Return to Transcripts main page
PAULA ZAHN NOW
How Did Dean Implode?; Celebrity Testimony
Aired February 18, 2004 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. Welcome. I'm Paula Zahn.
The world, the news, the names, the faces, and where we go from here on this Wednesday, February 18, 2004.
ZAHN (voice-over): "In Focus" tonight: Political correctness gone too far? I'll be talking with a man fired from his job for using the word "monkey."
Also, an exclusive inside look at rise and fall of Howard Dean.
HOWARD DEAN (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: For the record, we're not the Internet campaign anymore.
How did the Dean campaign implode so spectacularly? Joe Klein and Victoria Clarke will be here.
And Martha, Michael, Kobe, to testify or not to testify?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You could lose in a heartbeat if the person either is not believed or if they don't acquit themselves while on the witness stand.
ZAHN: The pros and cons of celebrities on the stand from Robert Shapiro.
ZAHN: All that ahead tonight.
But, first, here's what you need to know right now, important news on two fronts in Iraq tonight.
For details, let's go straight to Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf.
Good evening, Jane.
JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Good evening, Paula.
U.S. officials say it was a well coordinated attack, not one, but two suicide bombs on the entrance of the base South of Baghdad in Hillah. Now, this was a multinational base, but U.S. officials say guards opened fire on the first car, causing it to explode. Eight people, plus the suicide bombers, were killed, most of them children, and inside and outside the base, another 44 people injured, many of them polish soldiers.
Now, they say it could have been much worse, had the car gotten inside. But it's an indication, perhaps, of what U.S. officials have been warning of, which is increased attacks ahead of this expected transfer of power back to Iraqis.
And although some of these attacks are still linked to Iraqis, increasingly, particularly with the case of suicide bombs, they're targeting foreign fighters. Now, overnight, in the northern town of Baquba, the U.S. military says it arrested seven people suspected of links to a group with ties to al Qaeda. Now, so far, we've heard a lot of suspicious, but have no real firm evidence of a lot of al Qaeda involvement here -- Paula.
ZAHN: Thanks for the update.
"In Focus" tonight, how to lose your job over a single word and not even a four-letter word. This story raises questions about what some say is political correctness run amuck. This man, Jeff Bogg, says he was fired by Southwest Airlines for using the word monkey.
He joins us tonight in Detroit for an exclusive television interview.
Good to see you, Jeff. Welcome.
JEFF BOGG, FIRED BY SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: How are you, Paula?
ZAHN: I'm fine, thanks, sir.
If you would, briefly describe to us what happened to you.
BOGG: I have a handicapped child, a special needs child. And December 5, we went to the church. And they do a thing for children.
And while they were sitting on Santa Claus's lap, the photographer was saying "Smile. Say monkey." And my wife and I talked about it. She's a preschool teacher and we thought it was great. The next night was the Dallas maintenance party for Southwest Airlines. And during the course of the evening, I walked through the foyer. And an African-American family was having their photograph taken.
And I stood there and I said, "Smile. Say monkey." And two of the gentlemen approached me and said they took offense to it. And I apologized immediately and told them -- I assured them I didn't mean anything by that. And we went about our way.
ZAHN: Then, shortly thereafter, you were fired, weren't you?
BOGG: Yes, ma'am. That was December the 9th nine and I was terminated on January 6, that morning.
ZAHN: And what reason did they give you for firing you, for saying something that was perceived as racist? BOGG: No, ma'am. They told me that it was inappropriate conduct. And the termination letter they handed me said that I'd used the word monkey during an African-American photo shoot and the family took offense to it.
ZAHN: We actually have a statement from Southwest Airlines I'd like you to react to tonight, Jeff.
And I'm reading it halfway through, where they basically say that you had a leadership position at the company and -- quote -- "We expect our leaders to set the example and lead with the highest degree of integrity. We are angry and dismayed at Mr. Bogg's account of the events that led to his termination. And we don't agree with his version of the facts."
BOGG: I think I was a political scapegoat, executed for that. I have a -- like I say, I have a handicapped child. And we know that kind of thing profusely, because we go to the store. We get the stares and they walk around us and stuff like that. So, I know that and I wouldn't offend anybody intentionally.
ZAHN: And you said you apologized, so you do understand why some people might have perceived your saying that word as racist?
BOGG: Well, when the two gentlemen approached me and said they took offense to it, that's when I apologized. And I told the young lady from human resources that I would apologize to the family, meet with the family, whatever it took. And I assured her I didn't mean anything by it.
ZAHN: Are you bitter about what happened?
BOGG: Yes, ma'am, somewhat, because I was almost 16 years with Southwest Airlines, a spotless record.
ZAHN: So, do you ever plan to use the word monkey again when a picture is taken?
BOGG: No, ma'am, I won't say anything at picture time, not even say cheese.
ZAHN: Now let's get the views of two African-Americans on the Bogg controversy, nationally syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams and civil rights activist Lawrence Guyot, both in Washington tonight.
ZAHN: Guyot, I want to start with you this evening. Do you think Mr. Bogg should have been fired for using the word monkey?
LAWRENCE GUYOT, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Absolutely.
ZAHN: Why? GUYOT: I think because racism permeates all of America. Some corporations have become responsible and they have talked to their leadership about what's possible, what's acceptable and what's not.
ZAHN: But he said he meant no harm by it.
GUYOT: You know, we can't take the position that an explosive, triggering word has to be imbued with intent, because, once we do that, I can go to anyone and say anything I want. And that's not allowed.
We live in a very fragile, racial context. When I go out -- when I leave this studio and I try to catch a cab, I'm going to be treated differently than any other white American. White America does not have to plan and prepare itself for putting its children in that kind of situation.
This gentleman, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and I'll say, OK, he wasn't aware of what he was doing. That in no way spares him from the corporation being efficient and responsible.
ZAHN: All right.
Well, what about that, Armstrong, Guyot basically arguing that the intent didn't matter here, that, at its root, the word is racist, regardless of what the man meant?
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know, I speak as an American, not a hyphenated American.
Listen, what the guy did not express in his remarks was that, when the photographer said, "Say monkey," the kids went into laughter. They were really excited about the reaction. And so, obviously, it was harmless. Obviously, we live in a very sensitive, very politically correct society. And, obviously, there is still pockets of racism in America.
ZAHN: All right, but, Armstrong, even you have to acknowledge saying that to children is a much different context than him saying that to some African-Americans who were having their picture taken.
WILLIAMS: But you know what? The bottom line is, even his neighbors who just happened to be Americans who are black who live next door to Jeff, say he's a good guy. They've known him for a long time. And they were stunned that someone would take his word monkey to mean that he tried to offend this black family.
He came into the room the very night, fresh off of hearing the reaction from the kids. He was feeling very good about it. He saw the photographer. And without even thinking, he's just looked over, saying, having fun, saying, hey, say monkey. They were offended. When the two gentlemen walked up to him and said, hey, man, I was offended by that, he immediately said, oh I'm sorry, because we are dealing with adults here. He realized at that point that they were offended by it. He said he was sorry. He apologized and he thought that it was over. Yes, he made the comments. Yes, I can see how that family may have been offended. But this man doesn't have a track record of making racist comments or offending people. He used bad judgment for people who are overly sensitive and reacted the wrong way.
But the man is not a racist. He meant no harm and shouldn't have been fired. This is not what the civil rights movement is about. This is not racism. This is just the system, including Southwest Airlines, overreacting to a situation.
GUYOT: That's just not true.
ZAHN: Guyot, what about that argument, that this is political correctness gone amuck?
GUYOT: I wouldn't have come to participate in a program about political correctness.
On these facts, the only concession I'll make is, the airline should have told him how serious they considered this before they fired him. That's my only concession.
ZAHN: But a whole month period went by before they did so. In fact, he said he was given the impression when he first went to H.R. that there wasn't a problem at all.
GUYOT: Ms. Zahn, I've made the concession. But I'll make no other. If a black person had done the same thing, I would feel he should be treated the same way.
This is not about people being oversensitive. This is about the day-to-day life of what being black in America is to some of us. And let's be clear. We have an opportunity and a challenge and a responsibility to deal openly with the discussion of race. And until we do that, we'll have a million of these. And we can't tolerate that.
These anecdotal situations could become very explosive. Suppose the two family members had gone up to him and hit him. Then we get into a whole, you know, question of
GUYOT: ... this conflict escalating.
GUYOT: This is not about political correctness. This is about equity.
ZAHN: Armstrong, I need a brief closing word.
WILLIAMS: I think it's a generational situation.
Guys like Lawrence and others still live in that time period. I polled many people today to discuss this, even before coming on the air tonight. Not one person thought that this guy should have been fired and not one person, who just happened to be black, thought that guy was a racist and meant any harm by his statements. This is just overreaction and just blown out of proportion. Southwest Airlines should apologize to this man and give him his job back.
ZAHN: All right, we've got to leave it there.
Gentlemen, Guyot and Armstrong Williams, I've got to move on.
GUYOT: Southwest should continue. And other corporations should follow that good example.
WILLIAMS: Poor example.
ZAHN: Thank you both, gentlemen. Appreciate your time.
Moving on, should the CIA chief quit? I'm going to ask one of the chief architects of the war in Iraq why he says it's time for heads to roll at the spy agency.
And the tough questions facing Martha Stewart's defense team. Should she take the stand in her own defense?
Plus, Howard Dean calls it quits. We're going to find out what his departure means for the remaining candidates.
ZAHN: Tonight, a call for heads to roll at the CIA for intelligence failures before the war with Iraq. The call comes from Richard Perle, who has served as an adviser to the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and supported U.S. military action against Iraq.
Perle is the co-author of "An End to Evil: How To Win the War On Terror" and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
I started off by asking him if he was disappointed that no WMDs have been found in Iraq.
RICHARD PERLE, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There was never any doubt that they were produced. In fact, the Iraqis acknowledged producing weapons of mass destruction. And when the United Nations and we went to Saddam Hussein and said to support your claim that you have no weapons of mass destruction, please explain to us what you did with them, give us the dates, the times, the places where they were destroyed, but he refused to do that.
And, in the face of that refusal, there was only one reasonable conclusion the president could draw, and that is, he was hiding the things that he couldn't account for. So there's a long record of failure at the CIA. And, to the best of my knowledge, corrective action was never taken in response to any of these failures. That's just not good enough. We're in a war on terror. And we're not going to protect this country unless we have adequate intelligence. And we don't have it today.
ZAHN: So, sir, if you believe that those systemic problems have existed now for decades, why did you have so much confidence in the intelligence that suggested there might be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
PERLE: The one thing that you expect your intelligence organizations to do is count and measure.
And the United Nations inspectors, when they left Iraq, left behind an inventory of the weapons that Saddam possessed. What the CIA failed to observe was what happened to those weapons subsequent to that accounting. Now, that's not the reason for my concern with the CIA. The reason is a chronic failure to anticipate events.
ZAHN: So, if you believe that as strongly as you're expressing tonight, why hasn't the president fired George Tenet?
PERLE: That's not a question I can answer.
I rather suspect that, when we were hit on 9/11, the president concluded that he had only one intelligence organization and he needed it. And whatever its deficiencies, that was not the moment to make a change. I think that change should have been made a long time ago, even before 9/11, frankly.
ZAHN: And, Richard, you certainly aren't the only one criticizing the head of the CIA. I guess what I'm still wondering tonight, if you feel as strongly as you do, as others do, what is it that you know that the president doesn't know about the CIA?
PERLE: These are questions of judgment, and I can't substitute my judgment for the president's. He has his own relationship with the institution, with George Tenet. That's his decision to make.
And I can only observe that, for a great many years, long before this president became president -- and I think he's been a terrific president, by the way -- but long before he became president, the CIA was simply getting it wrong. And, to the best of my knowledge, we didn't change leadership when those errors were made. And no organization can get it wrong again and again and again without significant change. ZAHN: Richard Perle, thanks so much for your time tonight. Appreciate your spending some time with us.
PERLE: Thank you.
ZAHN: Coming up, we're going to look at why some people want to deny an Oscar to a critically acclaimed movie about a family torn apart over child abuse allegations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW JARECKI, DIRECTOR: Whether you believe that Jesse Friedman was innocent or guilty, or his father was innocent or guilty, it's very clear that the police handled this investigation in an incredibly primitive way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: And it's a hugely popular computer game. We're going to show you why there's real-life controversy over "The Sims Online."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mommy believes you did it and she believes you should go to jail. And she believes that she deserves everything that's left and you shouldn't have any part of it. You have to hire another lawyer? All this woman does is hire lawyers. I honestly have to tell you, anything that she decides, I can't trust. Arnie, they don't trust me. Well, we don't trust her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: You don't often hear much about the documentaries that are nominated for Academy Awards. But one this year has touched some very raw nerves. It's called "Capturing the Friedmans" and some people say it should not be honored.
It's the story of two convicted child molesters named Arnold and Jesse Friedman. Two of their victims have written an open letter to the academy, saying the Oscar exposure treats a convicted criminal like a celebrity. The film's director and producer disagree, as you'll see in my conversation with them.
JARECKI: The sort of drama of the story starts when the Friedman family, which is a father, a son, and a father, mother and three boys, are all sitting around the table getting ready to have Thanksgiving dinner in 1987. And their front door explodes, shattered by a police battering ram.
And the house fills with police officers who come in and start boxing up all their possessions and arrest almost everyone. And for a family that was otherwise seemingly perfectly normal, this was a pretty enormous shock.
ZAHN: To try to tell this story, you reached out to some of the victims. How persuasive were their stories?
MARC SMERLING, PRODUCER: The stories were mixed a little bit. But, overall, you know, I would say that nobody that we spoke to, we felt like thought they were telling a lie. You know, they all think they're telling the truth about what they remember when they were very young.
So they were very convincing. In reality, there are contradictions in one person's story. And it's a little bit -- the truth is extremely difficult to nail down in this story.
ZAHN: Do you believe this son was guilty of the crimes he was charged with?
JARECKI: Well, maybe the best way to answer that is to say that the reason that the film presents the evidence in a very balanced way, which is really the response that people have given me, is, this isn't a film like a "Bowling For Columbine," where I know off the bat what this story's about. This is a film where I get to make my own decisions. There was no trial in this case. And, therefore, the audience who watches the film becomes the jury. We present all the evidence.
And along those lines, the evidence that we uncovered as we were doing our 3 1/2-year investigation of this didn't include anyone who told us that Jesse Friedman had done anything bad to them.
ZAHN: You talked about some of the evidence you presented in the film. And yet, as you no doubt know, there's a lot of criticism that you didn't include some of the most important evidence, for example, the third defendant, Ross Goldstein, who pleaded guilty and was going to testify against Jesse, a 30-page confession Jesse made to his attorney,. and Jesse's confession on "Geraldo."
JARECKI: We included the most damaging of all Jesse's confessions, right? Standing in front of Judge Boklan, he confesses to all the crimes in detail. And we felt that that confession, which is very strong, and happened in a court of law in front of the very judge who ultimately sentenced him, was the proper one to use.
ZAHN: Have you arrived at your own conclusions, or is there still a lot of ambiguity there surrounding these two men and the charges?
JARECKI: I think, certainly, it's clear, whether you believe that Jesse Friedman was innocent or guilty or his father was innocent or guilty, it's very clear that the police handled this investigation in an incredibly primitive way. The police officers, who ought to know better, handled the investigation in ways that we'd never approve of if we knew about them today. I think, if this were a shoplifting case, it would have been thrown out a long time ago. That doesn't mean that Arnold Friedman wasn't a pedophile. But it does start to draw questions about, for example, whether Jesse Friedman was a violent criminal at the age of 14 or 15 years old. That's a little harder to believe.
And so I think the audience is left with those kinds of questions to address.
ZAHN: And the judge who presided over the Friedmans' case joins us now. Abbey Boklan just recently retired from the Nassau County court.
Good to see you. Welcome.
ABBEY BOKLAN, FORMER NASSAU COUNTY JUDGE: Thank you.
ZAHN: Respond directly to what Andrew Jarecki just charged, basically, that you never had a doubt in your mind about the guilt of these two men, even though you hadn't even looked at the evidence.
BOKLAN: Well, first of all, I knew an awful lot about the case.
Let's start with what I knew about Jesse. I knew, when he was nine years of age, he was an emotionally disturbed child. That was consistent with his story later on that that's when the sexual abuse of his father began. When he was in ninth grade, he was incorrigible. He had rages that were uncontrolled and he was placed in a special school.
In that special school, he started on drugs. He was stoned every day on marijuana and LSD during the years that this abuse took place of the young boys in the computer school.
ZAHN: But that doesn't necessarily tell you at that point that he, himself, was guilty of harming children.
BOKLAN: No, but I'm up to the point now where he has an attorney. He has an attorney, in fact, his second attorney, who, when he says he's not guilty, gives him two lie-detector tests, which he fails. He then gives his attorney a full confession in detail of all of the things that he did to these children.
That confession was signed and notarized in the presence of Jesse's mother. I knew all of that. I also knew, when they came in to plea bargain with me -- that's to discuss whether I'd go along with the agreed-upon sentence -- that there was never an issue of whether he was guilty or not guilty.
ZAHN: What about the charge that there is evidence of police misconduct in this case? Do you concede that?
BOKLAN: Do I concede there's a charge or do I concede there was...
ZAHN: Concede that there was a problem with the way the case was investigated?
BOKLAN: No. No, I don't concede there was a problem with the case, the way the case was investigated. I concede that some of the detectives may have asked questions in a manner better than some of the others did.
Remember, there were six teams of two detectives out there speaking to these children. That's 12 in total. Now, some may have asked questions better than others. But I knew that, before the children ever even spoke to these detectives, they were manifesting symptoms of sexual abuse. It was just, the parents didn't know what it meant. They were having nightmares. They were bed-wetting. They were dropping their grades in school. They were acting out.
One of the boys was sleeping with a bat under his bed. So, before the police ever even had a chance to talk to them, there was something going on in these children's lives.
ZAHN: And just a quick yes or no, so you're basically saying that these two men deserved every single day they've spent in prison?
ZAHN: Judge Boklan, thank you for reviewing the case with us tonight. Appreciate it.
BOKLAN: Thank you.
ZAHN: Howard Dean's upstart presidential campaign goes out with a whimper. We're going to look at what is now a two-man race, so to speak.
Also, should Kobe Bryant take the stand in his own defense? We're going to turn to a top defense attorney, Robert Shapiro, for an expert opinion on celebrities on the stand.
And tomorrow, a close look at the Iraqi exile who was one source of bad intelligence before the war with Iraq and why top Bush administration officials relied so heavily on him.
But, first, some candid moments of Howard Dean's last day as a candidate.
ZAHN: Welcome back. Here's what you need to know right now, at the bottom of the hour. A new wrinkle in the battle over gay marriage in San Francisco. According to the Reuters news service, a California state official today said the state will not recognize thousands of marriages of same-sex couples. The reason, the city used the wrong form, without the words "bride and groom."
Also, a California woman remains held without bail tonight facing charges she abducted her son 14 years ago. How that case came to light is remarkable. Her son discovered his own abduction on the Internet. Frank Buckley joins us now with the details from Los Angeles. Hi, Frank.
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Paula. This is an incredible story. We're told by missing child advocates that a 17-year-old boy here in L.A. was fooling around with some friends on the Google search engine and he punched in his own name. Up came a missing child Web site. It showed a picture of a 3-year-old boy who had been abducted in Canada 14 years ago. Authorities say the 3-year-old, his first name is Orrie, was abducted by his mother. They believe the two went to Mexico for a number of years, and that eventually wound up in Chatsworth, California. Authorities were contacted. They confirmed that the 17-year-old in Los Angeles was, in fact, the 3-year-old in the photos.
What isn't clear is if the boy will return to Canada or not. And the boy's father, who hasn't seen his son or known his whereabouts for 14 years, says he's ready to take this one step at a time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RODNEY STEINMANN, FATHER OF MISSING BOY: The opportunity to even, as simply as carry his photo in my wallet would be a great reward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FRANKEN: Today, the mother was in federal court in Los Angeles as authorities worked to extradite her back to Canada to face child abduction charges. Orrie, meanwhile, is in protective custody here in Los Angeles -- Paula.
ZAHN: If you would, Frank, tell us a little bit more about this young man's reaction to his mother. People might be surprised about what he did when she was carted off.
FRANKEN: Well, we're told by child advocates that he was very upset and continues to be upset about this whole situation. He was torn, obviously, and did not want his mother removed or told that at the time of when the mother was arrested, that the mother kept saying, let me make some phone calls to Canada and clear this up. And the boy was very upset about the whole situation and now he is in a foster home.
He's apparently going to turn 18 in a couple of months. At that point, he'll be a legal adult and he can make some decisions for himself about whether or not to return to Canada or to stay here in Los Angeles.
ZAHN: What a nightmare for any young person to be involved with. Frank Buckley, thanks so much, reporting from Los Angeles tonight.
Moving on now to the new shape of the presidential race following the Wisconsin primary. Howard Dean dropped out today. And a new CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll shows Democrats John Edwards for the first time holding an edge in a potential matchup with President Bush, 54 percent to 44 percent. John Kerry still holding his lead over Bush, 55 percent to 43 percent. For what that all means, we turn to our regular contributors, "Time" magazine's Joe Klein and in Washington, former Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke. Welcome.
VICTORIA CLARKE, FORMER PENTAGON SPOKESWOMAN: Hi, Paula.
ZAHN: Hi, how are you doing, Torie.
ZAHN: Can now both Mr. Edwards and Kerry make the argument they've won this electability issue over President Bush?
JOE KLEIN, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Well, I mean, these kinds of polls, the ones that you just saw, are very, very fluid and only mean what's happening right now. It's a snapshot. That's the cliche. The president hasn't began to fight back yet. They're going to have plenty of opportunity, both Edwards and Kerry, to fall on their faces in the next few months, and I fully expect, you know, this will go back and forth and back and forth. It will be a close election.
ZAHN: Torie, we saw Mr. Edwards focus in on the economy, beating John Kerry up over his vote on NAFTA. As we watch, as Joe just said, these two candidates fall on their faces over the next couple of months, I think you said that facetiously, what issues do you think will rise to the top?
CLARKE: I don't know, I agree with Joe completely.
ZAHN: Of course you would, Torie.
CLARKE: Yeah, of course I would.
ZAHN: He hit that one out of the ballpark for you.
CLARKE: I'll tell you what, here's what surprised me about Edwards. Is what he did and what position he staked out to try to go after Kerry. I mean, being anti-trade, talk about short-term gain and long-term pain. Nobody has ever ridden that horse politically successfully in a national election. And substantively, it just doesn't work. So I'm surprised he picked that particular tack.
But here's what I think is going to happen. We've had several months now of the Democrats just competing to see who can beat up on the president more. At a certain point here, in the not too distant a future, they've got to offer a better choice to the voters than I'm not that guy. And so I think it will be interesting to see if Kerry and Edwards have to start turning on one another. And I think they have to.
ZAHN: Joe, you have some interesting insights into what you believe was some strategic planning by the Republicans going into the Wisconsin primaries. We're going to put up some statistics now, through our exit polling. And you tell us what you think these numbers mean. What happened? KLEIN: It's called strategic voting. And it's one of the great urban legends of politics, which is that in an open primary, where there's no Republican race, Republicans will go in and muck around with the Democrats and vice versa, by the way. Yesterday, 9 percent of the voters in the primary were self-identified Republicans. And look what they did. They voted for John Edwards, 44 percent. Howard Dean, 26 percent. And John Kerry, 18 percent. Now, I'm not so sure that Republicans were doing that, or many of those Republicans were doing that because that's -- those were their sentiments. I think that they might have been trying to suppress the Kerry margin...
ZAHN: And who told them to do that? Who do they get their marching orders from?
KLEIN: From what I understand, this is a long tradition in Wisconsin. And we've never had proof of it before. And let me show you why this may have been true. People were asked their attitudes about the Bush administration. And 5 percent of those who were asked said that they were enthusiastic about the Bush administration. Of those people, 36 percent voted for Edwards, 32 percent voted for Dean, and only 10 percent voted for Kerry.
Also, you know, when people were asked whether the Bush tax cuts should be left entirely the way they are, which none of the Democrats believe, 41 percent of -- 12 percent of the electorate said that, and 41 percent of those guys voted for Edwards as well. So I think that when you see a lot of affluent suburbanites voting for Edwards, who are self-described Republicans, I think that they were doing it to create a little mischief and maybe narrow the gap between Kerry and Edwards a little bit.
ZAHN: Create a little mischief now, though, in terms of electability, Edwards' numbers look pretty good over the president. Do you think they propped him up, or these two are not related?
KLEIN: I don't know that that's related. I think that the CNN poll is a consequence of the fact, as Torie said, the Dems have been beating up the president. The president's had a lousy month on his own with a mediocre State of the Union and a pretty bad "Meet the Press" interview. And that's just the way things stand at this moment.
ZAHN: Joe and Torie, please stand by, because joining now in our conversation now is the former presidential candidate and California governor and current mayor of Oakland, Jerry Brown. Always good to see you, Jerry. Welcome.
MAYOR JERRY BROWN (D), OAKLAND: Thank you very much.
ZAHN: I don't think you were able to hear much of our conversation so far. So here's what I'd like to throw out to you. Who do you think...
BROWN: I heard the...
ZAHN: Oh, you did? Left in the running will benefit most from Howard Dean's getting out?
BROWN: Well, I think the Democratic Party will benefit. It will give Edwards a chance to go one on one with Kerry in a number of venues. So I think that's good. But what is really good is that Kerry will be tested. Edwards will have his chance. This thing, it's almost over, but it's not over. And it's certainly still open for Kerry to get a lot stronger and for Edwards to show himself.
So the real key for a Democrat is to win in November. And this contest, given the positive character of Edwards, can only make the eventual nominee a lot stronger, a lot more articulate, and more responsive to the attacks.
ZAHN: All right. Elaborate then, if you would, Mr. Mayor, about what specifically you think Senator John Kerry needs to be tested on.
BROWN: Well, I think he just has to be more direct, more succinct, and respond on the key issues, which I believe is the erosion of jobs at home and the overextension of American power abroad, trying to nation build, when in many parts of this country we're failing in what might be called nation-building, with the schools and the roads falling apart, the inequality growing.
That message, which is pretty standard for the Democratic Party, has somehow -- must be expressed anew, with passion, with clarity, and with conviction. And if Kerry can do that, he'll have a fighting chance against Bush.
ZAHN: Is there any doubt in your mind, sir, that he will be the ultimate nominee?
BROWN: Yes, there's some, there's some doubt. And that doubt will be removed in the next couple of weeks. There are a number of states, and if Edwards can somehow catch on, well, then, certainly he has a very long shot chance. But I don't think we have to prematurely decide, because it will be decided for us, probably on super Tuesday.
ZAHN: We saw some of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE), did we not, in the debate the other night, where Edwards just creamed Senator John Kerry on the length of his answer and said, that's the biggest roundabout answer I've ever heard. Joe Klein, a final thought on where you think this all goes.
KLEIN: Well, I'd just be curious to ask Governor Brown whether he thinks that Kucinich and Sharpton should be included in these debate, or whether it should be just one on one?
ZAHN: I don't know if -- can you hear us?
BROWN: Yeah, I can. I think it would be fine, since I've been there myself so I sympathize with Kucinich and Sharpton. Nevertheless, for the Democratic party, for the country, we need to see the point-counterpoint that a real Oxford type debate would do for us and that's a strength of Edwards and Kerry has to master this format. So I think they ought to be offered that forum. And if nobody else will, I'll offer them a two-man debate here in Oakland, California.
ZAHN: And we'll come out to cover that, sir. Tory, you get the last word tonight.
CLARK: I think the more the merrier. Political expression is a great thing so the more of them in there, the better.
ZAHN: All right, we'll leave it there. Tory Clark, Joe Klein, Mayor Jerry Brown. Thank you all.
ZAHN: What brought Howard Dean down? We'll relive the ups and downs.
ZAHN: The roller coaster ride that was Howard Dean's campaign may be unmatched in modern American politics. Senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley reports.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: The end was quick. The rest took two years.
HOWARD DEAN (D), FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hi, I'm Howard Dean.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My name is Christine McNeil (ph), nice to meet you...
CROWLEY: Voter by voter in the summer and fall of 2002, Howard Dean built a buzz on the trail, but never even registered a blip on Washington's political radar. Until the party's winter meeting a year ago.
DEAN: What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq.
CROWLEY: Dean tapped into a deep vein at the core of the party, Democrats angry about the war, the president who started it, the Democrats who let him. Soon, Dean was flying high on a sleepless summer tour. The candidate and his team mugged for the cameras in a behind the campaign scenes look to be aired on "CNN PRESENTS."
DEAN: Haven't I done a great job managing Trippi's campaign for president?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you want to jump in there?
DEAN: No, no, no. I don't want to interrupt. You're the guy who ought to be on the cover of "TIME."
CROWLEY: The crowds were enormous, the money raised in a cutting edge Internet effort poured in. He was king of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE), the biggest coffers, the best poll numbers, union support and more. AL GORE, FMR. VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That's why I'm here to endorse Howard Dean as the next president. Thank you.
CROWLEY: They were landing big fish, mainstreamers. But even as they looked unstoppable, camp Dean was worried. Internet interest had leveled off. There were doubts about the Iowa organization and when a year's old tape surfaced with Dean belittling the caucuses, other poorly-received statements got a second look.
DEAN: The capture of Saddam has not made America safer.
CROWLEY: The calendar was closing in and the candidate was getting mauled.
AD ANNOUNCER: Did you know Howard Dean called Medicare one of the worst federal programs ever?
CROWLEY: Dean seemed thrown, his complaints about rival attacks sounded like whining. The magic was fading.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, I'm Debra. I've come all the way from Oregon.
CROWLEY: They hoped volunteers would bring out Iowa voters and they did. For Kerry and Edwards.
DEAN: We're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House. Yes!
CROWLEY: His New Hampshire polls collapsed over the controversy over Dean's concession performance, finishing a distant second in New Hampshire, Dean replaced his campaign chief with a nuts and bolts guy. But it was too late. The money and what was left of the magic was gone. Dean ended, as he began, campaigning voter to voter. Candy Crowley, CNN, Burlington, Vermont.
ZAHN: Should big-name defendants like Michael Jackson take the witness stand? We'll turn to one of O.J. Simpson's former attorneys for some expert advise.
ZAHN: With Martha Stewart, the question right now isn't did she do it or didn't she do it? The question is will she take the stand in her own defense or not? And if she does, will her celebrity make a difference? With that, here's Charles Feldman.
CHARLES FELDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Celebrities on the witness stand, whether it's defendants or simply witnesses, change the atmosphere. When a famous person takes the stand, as all of these celebrities have, does it have an impact on the jury? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god.
Raymond O'Kane should no. He sat in judgment of Woody Allen. The movie director had sued producers for allegedly cheating him.
RAYMOND O'KANE, WOODY ALLEN JUROR: I'd read in the papers about the Woody Allen case. And when I walked into the courtroom and saw not only about 16 lawyers, but a very large panel, I said, oh, my god, this is it.
FELDMAN: The Allen civil case was settled before jurors needed to reach a verdict. But one long-time Associated Press court reporter says jurors look at famous people differently.
LINDA DEUTSCH, A.P. COURT REPORTER: It's kind of the ultimate innocent until proven guilty. They have the presumption of innocence. Not many defendants do. Most defendants come in with the presumption of guilt.
FELDMAN: Michael Jackson lawyer Benjamin Brafman may find out if that is true. Should Jackson take the stand to defend himself against child molestation charges?
Some have speculated his somewhat odd image could hurt him with the jury.
But Brafman has reason to be confident. He did win one for Sean "Puffy" Combs, P. Diddy.
BEN BRAFMAN, CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: When the defendant is a high profile celebrity, it's a mixed bag. It's good if the person is well liked. It's bad if their image is that of a negative individual.
FELDMAN: Martha Stewart might be considered a mixed bag, especially if she comes across as too haughty. Putting a celebrity on the stand is something lawyers must think about. After all, as these celebrity witnesses all learn, is not exactly like doing Hollywood Squares.
Charles Feldman, CNN, Los Angeles.
ZAHN: Few lawyers know more about defending celebrities than our next guest. Robert Shapiro, as most of you remember, was a key member of O.J. Simpson's criminal defense team. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
Welcome, Bob, always good to see you.
ROBERT SHAPIRO, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Nice to see you, Paula. Thank you for having me.
ZAHN: Our pleasure. You've had a lot of experience representing celebrities in your career in general. Historically, has it been helpful or hurtful for them to take the stand?
SHAPIRO: I think in most cases, the celebrities that have taken the stand, in fact, on the clips you showed, of Zsa Zsa Gabor or and Kim Basinger, we happened to be on the other side of the Kim Basinger case. And in both cases, they went against the celebrity. So, I think the witness stand is much different than being a TV host or hostess, much different than being a commentator. It's the most difficult chair in the world to sit in. And people are going to have anxieties. People are going to be naturally nervous. And jurors may believe that that type of nervousness and anxiety coming from somebody who is used to the media, may be an indication that somebody is not being truthful.
ZAHN: So let's talk about the number of celebrities in court right now and whether you would advise them, if you were representing them to take the stand or not.
Martha Stewart, for starters?
SHAPIRO: First, a decision can never be made as to whether or not a client should be advised to take the stand until all the evidence is in. If the lawyers conclude that the prosecution has not met the burden and that has proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, then there would be no reason for the client to take the stand. Martha Stewart presents an enigma, because she is somebody that has spoken out about this case and the jurors are anxious to hear her side of the story and to listen to her. The problem she would face is that she's made statements already. And that she then will be subject to impeachment on cross-examination if she has any inconsistencies in her testimony.
ZAHN: What about Michael Jackson?
Once all the evidence is in and presented to a jury, would you put him on the stand?
SHAPIRO: That's a much more difficult question to answer for two reasons. First, in any case of a sexual assault, it is very difficult to have an acquittal unless the client takes the witness stand, because you'd only have the word of one person. And unless the credibility of the complaining witness is completely destroyed, then the defense is going to have to call the accused to testify. Michael Jackson, however, has proven to be very, very unpredictable. We also had a case recently against Michael Jackson, a civil case, and he did take the witness stand, and he was not very impressive and the jury rendered a large judgment against him with my partner, Skip Miller.
ZAHN: How about Kobe Bryant?
SHAPIRO: Kobe Bryant is a different situation than most of the one-on-one sexual assault cases, in that there is apparently a tremendous amount of impeachment material on the complaining witness. And if the judge -- and I believe he properly should allow that evidence to come in, it may be that the prosecution will not be able to satisfy their burden and would not be necessary for him to testify.
ZAHN: Well, we always appreciate your insights and want you to give us a heads up when you're representing your next big celebrity.
SHAPIRO: Thank you so much, Paula.
ZAHN: Take care, Bob.
ZAHN: We'll be right back.
ZAHN: And that wraps it up for all us here tonight. Thanks so much for being with us.
Tomorrow we are going to bring you the story we ran out of time for tonight, the controversy over the popular Sims Online computer game. And why did the Bush administration rely so heavily on one Iraqi exile for intelligence before the war. We are going to take a close look at Ahmed Chalabi and his influence.
Again, thanks for dropping by tonight. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next. Have a great night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com