.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): A Republican president, with his party in control of both houses of Congress. And this time, a single defector can't reshape that balance of power.

A Democratic Party shut out of power, with as many as half-a- dozen of its senators about to battle each other for the presidential nomination, as the party's different factions battle over strategies, tactics and ideas. So, at midpoint in the presidency of George W. Bush, how stands the opposition?

If you go by the numbers, you've got more than enough evidence to prove that the glass is half full or half empty. Look, say the Democratic optimists, we won the popular vote in three straight presidential elections. Only a botched Florida ballot and a politicized Supreme Court majority of one put Bush in the White House. And just before September 11, 2001, polls showed he and Gore were still tied. Even with all the impact of 9/11, we Democrats only lost the Senate because of the plane crash in Minnesota, a memorial service gone awry, and a one-point loss in Missouri. Hold it, say the pessimists, or the Republican optimists, we picked up seats in the House and Senate. No White House party ever pulled that off in the first midterm election. And the total Republican House vote, 35 million, was four million more than the total Democratic vote. Not only that, it's the third straight midterm that Republicans have outpolled Democrats. Before this streak started, Republicans had gone 28 years without pulling off even one such victory.

Well, the half-full caucus replies, look at the state races where national security wasn't a factor. Democrats won back big state governorships in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, that one for the first time in 30 years. And Democrats picked up statehouses in a lot of so-called red states, Bush country, in Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming.

Yes, let's look at those states, say the half-empty advocates. Republicans won the governors races in Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy country, for the fourth straight election. They won in Maryland for the first time since 1966. They won New York by a landslide. In fact, New York has elected Republicans three straight times for governor and for mayor of New York City as well. And, in the real grassroots, in the state legislatures, Republicans picked up nearly 300 seats. On average, the party in power loses about 350.

Well, say the half-full optimists, measured by party registration, there are still more Democrats than Republicans. And, for the first time in years, the party is debt-free. But, on the other hand, when people are asked in a telephone survey what they consider themselves, more now call themselves Republicans than Democrats. That's a big change from a little more than two years ago.

And, as for money, the three major GOP committees outspent their Democratic counterparts by about $200 million in the last cycle. And the new limits on soft money clearly will hurt Democrats the most.

(on camera): Look, it's never easy for the party out of the White House. That presidential microphone and fund-raising clout alone would see to that. But what we're going to learn over the next few years is whether that bizarre election of 2000 was just a historical wrinkle or part of a long-term shift toward the realignment of the parties.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: A whole lot to think about.

Up next: The award goes to Bill Clinton?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Listen, David, people forget about scandals. I had the pardons, Ms. Lewinsky. You had the eight felony indictments. Heck, we were both nearly impeached. (END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODRUFF: We'll check out campaign ads that earned top honors in the annual Polly awards.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Looking ahead to what's in the works on tomorrow's INSIDE POLITICS: more on this week's 30th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision. Plus: The Reverend Al Sharpton makes it official by forming his presidential exploratory committee. Al Sharpton will join me to talk about his White House campaign.

Well, it's that time of year when the words, the envelope please, send chills down celebrities' spines.

Political ad-makers and our Bill Schneider get a thrill, too.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: It's award season. You've got the Golden Globes, the Oscars and the Pollies. That's right, the Pollies.

They're given every year by the American Association of Political Consultants for the best campaign ads. The Pollies for 2002 were awarded at a gala banquet here in Washington Saturday night. Let's check out some of the winners.

Here's the Polly winner for the best ad in a Senate campaign run by Oklahoma Republican Jim Inhofe. Who says Republicans don't have Bill Clinton to kick around anymore?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Listen, David, people forget about scandals. I had the pardons, Ms. Lewinsky. You had the eight felony indictments. Heck, we were both nearly impeached.

NARRATOR: They were ineffective governors of neighboring states. Bill Clinton has raised thousands of East Coast liberal dollars for Walters and they're both remembered most for scandal.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Just ask for forgiveness. It works every time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: Talk about tough, here's a first-place ad for a state Senate candidate in Texas. Notice that not a word is spoken.

This winning ad for a local candidate proves that, if your name happens to be Scott, you'd better not be soft on crime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): Well, it's a dangerous world and danger you'll find. Criminals walk without doing their time. He's opened up a sale, let them all cop a plea. Scott (INAUDIBLE) they got off scot-free.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Scot-free, scot-free.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: Just like in those other awards show, we think the judges overlooked some outstanding work. Here's our choice for the overlooked ads of the year.

This ad had a real impact. It's the reason why, in a big Republican year, GOP candidates Steve Largent lost the race for governor of Oklahoma.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

NARRATOR: We'll never forget where we were.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): Where were you when the world stopped turning on that September day.

REP. STEVE LARGENT (R-OK), OKLAHOMA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: That's (EXPLETIVE DELETED) No, no, all that stuff about, where were you on 9/11?

NARRATOR: Largent was hunting in Idaho, out of touch while Congress was in session. But to Largent?

LARGENT: That's (EXPLETIVE DELETED)

NARRATOR: Let's elect a governor who will treat us with respect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: Who needs this Golden Globe when we have this Kentucky ad?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why would Connie Hancock (INAUDIBLE) She expected this tape to surface. It's X-rated and it shows just how little she values her reputation and wedding vows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: Ms. Hancock was reelected, by the way, which proves that, in politics, just like in the movies, sex and scandal can pay off at the box office.

Bill Schneider, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: I wish we had been there to see all of them.

That's it for today's INSIDE POLITICS. I'm Judy Woodruff.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Debate; Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Travel to Iowa for Early Campaigning>