Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Man Arrested in Alleged Terror Plot; Hackers Hit Financial Companies; New Images of Captured Soldier; CNN Politics Update; Getting a Read on the J.O.L.T Survey; Hot Off The Political Ticker; Trending On The Web; Remembering Elizabeth Edwards

Aired December 08, 2010 - 12:00   ET

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

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Don Lemon. Tony is off today.

It's the top of the hour in the CNN NEWSROOM, where anything can happen. And here are some of the people behind today's top stories.

A giant leap in American outsourcing. A private rocket launched today could bring big some changes for NASA and the future of America's space program.

Heart disease, it is the leading cause of death in the United States. And we're digging deeper on a simple blood test that could be a powerful tool to save lives.

You're online right now, and so are we. And you're talking about the 30th anniversary of the death of John Lennon. We're sharing some of your remembrances of that fateful day.

So let's get started with our lead story right now, an update on some breaking news that we're following.

A man accused of plotting to blow up a military recruiting station is due in court this hour.

Homeland Security Correspondent Jeanne Meserve joins us now, live with the latest -- Jeanne.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Don, let me tell you that the court appearance is now going to happen at 2:00 this afternoon in Baltimore for this individual described by law enforcement sources as a 21-year-old U.S. citizen, a convert to Islam, who allegedly tried to target a military recruiting center in Catonsville, Maryland, with a truck bomb. Those are the charges that are being made against this individual.

According to a law enforcement source, the FBI found out about this individual back in October, when someone reported some very suspicious Facebook postings. He was then watched by the FBI.

While he was being watched, according to this law enforcement source, he tried to recruit three different members of the public to his plot. They all rebuffed him. One of them told him to drop this idea of jihad, but he moved ahead. We're told by this law enforcement source that he brought up the idea of targeting this recruiting station. An undercover FBI operative tried a couple of times to persuade him to drop the plan, and he insisted on going forward. And according to this law enforcement source, he was taken into custody this morning as he tried to detonate what he thought was a truck bomb, but what was, in fact, an inert device that had been provided by the FBI.

This is a technique we've seen the FBI use in several recent terror-related cases. The most recent out in Portland, Oregon, where a man was picked up allegedly for wanting to detonate a truck bomb at the Christmas tree lighting in that city. In addition, there have been cases in the Midwest and in Texas, where they've used this similar technique, a sort of sting, undercover thing, where they become aware of somebody who allegedly has a plot in mind, and they provide him with what they think is a live bomb but what, in fact, is an inert device.

We're told at no time was the public in any danger.

This individual, again, described as a 21-year-old Muslim convert, a U.S. citizen, will be in court this afternoon in Baltimore, Maryland.

Back to you, Don.

LEMON: At 2:00 p.m., right, Jeanne Meserve?

MESERVE: That's right, Don.

LEMON: All right.

Our homeland security correspondent, Jeanne Meserve, with our breaking news.

Thank you, Jeanne.

(NEWSBREAK)

LEMON: It is noon in Purchase, New York, where the credit card company MasterCard is desperately trying to get their Web site up and running again after a group of hackers reportedly launched a cyber attack on that company. The MasterCard site which services more than 325 million accounts in the U.S. alone has been down since early this morning.

This comes just a week after MasterCard announced it would refuse to process payments to the online secret-leaking site WikiLeaks. Operation Payback, a loosely-affiliated group of so-called activists, were the first to report the outage via Twitter.

Now, a spokesman from MasterCard said the attacks are "a concentrated effort to flood their corporate Web site and slow user access." The company also released a statement. It says, "MasterCard is experiencing heavy traffic on its external corporate Web site, mastercard.com. We are working to restore normal speed of service. There is no impact whatsoever on our cardholders' ability to use their cards for secure transactions."

This isn't the first financial institution, though, to fall under a cyber attack this week. PayPal, another company that blocked users from making payments to WikiLeaks, was also hacked.

So what happened? And what does all of this mean for your account?

Joining me now is John Abell from our New York bureau. He's our New York bureau chief for Wired.com.

So, John, break this down for us. The viewers at home that might not be up to date on this hacker lingo, what's Operation Payback and happened to mastercard.com this morning?

JOHN ABELL, NEW YORK BUREAU CHIEF, WIRED.COM: It's largely symbolic but effective way of punishing, poking a stick in the eye of companies that this group of sort of dark side hackers think have acted unjustly towards WikiLeaks by no longer doing business with them.

LEMON: So, is it fair to say, do we know really that it was all part of WikiLeaks that the slowdown came? Is that for sure?

ABELL: Well, yes, in the sense that this group, anonymous, is really quite well known in the hacking community, and they do this sort of thing. They do it sort of systematically to the Church of Scientology, and they've had many targets over the years.

There's no reason for them to say otherwise. So, yes, it's widely accepted that it's them.

But it's really very symbolic. Nobody does any transactions on mastercard.com. You use your credit card via your bank. So this is sort of a headline-grabbing way of sort of saying we're on WikiLeaks' side.

LEMON: So, John, lay this out for us. So, anyone using their credit card on PayPal, their MasterCard on PayPal, and you're wondering, what's to stop them from hacking into your personal information on MasterCard users, so you're saying there's no danger or very little danger to consumers?

ABELL: This is a way of sort of making a Web site inaccessible by making repeated requests to it which are illegitimate. Totally different from being able to burrow in to MasterCard's database, PayPal's database, and get any kind of information or money at all. This is simply taking down a Web server, which is pretty easy to do.

LEMON: OK. So, if they hack into a site like MasterCard, what's to stop them from doing something, let's say, from the Pentagon or some other big agency here in the country?

ABELL: Well, most of these sensitive entities which you describe aren't really facing the Internet in the same way that MasterCard is. Banks and companies are on the public Internet in a very sort of open way because that's how they do business. Not so much with the Pentagon, the White House, power grids, nuclear facilities, not at all the same. I'm not saying it's impossible, but certainly beyond the means of a very sort of garden variety attack like this.

LEMON: Ah, very good information. Thank you.

John Abell is the New York bureau chief for Wired.com.

Consumers, don't be worried, but be as careful as usual.

Thank you, sir.

Let's move on now.

A group linked to the Taliban releases new images of a U.S. soldier captured in Afghanistan almost 18 months ago. The family of Specialist Bowe Bergdahl confirms it is him in the video, but there is no indication when these scenes were actually recorded.

So let's bring in our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr.

So, Barbara, what can you tell us about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to find him? And they say this is him in the video, but we still don't know when this video was taken.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: All correct, Don.

His family does confirm that it is him in the video. This was released as part of a larger video by a production House that has been long associated with the Taliban insurgency. This was a very short clip in a much longer video.

What we had not really seen before are those photos, those images of Bowe Bergdahl outside. He is standing next to a man identified as a member of the insurgency inside Afghanistan, but we don't know when these were taken. We don't know if he is in Afghanistan or across the border in Pakistan.

He was 23 years old when he disappeared about 18 months ago from his base in eastern Afghanistan. He is listed as missing/captured.

One of the interesting things is you see in this latest release he is clean-shaven and his hair is close-cropped. In previous releases, he had been seen in at least one of them as wearing a beard.

Let me very quickly add in one additional detail. Several weeks ago, when we were in Afghanistan, we went to the prison facility where insurgents are questioned by U.S. forces. In the interrogation rooms -- and I think we have a picture to show you -- in the interrogation rooms there is a photo of Bowe Bergdahl pasted to the wall.

Every insurgent -- there you go. Every insurgent detainee brought in is questioned by the U.S. military. Look at this photo in the prison. Have you seen this man?

So, the hunt for Bowe Bergdahl very much goes on -- Don. LEMON: And perhaps I loaded you with too many questions at the beginning there, but I would really like to know if the Pentagon -- are they responding to this latest video? Are they saying anything about the search for him now?

STARR: Well, they do say that the search goes on, and they also say -- the Pentagon spokesman, Colonel Dave Lapan, said the U.S. military "deplores," in his words, the use of Bowe Bergdahl in these types of videos. And, of course, they want him returned to his family -- Don.

LEMON: Appreciate it.

Barbara Starr, our Pentagon correspondent.

So what does this morning's rocket launch from Cape Canaveral have to do with outsourcing? It is about saving money, of course. And I'll explain how that's supposed to work in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So it took a couple of tries, but SpaceX, a commercial space company, launched its Falcon 9 rocket into orbit. This is NASA's attempt to outsource its orbital transportation program, basically using a private company to replace the shuttle program, which is winding down, of course.

CNN's John Zarrella was at this launch this morning at Cape Canaveral, and he joins us now from the Kennedy Space Center.

Hey, listen, what was -- I imagine it was different than watching the shuttle. Was it?

JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Don, it's a lot different. The Shuttle Discovery is sitting out on the launch pad over here behind me hoping to go off in February, but it's a lot smaller. It's nowhere near the explosive power and that drama you feel when a shuttle lifts off, no question about it.

But Falcon 9 did get off the ground about an hour and a half late, Don. And it was carrying the Dragon spacecraft. And at last word, the Dragon spacecraft is successfully in orbit around the Earth.

It will make two revolutions of the Earth. Then if all goes well, will splash back down into the Pacific Ocean about three-and-a- half hours after liftoff. So about 2:20 or so this afternoon, we should know whether this was a completely successful test flight.

LEMON: John, that was fast. That's fast, if it's going to do it all within a day like this. So is that why NASA is moving in this direction? Why is it turning missions over to commercial companies?

ZARRELLA: You know, this is what is going on. NASA is in the position where they want to move on and do what NASA does the best, explore the heavens. That's what NASA does, cutting-edge technology, whether it Apollo going to the moon, whether it was building this remarkable lifting body, the space shuttle that did phenomenal work, built a space station.

Now, instead of staying in low Earth orbit and flying shuttle missions, or whatever, to re-supply the Space Station until 2020, or to send astronauts to the Space Station, they want to move on, take the resources, take the money that was devoted to space shuttle, and move it into cutting-edge research, designing a space vehicle that could take astronauts to Mars and to explore the asteroids, things like that. So, now it's time for commercial companies to go ahead, pick up the slack, and do these missions of re-supply to the Space Station, and sending crews up to the Space Station.

It's still a risky gamble. There's no question about it, because if there are failures along the way, then what does NASA do?

LEMON: Yes, what do they do? That's my question.

You said researching on how to get astronauts. Still, you've got to get astronauts up there, I would imagine, in the interim. So until these companies are ready -- so what does NASA do?

ZARRELLA: So here's what NASA is stuck doing. Until one of these commercial vehicles -- and Elon Musk is the CEO of SpaceX. He said, look, we've got a $1.6 billion contract already signed with NASA to take cargo, 12 cargo missions. But as soon as NASA gives them the green light, the go-ahead to start taking astronauts, it will be about three years of more research.

They'll use the same Dragon spacecraft. And about 2015, they say they'll be ready to take astronauts to the International Space Station.

Until then, with the shuttle flights ending next year, and no longer taking astronauts to the Space Station to stay there, the United States is relying on Russia. So Russia's charging us about $50 million every time they take an astronaut to the space station.

LEMON: Who would have thunk, right?

ZARRELLA: Yes. And that's going to happen until about 2015. Who'd have thunk it, yes.

LEMON: When you see Richard Branson, you know, selling seats to go into space, is this really the dawn of the age of commercialized space travel?

ZARRELLA: Well, here's what the issue is -- how much will these companies be able to make? Can they successfully do this?

Branson is planning on flying next year as well, six passengers, two crew members on his vehicle from out in New Mexico, at the spaceport. He's got about 355 people who have already paid the $200,000 or put deposits down on the $200,000 for those flights. He believes it will be profitable.

You have Musk, who definitely believes it will be profitable, although Musk said to me in an exclusive interview I did, he said, "Look, if I was in this to make a boatload of money, I wouldn't be in the space business." He sees himself more as, I want to see us start to do the things that we can do so that NASA can do these other high pie-in-the-sky missions and let commercialized companies take over and do this other work, because, as he puts it, that's how aviation started.

That's where aviation was. And the space program should be further along than where it is in commercial companies doing this sort of thing. It hasn't been, but now's the time. And they believe the time is there.

How much money they're going to be able to make, how many customers they're going to be able to get ultimately, that's still the wildcard.

LEMON: It's progress. It's going to happen. Imagine if you think the security line at the airport is intrusive. Imagine the security line at the spaceport.

We'll be doing stories on that soon, I'm sure.

ZARRELLA: You know, Don, wouldn't you like to be on one of those flights with Branson, out from New Mexico, going up there and go weightless for about four minutes? It's about a two-hour total flight.

LEMON: Maybe after people have done it for a while. I would not want to be the first. I kind of like my life here right now. I don't want to go to the other side just yet.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Thank you very much, John Zarrella. Appreciate your reporting.

Speaking of space, a mysterious object in the sky. What is it? We're investigating after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(WEATHER REPORT)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Luckily, Tony has the day off. I'm sure he's in a warmer climate than here in Atlanta, where it is very cold.

I'm Don Lemon. Thanks for watching, everyone.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States. Now a new study says early detection of a certain protein through a simple blood test could be a powerful predictor of the disease and potentially save lives.

Our senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen, joins us now.

Elizabeth, what did this study find?

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SR. MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, this is an example of some doctors thinking big, because they've been using this test to help diagnose heart attacks in the emergency room, and then they said, well, what happens if we gave people this test when they're like, let's say, in their 30s? And can we predict who's going to get a heart attack?

So they did that. They looked at people age 30 to 65, and what they found is that if they had this certain protein in their blood, they were almost seven times more likely to get a heart attack, to die, than the people who didn't have the protein in their blood.

So, again, if they tested positive, they were nearly seven times more likely to die from heart problems. And so that's highly predictive, as they sort of say in the medical field.

LEMON: And that's for both men and women.

COHEN: That's right.

LEMON: So if I wanted to get this test now, can I get it?

COHEN: No, you can't just go to your doctor and get it. Doctors don't stock them.

But, you know, that could happen in the not-too-distant future. And it will be kind of like getting a cholesterol check. You know, you go in, you get your cholesterol checked, your doctor decides what to do based on the numbers. And this could be a similar kind of thing.

LEMON: So if the test becomes available, and I go in and I find out, OK, it's positive, then what does my doctor do?

COHEN: So, your doctor would probably do a couple of things.

One, he would make sure that you were eating right and exercising and doing all those great things. And also, they would make sure that -- let's say maybe you need an ultrasound on your heart, an echocardiogram to see what's going on. Because just this test being positive doesn't tell you what's wrong, it just tells you that something is not going quite right. They might be more aggressive about treating high blood pressure, more aggressive about treating cholesterol, just really making sure that your heart is in good shape, because a positive result on this means that you may be headed for trouble.

LEMON: All right.

Elizabeth Cohen is our senior medical correspondent.

Thank you very much, Elizabeth.

COHEN: Thanks.

LEMON: On to other news now.

It's a tiny glimmer of light in a very dark jobs picture, more job openings than we have seen in a couple of years. Christine Romans and why it's only a very cautious sign in a moment here on CNN.

Also, we're following news from the White House. The president is meeting now with the Polish president. And we are hearing he took some questions after that meeting. They met in the Oval Office.

The first question, we are told, was about tax cuts. And the president responded, even though he's meeting with the Polish president. We're going to that video in just a minute.

The Polish president is Bronislaw Komorowski. And they met, again, in the Oval Office.

We're going to get pictures of the president's meeting with him in just moments. And again, tax cuts have been a really big issue. Of course, the president coming out and having to respond.

Here he is and here are his comments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Two questions, I think. On the American side, I'm going to call on Bill Plante.

BILL PLANTE, CBS NEWS: Mr. President, now that you've negotiated with Republicans, are you willing to negotiate with the Democrats, that you could trade them the tax package? And when you talk to Republicans, did they give you any assurances that they would take up START and "don't ask" in the lame duck?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, Bill, I think it is inaccurate to characterize Democrats writ large as feeling "betrayed." I think Democrats are looking at this bill, and you've already had a whole bunch of them who have said this makes sense. And I think the more they look at it, the more of them are going to say this makes sense.

As I've indicated, you've just had economists over the last 24, 48 hours examine this and say this is going to boost the economy, it is going to grow the economy, it is going to increase the likelihood that we can drive down the unemployment rate. And it's going to make sure that two million people who stand to lose unemployment insurance at the end of this month get it, that folks who count on college tax credits or child tax credits or the earned income tax credit, that they're getting relief, and that tens of millions of Americans are not going to see their paychecks shrink come January 1st.

So this is the right thing to do. I expect everybody to examine it carefully. When they do, I think they're going to feel confident that, in fact, this is the right course, while understanding that for the next two years, we're going to have a big debate about taxes, and we're going to have a big debate e about the budget, and we're going to have a big debate about deficits. And Republicans are going to have to explain to the American people over the next two years how making those tax cuts for the high end permanent squares with their stated desire to start reducing deficits and debt.

I don't think that formula works, but they'll have the opportunity to make the case. I'll have the opportunity to make the case that we've got to have tax reform, that we've got to simplify the system, that we do have to cut spending where it makes sense. But we're also going to have to make sure that we've got a tax code that is fair and that looks after the interests of middle-class Americans and continues to grow the economy.

With respect to START, I feel confident that, when you've got previous secretaries of state, defense, basically the entire national security apparatus of previous Democratic and Republican administrations, our closest allies who are most impacted by relations with Russia and as President Kaczynski indicated, have a thousand years of uneasy relations with Russia, the START treaty is important. We are going to get it through the Senate. That is not linked to taxes. That's something that on its own merits that is supposed to get done, needs to get done.

And I have discussed it with Senate Republican leader McConnell. I am confident that we are going to be able to get the START Treaty on the floor, debate it, and complete it before we break for the holidays. OK.

LEMON: As President Barack Obama, of course, just finished up a meeting with the Polish president and taking some questions. He took a question on the tax cuts and then also talking about the status of the START Treaty.

Remember, this is a lame duck session, over very soon before the end of the year. Very ambitious, very ambitious, when we're talking about tax cuts and also a major treaty that's been in the works for a while. President Barack Obama making statements there in the Oval Office.

More to come, including some news that is developing in Washington as well, which has to do with the lame duck session that you'll want to know about. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Boy, Washington has a lot to deal with in a lame duck session. I told you before the break, some developing news come from Washington and this session, and it is on "don't ask, don't tell." Dana Bash, our senior congressional correspondent, with the breaking news. What do you have, Dana?

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What we know now is that there will be a very, very important vote, critical vote on the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal vote tonight in the Senate. We have been talking for some time, listening to the Pentagon leaders to press now the Senate to please act before this Congress is up. We're going to see whether or not that is going to happen before the end of the day. What we're going to see is the Senate is going to try to take up the defense bill; that includes a repeal. What is really unclear and is looking unlikely is whether this is going to pass. The reason why we think it is probably not going to pass, or at least this particular vote to take up this debate, Don, is for this reason. Republicans have signed a letter, all 42 of them, vowing not to do anything, not to vote for any legislation before tax cuts are done and funding the government.

So, even though this is getting closer in terms of getting the votes on "don't ask, don't tell" repeal on the substance, it is really unclear whether or not those Republicans who are on the fence -- talking about Susan Collins of Maine, talking about Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who has now said he supports the repeal -- unclear whether they will do this vote. So, it is possible that Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, is effectively setting up the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal up for failure by putting this vote up tonight.

LEMON: So then why is he pushing it then? Why is he pushing it if he's setting it up for failure?

BASH: Such a great question. It's hard to answer this definitively but here's what we know. We know the calendar is not on the Democrats' side. It's middle of December now. They want to get out of here before Christmas Eve. They have things on their plate like the tax cut deal, which they really need to deal with. And something else that is very high on the president's list. You just heard him talk about this before the break, and that is ratification of the START Treaty.

It seems to be that they are putting those priorities ahead of the others because they really feel they need more time for those particularly to start ratification debate if they have any chance of getting that done. So, that's why they're pushing --

LEMON: Dana --

BASH: By the way, it's not just the "don't ask, don't tell" vote tonight. It's also the DREAM Act and several other items that have been on the Democrats' wish list, if you will. They're going to try to push votes on all of those to try to get debate on that started in the Senate. We don't think any of them are going to pass.

LEMON: I have to ask you this, and without a Democratic majority, it has been said that this administration has a very, very little chance of repealing "don't ask, don't tell." So, what happens now if this is indeed the case? It does happen, and then no one's going to vote on it?

BASH: It's going to be tougher. If "don't ask, don't tell," that policy in the military is not repealed before Democrats lose the majority in the house, lose seats in the Senate --

LEMON: In a couple of days, they're going to lose that.

BASH: Exactly. Before the end of this Congress. So, we're talking about next year, the next Congress, it's going to be harder, no question. I mean, that's just a fact. That's where the votes are. And that is why, Don, you saw military leaders up here last week for two days straight in hearings begging Congress to deal with it because they believe -- they said this over and over again -- it will be so much harder for the military to implement and to deal effectively with repealing this policy if it is mandated by the courts. They want Congress to do it so the military can do it themselves and do it in an orderly way that won't hurt unit cohesion and retention and everything else that goes on with the important way the military is guided.

LEMON: All right, Dana. Dana Bash with our breaking news on "don't ask, don't tell." This is just the beginning of the breaking news part. It's going to be laid out throughout the day. We'll see what Harry Reid wants to do, if it will work, if he'll will do it. Who knows? Dana, thank you. We appreciate it. We're going to be following that developing news in Washington. Lots going on right now.

Let's talk about jobs. It is a tiny glimmer of light in a very dark jobs picture. More job openings than we've seen in a couple of years. Our Christine Romans, and why it is only a very cautious sign. That's in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The job market has been so tough that just about any news is good news, of course. And today we heard that job openings are at a level we haven't seen in two years. Christine Romans with our money -- we call it our Money Team, and she's also the author of "Smart Is The New Rich." So, she's very rich, at least in smartness. She's here to help us figure out how encouraging this news is.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Rich in life. Rich in life.

LEMON: Here's the thing. I don't want to be -- to give conflicting information to the viewers. Remember we got those dismal job numbers last week?

ROMANS: True. Yes.

LEMON: And now we're seeing there's some movement on the jobs front. So, this isn't contradictory at all? What's going on?

ROMANS: No, it isn't. And here's how. We lost 39,000 jobs in the most recent -- in November. I mean, we know -- I'm sorry. We gained only 39,000 jobs. Let me scratch that. We gained only 39,000. Doesn't feel like much if you're out there looking for a job, you're not feeling any better about things.

But there's a new survey called the Job Opening Labor Turnover Survey, and this is something that economists -- J.O.L.T. This is something economists look at because it predicts a little further out. And his shows you how many job openings in the month of October. There were 3.4 million job openings, advertised job openings, from business and government in that month. And that's up -- up 12 percent from September and the most we've seen in two years.

Now, the question is how many people are looking for those jobs? When you think about all the people out there looking for those jobs, there are so many that there are 4.4 people for every available job opening. That's an ugly number.

But Don, that's a lot better. When I was writing the book, "Smart Is The New Rich," the number was like five-and-a-half or six people for every job opening. Now it's 4.4 The number is going in the right direction for the first time in a long time.

And it might suggest sometime early next year, three months out -- two or three months out - that there could be people being matched into those jobs. And that is a slight sign of thawing.

When you talk to economists, Don, they see little bits here and there. They see where companies are starting to make money again. They see where maybe they've squeezed everything they can out of the workforce that they can right now. They're just waiting for demand comes back so they can start hiring again.

This Job Opening and Labor Turnover Survey, the J.O.L.T Survey, might sound like a little arcane economic data, but boy I'm telling you, labor economists are watching this thing very closely to find out where the trend is going. And that's 3.4 million job openings in October.

Still, 15 million people looking for jobs, but that's more job openings than we've seen in two years. It's something.

LEMON: And as you said, moving in the right direction, if only slightly. And we will take it. Christine Romans, thanks.

ROMANS: Right. We'll take it.

LEMON: Of course, the new book is titled "Smart Is The New Rich." In it, you will find all kinds of things to help your bottom line.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: There continues to be fallout from the president's comments yesterday about a deal with the Republicans on a tax cut extension. Wolf Blitzer, of course, is the host of "The Situation Room" and he is at our political desk right now.

Wolf, we've got taxes, we've got START, we've got movement on "don't ask, don't tell." All of those stories would be a big story individually, and you've got all of them at once.

WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": Well, they're trying to get through these final days of this lame duck Congress as much as possible. It's by no means easy. I think one of the reasons the president was ready to accept this compromise with the Republicans is he was hoping he could get this done, then they could get on to some other final issues that the Republicans were threatening to block, including this new START treaty with Russia. That's really important with the Obama administration. They want to get that through. They'd like to get some other issues through as well.

And, remember, the Republicans in the House and the Senate, they were threatening to try to block everything. They have that ability in the Senate given the numbers, given the fact that you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. So if they want to filibuster, they can stop anything else from going through. But there's no doubt that was pressure on the president to bite the bullet and accept these compromises, including the tax cuts, continuing the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Something he had adamantly opposed over the past three years.

The president just speaking out. You had live coverage of that in the Oval Office with the Polish president just a little while ago.

It's interesting to take a look at the new numbers, what the new House and the new Senate, the balance of power is going to be because it's now finalized with the completion of this final House race. The tally in New York state. In the House of Representatives, the Republicans in the new House will have 242 Republicans versus 193 Democrats. That's a net gain of 63 seats for the Republicans. A powerful statement in these midterm elections. An historic statement for these Republicans. Another reason why the president was under so much pressure to go ahead and accept this deal.

The new balance of power in the Senate, the Democrats will stay in control. The majority. But their majority goes down from 59 senators in the old Senate to 53. The Republicans go up to 47 Republicans. So it's a narrower gap there, but also a net gain of six Republican seats in the U.S. Senate.

One of those new senators, by the way, is Rand Paul of Kentucky. He's the senator-elect. He's going to be joining me, Don, in "The Situation Room" later today. We have lots to discuss. I'm not exactly clear whether he will go along with his fellow Republicans and support this compromise with the president. He has some principle views, some very libertarian views on spending and so we'll see where he stands. I'm also going to go through some other issues with him as well. So it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

LEMON: We will be watching, 5:00 Eastern here on CNN. Wolf Blitzer will be hosting "The Situation Room."

Thank you, Wolf.

Your next political update coming up in one hour. And for the latest political news, make sure you go to cnnpolitics.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: If it is hot on the web, we're watching it for you. Our Sandra Endo in Washington right now with what is trending.

So, Sandra, a lot of people are remembering rock icon John Lennon today on the web. Of course they're out at Strawberry Fields in Central Park. So -- but what are they saying on this 30th anniversary of his death?

SANDRA ENDO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's definitely trending online, Don. And a lot of people on cnn.com are posting comments as to where they were when they heard the news about his death. Let's take a look at some of them. Really interesting quotes here. One from Evangliside (ph). He said, "I was in fifth grade when he died. My teacher did nothing all day but sulk, play Beatles albums, and yell at us whenever we made any noise. Hilarious upon retrospect."

Here's another one from Socalreader (ph) who was watching TV and he said, "the moment they interrupted to say that John Lennon had been shot, I felt like it was someone in my family. The pain was so intense and in the following days I remember breaking down several times when it hit me again. I keep a framed photo of the Beatles in my family room."

And that's just a sample of what they're saying. A lot of people going on and on. And, Don, certainly his memory and their music lives on, right?

LEMON: Yes, it really does. And while Lennon's death was controversial, today's celebrities aren't without controversy. Many of them have been naughty, right, more than nice this year, sparking some scandal that people are talking about. So tell us about that.

ENDO: Oh, yes. Big controversies out there. Well, this story is actually trending on cnn.com today. "Showbiz Tonight" compiled a list of the most provocative celebrities of the year.

LEMON: Uh-oh.

ENDO: And it's -- yes, it's based on several factors. Who provoked the most visceral reaction, the most continuous shock and outrage, who generated the most --

LEMON: Can I guess?

ENDO: Yes, go ahead.

LEMON: Was it Charlie Sheen?

ENDO: Oh, yes, he is on the list.

LEMON: Was it Lady Gaga? Was it Kim Kardashian? Was it Justin Bieber? I mean you can go on and on.

ENDO: OK, well, don't be a spoiler. Here are some of the nominees. Take a look. Lindsay Lohan.

LEMON: Oh, yes, yes, yes.

ENDO: Miley Cyrus.

LEMON: Forget about --

ENDO: Mel Gibson. LEMON: Forgot about Mel.

ENDO: And your favorite, Charlie Sheen.

LEMON: There you go.

ENDO: But, you guessed it, taking the number one spot for the most provocative celebrity of the year, Lady Gaga.

LEMON: Lady Gaga.

ENDO: Who can forget her meat dress, right, Don?

LEMON: Oh, yes. Yes. Crazy stuff. Crazy stuff. Mel Gibson, though, really, probably belongs at the top of that list.

Thank you very much, Sandra Endo. We appreciate it.

A public life, private pain, and strength in the face of tragedy. Remembering the life and legacy of Elizabeth Edwards.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: We are just now learning that funeral services for Elizabeth Edwards will be on Saturday -- on Saturday in Raleigh. The estranged wife of Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards died yesterday after a six-year battle with cancer. Our national political correspondent Jessica Yellin looks at Edwards' life and her legacy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They were an inseparable pair. A political power couple. He was the candidate, but often, it seemed, she was the star.

ELIZABETH EDWARDS: Don't worry, you only have about 15 seconds of me.

YELLIN: Elizabeth Edwards inspired so many with her strength in the face of adversity. She endured a devastating loss when her teenage son Wade died in a car accident.

E. EDWARDS: Uh-oh, what happened?

YELLIN: After that, she and her husband had two more children, Emma and Jack. Their oldest is Cate. When John Edwards was on the 2004 Democratic ticket, their relationship was a central part of his appeal.

JOHN EDWARDS (D), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Thank you. Now you know why Elizabeth is so amazing, right? I am such a lucky man to have the love of my life at my side.

YELLIN: Then tragedy hit again. At the end of that campaign, Elizabeth Edwards discovered a lump in her breast, cancer. She displayed her now familiar determination. E. EDWARDS: I also just have a belief that I'm going to beat this. And every indication is that -- all the news I've gotten really has been good news. So I feel pretty confident. I'm making those plans for those next 40 years.

YELLIN: At first it seemed she would beat the disease. She wrote a best-selling book about grief and endurance and began championing health care reform. Then in 2007, just as her husband was gearing up to run for president, more dreaded news, the cancer was back. It spread to her bones. She urged her husband to stay in the race.

E. EDWARDS: Right now we feel incredibly optimistic. I expect to do next week all the things I did last week and the week after that.

YELLIN: In this second campaign, Mrs. Edwards, a sometimes controversial figure with her husband's staff, was a key adviser and a constant companion.

E. EDWARDS: I'm so proud to introduce, I guess, my love and the next vice president of the United States, John Edwards.

YELLIN: In her last years, a different truth came crashing in. Edwards learned her husband was having an affair. He'd lied to her and he even fathered a child with the other woman. During the same period, she learned the cancer was getting worse. She dealt with her rage in this book, "Resilience."

E. EDWARDS: It's important for me to understand that I didn't do anything wrong, not just important for me but important also for my children to understand that the mother they say, the wife that they saw, you know, trying to support her husband in his quest and his dreams.

YELLIN: Mrs. Edwards separated from but never divorced her husband and in the end, he was by her side with their children in the Chapel Hill home they built together.

Jessica Yellin, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)