Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Will Obama Campaign for Democrats?; What are the Midterm Races to Watch?; Republicans Need to Gain 6 Seats to Control Senate; The Future of Space Tourism; Pentagon Former SEAL Skirted Book Rules; Adrian Peterson in Talks for Plea Deal; 35th Anniversary of Iran's Hostage Crisis

Aired November 02, 2014 - 18:00   ET

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

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN ANCHOR: And hello, everybody. You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Deborah Feyerick.

This hour, we are fast forwarding to the week ahead. We'll take a look at all of the stories that you'll be talking about and hearing about this coming week. So, let's begin with our five questions for the week ahead, all concerning the week's biggest story, the midterm elections, Tuesday.

Question number one, how much will we see the president between now and Tuesday night? He's attended fewer than 10 rallies this entire election cycle. Will his last campaign end in defeat for Senate Democrats?

Question number two: what races should you watch Tuesday? Just a handful could decide the Senate. Which ones could signal a long, long night for either party?

Question number three: if the Republicans take over the Senate Tuesday, can they claim a mandate? In other words, will we say the Republicans won the Senate or the Democrats lost the Senate? It's a nuance.

Question number four: if Democrats lose control of the Senate, what will the president come out and say Wednesday morning? Will he be consolatory, defiant or just shrug it off?

Question five: if Republicans win, will it lead to unity or more gridlock in Washington? Could there be a silver lining for President Obama? That's right, a silver leaning. We'll explain.

So, let's start with the president who's been mostly missing in action when it comes to campaigning for embattled Democratic candidates during this midterm election season.

CNN's Erin McPike is standing by for us with more.

And, Erin, is he going to campaign, or right now, is he going to lay low and just sort of be the one to urge his party on to victory?

ERIN MCPIKE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Deb, tonight is it. He will be at his second campaign rally in just a little bit in Philadelphia. That will be his seventh campaign rally of the entire year. We do not believe he will be campaigning on Monday or Tuesday. At least, he's not scheduled to do so unless he's sort of as a last minute rally.

The first lady will be campaigning before Tuesday's vote in Maryland for the governor's race there, but we won't be seeing any more of the president unless he has a last-minute stop at this point.

FEYERICK: It's so interesting, you've got to wonder what is going on there in the West Wing, what they're thinking because not only will they not have control of the House, which is really a sticking point obviously in trying to get policy passed, but now with the Senate in play, that could even become another roadblock in the last two years of President Obama's tenure.

So what are they thinking in there?

MCPIKE: Well, Deb, first, we should point out that we learned that this weekend Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was briefed and told that he should expect to wake up on Wednesday morning and be the majority leader, to be -- that is, of course, if he wins his race in Kentucky on Tuesday, but polls show that he is expected to do so.

But if Republicans do gain control of the Senate -- and that's a big if going into Wednesday still -- especially because there are two potential run-off elections in both Louisiana and in Georgia, but if all is said and done and Republicans do end up winning the Senate, the White House has to be concerned about future nominations that they have to make right now. We know the White House is preparing to select a replacement for Attorney General Eric Holder.

But you have to wonder, is there going to be a Supreme Court vacancy? If there is, and Republicans control the Senate, it's going to be much harder for the White House to get a liberal justice through.

FEYERICK: And I'll be in Kentucky on that Tuesday, seeing whether in fact Mr. McConnell does become the House majority speaker.

Erin McPike, thanks so much. We appreciate that.

And some of the closest contests among the first to see the polls close Tuesday evening. They could give us a hint of what kind of a night lies ahead for both parties.

Our Mark Preston is in Washington at our decision desk. He's the executive editor of CNN Politics and the smartest guy around.

So, Mark, what could these race is tell us?

MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICS EXECUTIVE EDITOR: You know, early on, Eastern time zone now, two races, North Carolina, the polls close at 7:30, we have Kay Hagan, incumbent Democrat, trying to fight off a challenge from Thom Tillis, the Republican challenger, move up the Eastern Seaboard into New Hampshire, 8:00. You have Jeanne Shaheen, incumbent Democrat trying to fight off a challenge from the former Massachusetts senator, Scott Brown, who has since moved to New Hampshire and running as a Republican nominee.

If we are to see these two races flip Republican, then I think you expect a very big night for Republicans. They only need six seats, Deb, to take back the Senate majority, a net gain of six seats. However, there are three seats that most people believe that are lost right now. So, Republicans really only need to pick up three seats, Deb.

FEYERICK: And the three seats you're talking about, Virginia, Montana, South Dakota, seem to be going to the Republicans?

PRESTON: Yes, correct. West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota, these are held by Democrats, but they've all but been written off right now. They're going to go Republican.

FEYERICK: OK, one thing that we think of all of the numbers, sort of gaming who's going to win, what it's going to mean, the big question for folks, I think, at home is what are the key issues? What is actually going to happen in the next two years? Will there be legislation? Will there be policy change?

How do you, if this does change, what do we see going forward?

PRESTON: Well, you know, in many ways, we perhaps are just going to see a continuation of gridlock, maybe more so. Even if Republicans do not take back the Senate, as you mentioned earlier, they're still going to own the House of Representatives, they will have gained seats in the Senate. The question is, will they be able to work with President Obama? Will President Obama be willing to work with them?

And in the closing two years of his presidency, we might not see that happen. There are some big issues that are still out there. Immigration reform has stalled for many, many years. And they haven't been able to get together and work on that.

But the question is, are Republicans willing to work with President Obama? Is the White House willing to work with the Republicans? Right now, if you were to look at the mood right now in Washington, you would say they're probably not going to get along, Deb.

FEYERICK: You know, Mark, you've been on the campaign trail a lot. What do we see going on behind the scenes, the frenzy of activity? Is it people asking for money to run get out the vote ads? Is it just running negative campaign ads? Right now, what are these campaigns doing to try to ensure success on Tuesday?

PRESTON: I mean, it sounds very cliche, but it is all about the get out the vote. You're absolutely right. Though as far as fundraising it continues right now, they're continuing to try to reach out and get some money.

But in many ways the money's already been spent. They can't buy any more ad time on television. All of that time has been bought up. It's all about getting their base voters out.

In certain parts of the country, you're seeing Democrats run away from President Obama. They don't want to be near him. They want to get out their base voters and appeal to independents. And for Democrats to hold the Senate, that's what's going to happen specifically Southern states as you move out west and up towards Alaska, Deb.

FEYERICK: All right. Mark Preston, every vote counts, thank you.

And if the Senate flips, Washington will be in full on finger pointing mode on Wednesday. The question could be, did Republicans win the Senate or did the Democrats simply lose it?

And another big one: how will the White House respond? The president's tone can set the stage for two years of potential progress or continued gridlock.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: So, how will President Obama react if the Republicans take reins in the Senate? We'll likely find out Wednesday morning. If you're not up to speed on all that's at stake Tuesday, our Tom Foreman lays it out in a nice way.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There are key things we're watching in this midterm. And the first is right here in the U.S. Senate.

The Democrats have been in charge. We're showing them here in blue, along with the two independents who caucus with them in purple.

The Republicans are expected to gain some seats here. The Democrats are expected to lose some. But control of this chamber is going to come down to nine or 10 very close races and the Democrats have to win six or more of them if they want to remain in power here.

On the other side of the rotunda, the second thing we're looking at, which is the U.S. House of Representatives. The Republicans have had the majority here. That is not expected to change. The question is, will they lose some seats? Or more likely, will they pick up some? And if so, how?

If they do it with Tea Party help, that can set up divisions within the Republican Party that the Democrats might be able to exploit even from their minority position.

Which brings us to the third thing we're looking at, which is the White House reaction to all of this. If the president comes out swinging over a big loss and he completely alienates Republicans, they have a perfect excuse then to say, we're going to make you the lamest of lame duck presidents with control of both chambers. If, however, he's too conciliatory toward the Republicans, he could dispirit his own party and that could make it very tough for any other Democrat who wants to win the White House in 2016.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FEYERICK: Tom Foreman there. Well, Tuesday's midterm election could set the course for the country for the next two years. As it looks right now, Republicans could hold all of the cards in Congress. Historically speaking, when one party controls Congress, more tends to get done. Could this give new life to the Obama administration?

Our senior political analyst David Gergen joins me.

David, could this potentially be a good thing, policy-wise for President Obama if the Republicans win both?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It could be, Deb.

The optimistic scenario is that both the Republican side, the Republicans will share power now the way they haven't before with President Obama, they'll realize that they can't simply be the opposition party, they have to be a constructive party, especially in a ramp-up to 2016 elections. So, they may be more willing to work with President Obama than they have been in the past.

It would also require President Obama to put aside some of his desires to go unilateral and just start doing things on his own without Congress and instead work with Republicans to see if they can't get some compromises. And you could, the optimistic scenario, you could get immigration reform done, at least portions of it. You could get trade reform done.

Very important, we could trade issues passed. The president's lacked authority to trade, to get new trade deals with Asia, and with Europe. This would arm him with more authority, create more jobs.

That's the optimistic scenario. Unfortunately, as you know, Deb, the pessimists have been right in the past. We hope this time, they'll be wrong.

FEYERICK: Which means --

GERGEN: The pessimists will also say, it's going to be all gridlock.

FEYERICK: Right, which means anything that potentially reaches the president's desk, he could still veto, even if he's got the full backing of the Senate and the House?

GERGEN: Right.

FEYERICK: OK, let's talk about, you know --

GERGEN: Absolutely. I -- I --

FEYERICK: Go ahead.

GERGEN: Please.

FEYERICK: I was going to ask --

(CROSSTALK) FEYERICK: You go.

GERGEN: You're going in and out, I'm sorry.

FEYERICK: David, question here for you, in terms of voters going to the polls, if they vote Republican, is it sort of this great love for the Republicans and what they represent, or is it more of a protest vote against the Democrats?

GERGEN: It's more of the latter, by some distance. This is not an election where people are like, overwhelmingly enthusiastic. It's a classic case of choosing evil of two lesser, and that often leaves people sort of with low expectations. But, you know, hope springs eternal. Let's not get too pessimistic yet.

FEYERICK: Do you see -- you mentioned different policies and different laws that Republicans could potentially look at. What is the legacy of the Obama administration if it's found that he's able to accomplish more with the Republican Senate and house than he was with it divided?

GERGEN: Well, I don't think it makes so much difference whether he does it with one or the other. What makes a different at the end of the day, is how much change, how positive change he can bring for the country both here and overseas. And right now, it's a very mixed record. Health care were to turn out to be very positive, you know, it's still seen as negative by most Americans. But if over time people came to embrace Obamacare, that would be a positive part of his legacy.

If he leaves behind a country that's safer and more peaceful, that would be helpful. Right now, he's got his hands full on foreign policy. I think he's got a lot of work to do to get to a positive legacy, the kind he'd be proud of, and that partly means not only can he work with Republicans but he needs to hit the reset button within his own team. He needs to strengthen his team. There are some internal divisions that have surfaced recently, especially on foreign policy. He needs to pay attention to that, get a strong team around him.

The presidency has -- he's got two more years plus, that's a long time.

FEYERICK: Now, in a column, David that you wrote on CNN.com, you wrote, quote, "Whether we can lift our national politics out of the ditch increasingly depends whether we can transform our political culture, electing more candidates who want to restore old fashioned standards of civility, bipartisan, respect and putting country first. Sadly, the generation of politicians in power, baby boomers for the most part, are so divided by ideology and a poisonous partisanship that they have lost their way." You have your eye on a couple of candidates -- some whom you're

backing -- who you think could perhaps change the discourse, should they get to Washington. Tell me about them.

GERGEN: Deb, thank you. I am so pumped about a new generation of leaders offering themselves in this election and future elections who come out of the national service movement. People who have served the country when they were young, whether in uniform or social entrepreneurs, we call them out there in the arena trying to help less fortunate people, open up opportunities for them. People who serve when they're young, as we learn, in the World War II generation, come back and terrific civil leader when they get older.

One in particular, two in particular this race, I will signal out Seth Molten, who's running for the sixth district seat in Massachusetts, North Shore, Democrat. I've known this kid for -- young man for 15 years, I've been a mentor. Three Harvard degrees, four tours in Iraq.

He's run as a candidate. He talks modestly about his record. "The Boston Globe" finally got out of his campaign a few days ago his military records. They wanted to see if he lived up to his records.

First candidate I can remember who underplayed his military records. He had two medals for heroism in Iraq, never told the voters, indeed, he never told his parents. That's the kind of young man that appeals to me.

I will tell you, Michelle Nunn in Georgia running for the Senate, comes out of the social entrepreneurs community, terrific candidate, another promising (INAUDIBLE).

Not to make this too partisan, there are two Republicans in the Senate race who are military veterans and they're getting great points for that. One is Joni Ernst in Iowa and another's Tom Cotton in Arkansas. And Tom Cotton, a Harvard law graduate, volunteered, went to Afghanistan. He's campaigning on a camouflaged colored bus.

So, there are some people out there coming back from wars and doing thing in the social sector who are really very, very promising about the future.

FEYERICK: Right. Interesting. They bring sort of the credentials but also bring the humility.

All right. David Gergen, thank you so much. We really appreciate it.

GERGEN: Yes, humility's very important part of that.

FEYERICK: It is, indeed. Thank you.

GERGEN: Thank you. I appreciate it, Deb. Thank you.

FEYERICK: Of course.

And if Republicans win the Senate, do they have a mandate to govern? As we were just discussing. Well, will a United Congress give a green light to the GOP to carry out its agenda? We'll unpack that just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: So, let's talk more about the Tuesday midterms with two of our political commentators -- Ben Ferguson is in Dallas, Marc Lamont Hill joins us from Philadelphia.

OK. Marc, we're going to go to you, first. Let's say the pundits are right and Republicans take the Senate. Will they be able to claim a mandate and have the right to set the agenda for the last two years of President Obama's term?

MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, that's wishful thinking from the right, and a very generous reading of Congress in general regardless of what party you're affiliated with.

The truth is, first, Tuesday's going to be closer than people think. Everyone thinks it's a big day for Republicans. Republicans may win the Senate but it's going to be very tight. And because of that, you're going to see lot of negotiation in the Senate, lots of stuff being brought to President Obama who will veto it. I think you'll see just as much gridlock in 2015 as you did in 2013.

So, I wouldn't be optimistic about this election regardless of who wins.

FEYERICK: Ben, the president ultimately does have veto power. Will the Republicans be able to claim a mandate and get things done?

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I've never enjoyed a Marc Lamont Hill commentary more than that one, which tells you just how much trouble Democrats are in, where they're acting like if Republicans win back the Senate, it's not that big of a deal.

It's a huge deal. And it is a mandate on the president.

So, he's going to have to decide, do I want to work on policies to help my legacy like Bill Clinton did with Republicans? And in fact, some of the greatest accomplishments of his presidency, he did working with in a bipartisan way with Republicans in the House and the Senate.

And I think the president has to decide, am I willing to not be so flamboyant of saying they do nothing, they won't talk to me, when in fact he's the one that won't talk or work with them on policies.

It's going to change Washington, and he's going to have to humble himself and say, OK, I've got two years, where can we find common ground? Where can we work together? Otherwise, his approval rating is going to continue to drop even below where it is right now.

FEYERICK: Yes, Ben to get to Marc's point --

HILL: I disagree with you.

FEYERICK: -- it is a big, but to get to Marc's point, it is a big deal unless they mess it up and then 2016 rolls around, nothing's been accomplished, and then their races are in jeopardy. So, this is not necessarily a slam dunk for them, even if they do win.

HILL: Well, in politics nothing is a slam dunk but winning back the Senate and having the house tells you people are not happy with the policies that the president's been pushing with the Senate for the last six years. So, they want to change.

So, for Republicans to win back the Senate and then stop doing what they're claiming they are standing for right now, which is going to give them the majority in the Senate, would be absolutely incompetent and stupid for them to do that. They're running on a set of values and people are choosing those values, they're going to get back the Senate because of it. So, why would they back down from that? It comes down to the president now, do you want to play ball or not, or do you want to be stubborn?

FEYERICK: Marc, do you think it's about values or do you think people are just fed up?

HILL: I think people are frustrated with Congress in general. People are disappointed with the economy although there had been steady job growth. This is as much about people not liking what Democrats are doing as much as it is people being completely committed to the Republican agenda, as Ben's just describing. I don't think it's the Republican values people are buying into. I think people are ticked off at Congress in general and very much ticked off with Democrats and we're seeing that play out.

FERGUSON: That's true.

HILL: Let me finish, Ben. I don't think the president's being stubborn go he doesn't buy into the Republican agenda. If he does not agree with the policy and does not see the policy as proper for the course that America's taking, it's not stubborn to go with this. I mean, it's absurd to say if there's Obamacare repel for example, he's been stubborn if he doesn't support it.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: Marc, if that's true, why aren't Democrats talking about Obamacare? If that's true, why is the president nowhere to be seen on the last 24, 48, and even 72 hours of an election cycle?

Democrats do not want to stand on stage with him. They don't want to talk about Obamacare and they don't want Barack Obama anywhere close to their campaigns. You got Democrat candidates won't admit they voted for Barack Obama. That's how toxic his policies are in this campaign trail.

So, you can't say that's about Congress. That's about the president of the United States of America.

When you're a Democrat and you won't admit that you voted for Obama, that tells you everything about this election. It's a mandate on the president.

FEYERICK: That's not everyone. That's not everyone.

So, Ben, you get the last word - you get the last word on this round. Marc's going to come back after and he's going to get the last word on the next set of questions. So, stick around. I'll be speaking to both of you in a short while. And don't forget, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer hosts election night

coverage Tuesday, beginning at 5:00 Eastern. We will cover every angle of the midterm election and break down the results for you. So, join us.

And people were willing to pony up a quarter of a million dollars to be the first space tourists on Virgin Galactic. Now, the entire space flight industry has an uncertain future. How far back did Friday's crash set the company? That's coming up as fast forward rolls on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: And now the "Way, Way Forward." Giving you a major heads up about something coming up not this week but soon enough to start thinking about.

Is the dream of a commercial space tourism over or quick space tourist flight eventually become reality?

Virgin Galactic's founder billionaire Richard Branson was planning to debut his space tourist flights next year, making them available to anyone who could fork over $250,000 a ticket. That was before Branson's spacecraft had a catastrophic failure during a test flight Friday, killing the co-pilot.

Did Branson reach for a dream that his $5 billion bank account cannot handle?

Joining me now, "Daily Beast" contributor, Clive Irving.

And, Clive, you say that Branson was recklessly optimistic about his timetable. Is -- was it the timetable that was the problem or the dream itself?

CLIVE IRVING, CONTRIBUTOR, DAILY BEAST: Both, I think. They set themselves impossible targets. They were trying under enormous pressure to deliver what Richard Branson said he could deliver, but technically they fell far short of that. If you take one example of this in order to fly passengers they have to have an FAA certified and operators' license.

And in order to get that they had to have six months of scrutiny by the FAA which would then after that six months say it was a go or not. So they themselves, Virgin Galactic, set that clock ticking last year in August, and then they had not flown this plane with its new rocket motor at that point, and they didn't get to fly it at that point until nearly the end of that six-month period.

When they did fly it early this year, they found that it fell far short of the performance necessary to reach their goals. So they stopped the clock ticking. They asked the FAA not to keep the clock ticking. That was within a few days of this six-month period expiring.

They were far from ready and to -- in a position where they could guarantee flying people safety. That's the crucial thing. They're trying to do a lot of things that have never been done before and they're trying to do them under pressure.

FEYERICK: Yes. And so, Clive, an interesting thing also is that you recently wrote that the focus of the investigation is being drawn away from the untested rocket motor to the craft structure.

What do you mean by that? What do you believe, based on the images that you're seeing, could have been the problem?

IRVING: Well, I asked a former astronaut to -- somebody who had been on the shuttle flights, who was familiar with the kind of investigations that went on, for example, in the Challenger disaster. I asked him to look at the photographs we have so far. And he said that we should not jump to the conclusion that this problem began with a rocket engine. He said that we have to look at the whole structure.

And he thought there could have been some structural failure within the compartment where the pilots were. There's a depressurization which began the breakup. Now of course this is just one theory. And one advantage of the way this happened was that they were being looked at by many computers and cameras.

So it's not like where we get an airliner crash and you go searching for the clues. There are many clues there already. And I think the National Transportation Safety Board will get a pretty accurate look at this. And one powerful thing about that is that this whole program has never been scrutinized in the way that the safety board will now scrutinize it. They'll be looking very carefully at the risks involved in this.

The whole object of this was to get to a height of 350,000 feet. That's very high, 65 miles. They've never gotten anywhere near that in the test program. The highest they've got is 70,000, which meant that they had to get five times as high as they previously achieved.

FEYERICK: Interesting. So all of that clearly is going to be looked at. And one of the points you make out, that beautiful, dramatic picture of the mother ship, as the glider sort of breaks off apart there, the two people flying that other -- that other plane will also be eyewitnesses to the crash and what they saw.

All right. Clive Irving, thank you. We appreciate your insights.

IRVING: You're welcome.

FEYERICK: And the operation to kill Osama bin Laden was one of the most covert missions of all time. Now the Navy SEAL who wrote a book about it and shared incredible details about how it went down, he could be in huge trouble.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: A former Navy SEAL who wrote a book about the mission that brought down Osama bin Laden is in hot water with the Pentagon again.

I'm talking about this book, it's the story of the planning, the search, and the overnight raid and death of Osama bin Laden. It was written under a pseudonym.

Well, here's the Pentagon's problem with it. They say that the writer who claims he was there didn't follow the rules about publishing what happened on classified missions because you're not supposed to talk about it. Even though he's not in the military anymore, they're investigating the book and the author for possibly committing a crime.

So I want to bring in Lieutenant Colonel James Reese, he's a retired officer who served with the Army's elite Delta Force.

And, Colonel Reese, does the Pentagon have a problem with what's in the book or is it about the fact that this man, this Navy SEAL, violated protocol?

LT. COL. JAMES REESE (RET.), CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Deb, I think the bottom line is, Pentagon, I mean, you know, they really feel about it's the protocol that went along. I've seen the book. I've read most of it. And, you know, I was in a bookstore today and I saw 26 different books from 9/11 until today by either former special operators, people who are close to special operations, you know, out there.

So it's not the first time this has happened. But it's the protocol aspect that really gets the Pentagon going on the aspects of classified information.

FEYERICK: But, Colonel, is it also the protocol, or isn't there a code amongst the officers and the elite teams that you serve with that what you do, you do in secrecy, that there's -- that you keep it to yourself effectively?

REESE: Yes, Deb, there is. The bottom line is, you know, the Naval Commander Coronado put out a memo this week about staying quiet professionals. And you know, one of the problems is, these operators that are out there, whether it's the SEALs, the Rangers, Delta, they're very smart men and women that are out there, and they watch their chain of command talk about things, talk about things that people could talk about, could be contrived as possibly classified, per se.

And that's one of the problems. And so what happens is, though, within the community, this gentleman right now, Mr. Bassinet, he gets more -- he'll have more criticism in his community than he will from the Pentagon or from the Department of Justice.

FEYERICK: Is there a risk that tactical operations could be revealed, potentially putting people in the field who are doing these special operations in harm's way?

REESE: There's always a possibility that there's going to be a problem or that we put people at risk. But what I've seen, and one of my closest friends wrote a book, Dalton Fury, the folks who were writing these things, they have to make their own self-risk assessment out there. I know Dalton did on his. I'm not sure if Mark did. But there's always that chance. But I think these gentlemen really understand the difference between

what could hurt their mates and what can't hurt their mates. However, the big issue becomes is, you know, what does the Pentagon think? What's the guy on the tactical side? And at the end of the day, Pentagon is a lot more powerful than that individual operator.

FEYERICK: So effectively, these folks are undermining the integrity of the team, of the operation, and perhaps of the entire organization?

All right. Colonel James Reese, appreciate it. Thank you for stopping by.

REESE: Welcome. Good night.

FEYERICK: Good night.

And Adrian Peterson was public enemy number one for some NFL fans. You remember him. He was being charged with child abuse. If he puts his legal trouble behind him this week, could he return to the field? Should he return to the field?

We'll talk about that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: NFL star Adrian Peterson is reportedly in talks for a plea deal to resolve his child abuse case. You remember he took a switch to his son's leg? Well, sources tell ESPN a plea agreement the Minnesota Vikings running back could be done as early as Tuesday. Peter is facing a felony charge of reckless or negligent injury to a child in Texas after whipping his 4-year-old son.

If a plea deal is OK, there's one looming question, when would Peterson be allowed to return to the football field?

Our panel is back to talk it over.

Marc, should Peterson be allowed to play at all this season?

MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This season is debatable. I think next season absolutely. I think that this would amount to a one-year suspension for the most part. I think that's more than reasonable. If it's been adjudicated in a court, I think that's more than reasonable. What he did was inexcusable, it was deplorable.

I don't think that he had necessarily bad intention, but nevertheless the consequence of his actions were considerable. And I think a year's salary, a year off of a career that -- in football the ax grid is very short, I think that's more than enough.

FEYERICK: Marc, do you think there should be some sort of apology or training that comes along with that plea deal, whether it be anger management or parenting courses or something like that? Marc?

HILL: Absolutely. I believe in restorative justice. I don't believe that any type of punishment should just be retribution. I think that people have to be made whole, they have to be made better, they have to be rehabilitated. And so I think training, intervention, teaching, apologies, all that stuff is part of the process, much more so than even suspension of the money. I want him to be a better person.

FEYERICK: And Ben, the NFL is taking heat for inconsistent punishments.

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Sure.

FEYERICK: Do you think the NFL is just sort of winging it with each case?

FERGUSON: Yes. I absolutely do. And I think a lot of it comes down to the pressure of the -- of those that are in charge of these teams, these owners who had basically said to Roger Goodell, who only works for them, he doesn't work for anybody else, hey, be lenient on my guys because I need them to play on Sunday.

And so really Roger Goodell is a guy that has taken a lot of heat but in reality the owners are the ones who should be taking more heat here because he only answers to them. So that's why I think you've seen some of these punishments just have been an embarrassment to the league. But they need to send a message now. And I think with Adrian Peterson you do that. And you say, look, we are going to make a new policy here where you need to be above reproach, and when you do get in trouble, it's going to cost you a lot of money.

I don't think an apology letter makes a difference because every one of these guys apologizes so they can play football again. Are they apologizing for the right reasons? Probably not. So I would say, should be suspended for at the minimum the rest of the season and probably into several games of next year, and really make a statement that you don't hit kids like this, regardless of how good your lawyer is at getting you a plea deal.

FEYERICK: Which goes to Marc's point, which is, if the plea deal is accompanied by some sort of parenting classes, then maybe it sends a broader message which is, you know, parenting is hard and every now and again, people need a little extra help.

All right. Marc Lamont Hill, Ben Ferguson, as always, a pleasure, thanks for joining us.

HILL: Pleasure.

FERGUSON: Thanks.

FEYERICK: And 35 years ago, a terrible day for 52 Americans in Tehran. They spent over a year in captivity. A horrible ordeal.

We'll look back at that crisis in Iran, coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: Thirty-five years ago this Tuesday, Americans got their first taste of Islamic extremism when followers of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage. They were held for 444 days. U.S. and Iranian relations have been rocky ever since, with Iran on the receiving end of punishing sanctions.

Later this month the 24th marks the deadline for Iran to reach a deal with six world powers on its controversial nuclear program.

Michael Daly is an award-winning journalist and a special correspondent for "The Daily Beast."

And Michael, so many Americans under the age of 40 don't even remember Iran, don't even realize that Persia once was this incredible center of learning and culture.

MICHAEL DALY, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, THE DAILY BEAST: You can go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, you could stop your average American, and say, you know, looking at all the (INAUDIBLE) art and say, you know, this is Iran, you know these are guys that later took hostages.

FEYERICK: Right.

DALY: And then you know, I was going up Broadway the other day, and they have marks for all the ticket tape parades held and there's one for -- returned American hostages. I think most people don't even remember that.

FEYERICK: Yes, and it's interesting, "Argo" may have brought it back into the public conscience, the movie -- that was so popular with Ben Affleck.

Thank you, my producer.

With Ben Affleck. The interesting thing also is that, you know, the history of Iran in Iraq, you also made the point about Americans not really understanding being over there and not understanding the implications. Talk to me about that as well.

DALY: Well, you know, you also -- all these years later you had, you know, beautiful, young American soldiers over in Iraq getting killed by explosives provided by Iran. I mean, then you think that Saddam Hussein was fighting Iran and it gets really convoluted and it's definitely worth going back and looking at that history, going back to their first elected -- democratically elected leader, arriving in New York in 1951 in triumph, and then him deciding that he wanted to nationalize oil industry and us deciding with the British that he really shouldn't be there, and us deciding that maybe the shah should be there and it progressed from there.

And "Argo" kind of -- in a way it's unfortunate because "Argo" was like this incident, but that was more than a year these people were held.

FEYERICK: Right, 444 days.

DALY: And we forget America was not used to being powerless. FEYERICK: That's right.

DALY: We were used to like you mess with us, we're going to go in and we're going to do something.

FEYERICK: And then there was the failed rescue -- failed hostage rescue that they tried.

DALY: Absolutely.

FEYERICK: That ended in a helicopter going down.

Anthony Bourdain took a trip to Iran, and he's got that show on tonight. Let's take a listen to what his perceptions were being there on the ground.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY BOURDAIN, CNN HOST, "PARTS UNKNOWN": It was a hopeful time in when I arrived in Iran.

A window would open, there had been a slight loosening of restrictions since the election of President Hassan Rouhani. And there was optimism for a deal that could lead to an easing of crippling economic sanctions imposed because of Iran's continued nuclear program. Trade restriction that had been very, very difficult for everyone.

But there's a push happening between opposing factions and the government. On one hand, Iranians of the descendants of ancient Persia, an empire of poetry, flowers, a highly influential culture that goes back thousands of years.

But the ruling, clerical, military class are at best ambivalent, at worst actively hostile to much of that tradition. Severe religious- based restrictions of speech, dress, behavior, were ushered in by the rise of the ayatollah during 1979 Islamic revolution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: And Michael, when you look at those images of the bizarre and the friendliness of the people, what stands out about that and the disconnect with the hostile message that the Iranians always put forth every time they come to the United States for the U.N. General Assembly?

DALY: But they're not the Iranians. That's the Iranian leadership. I mean, there have been some presidents that we didn't want to be walking around saying they represented all of us. I think, you know, there's a leadership there.

And also, we forget, five years ago they had those students in the street, there's a girl native. Remember everybody know what's going to forget her, she was a symbol of people standing up for freedom and got killed. And they are as much Iranians as -- you know, these nuts who are supporting terrorism.

And I thought that was one of great film clips I ever saw because, you know, it really moves you to see people welcome us and happy, and --

FEYERICK: Right.

DALY: And it makes you hope maybe someday all of this will get worked out.

FEYERICK: Yes. I wonder what would happen if we got rid of all of the bad leaders.

(LAUGHTER)

FEYERICK: People would start talking to each other. All right. Michael Daly, thank you so much.

DALY: Thank you.

FEYERICK: We really appreciate your insights on that. It's just -- it's incredible to think that it's been so many years, 35 years, since that crisis, that really crippled the nation. You remember the gas lines as well, I'm sure, that happened during that same time period.

DALY: It was -- you know, one thing, you can -- there are moments in history you think no one will ever forget.

FEYERICK: Yes.

DALY: Come back 35 years later, no one even knows what you're talking about.

FEYERICK: A couple generations later.

DALY: That's it. Yes.

FEYERICK: Exactly. All right. I'm Deborah Daly, thank you so much.

Well, I'm Deborah Feyerick. We have got so much lined up for you. A great night of television.

Up next, "WITNESSED: IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS, 52 HOSTAGES, America's first battle with militant Islam, 52 hostages, 444 days, hear their harrowing stories.

And at 9:00 Eastern, Anthony Bourdain explores in Iran. Few Americans have visited since those dark days. A country that's complicated and changing.

"PARTS UNKNOWN" at 10:00. Lisa Ling, she's got it all.

I'm Deborah Feyerick. Thanks so much for joining us. We'll be back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)