Return to Transcripts main page

Campbell Brown

Tiger Woods' Return; President Obama Signs New Nuclear Treaty

Aired April 08, 2010 - 20:00   ET

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

CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, there, everybody.

We know just about everybody out there dying to know how Tiger did today on his first day back at his game of golf. Well, here's the headline. He did very, very well.

And we're going to have lots more detail, we promise. We're also going to tell you what he said about that new Nike ad. He was asked about it today.

But there are also some pretty major developments around the world today. And that is where we're going to start.

First, on Capitol Hill, Citibank executives were just pummeled for failing to understand how their gambles crippled our economy. And, today, they apologized.

But will they change their ways? We're going to ask author Michael Lewis, whose book on Wall Street is topping the bestseller list. He's got a lot to say about what is still wrong with the system.

However, we do begin tonight with a huge global story that affects us all, President Obama's crusade for a world without nuclear weapons. He signed a major arms control treaty with the Russians today, but then hours later, a major snub from a key player in the nuclear debate, Israel.

That story topping our "Mash-Up" tonight.

It was in Prague that President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the START treaty today. The agreement cuts the number of American and Russian nukes by a third, but the treaty also sends a very pointed message to Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: He won the Nobel Peace Prize. And there were critics, there were skeptics around the world saying he doesn't deserve it. Now the White House is saying, look, he's got this one under his belt.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is a danger to people everywhere -- from Moscow to New York; from the cities of Europe to South Asia. DIANE SAWYER, HOST, "WORLD NEWS": The treaty cuts each country's nuclear arsenal by 30 percent over seven years, though hundreds of warheads will still be left.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, that's still a lot. That's enough to destroy both nations many times over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Looming over all this is Iran and its own nuclear ambition.

OBAMA: The United States and Russia are part of a coalition of nations insisting that the Islamic Republic of Iran face consequences, because they have continually failed to meet their obligations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But before a single nuclear weapon is destroyed, the treaty must be ratified by the U.S. Senate, a prospect the White House appears to be what nervous about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: But a serious potential bump in the road here, Politico reporting tonight that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has bowed out of President Obama's 47-nation nuclear summit next week, reportedly over criticism of Israel's failure to sign the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty.

We're going to have a whole lot more on this major, major story coming up very shortly.

Our top domestic story tonight: the cigarette-smoking diplomat who has sparked a terrorism scare or who sparked a terrorism scare last night on a United Airlines flight from D.C. to Denver. Well, today, we learned that Mohammed Al-Madadi, who was arrested, but not charged, was actually on his way to visit an imprisoned member of al Qaeda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Mohammed Al-Madadi was on his wait to meet with a jailed al Qaeda agent.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is an individual who is currently an eight year, four months' term in prison for conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The visit never happened because Al-Madadi sparked a terrorism scare on his flight to Denver last night. Officials say he lit a cigarette in the flight-class lavatory. When the flight attendant smelled smoke and asked what he was doing, he replied, "I was just lighting my shoe on fire," apparently referring to the 2001 shoe bomber, and went back to his seat, refusing to turn over his lighter.

LISA STARK, ABC NEWS: Now, as for Madadi, we have now learned he's just 27 years old. U.S. officials expect he will lose his job over this, but he does have diplomatic immunity and he will not be charged.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: A State Department spokesman said today that he expects this to all be resolved very quickly.

Our top political story tonight is in New Orleans, where conservative Republicans are testing their strength for a run for the White House. Superstars on the right, including Sarah Palin, are meeting at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, the unofficial kickoff to 2012. Meanwhile, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann says the Tea Party movement is making the GOP stronger.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: The Republicans become tea partiers. The tea partiers become Republicans. How does this evolve?

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: It's really merging into one single solitary unit. A number of Tea Party groups from around the country are coming together unifying under the umbrella of economic fiscal conservativism, because Americans, quite simply, feel like they're taxed enough already.

And I think conservative candidates are going to benefit greatly by latching on to the theme of stopping the spending, stopping the deficits, and getting our financial house in order.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Bachmann says she's focusing on her reelection bid and will not run for president herself.

But the story that is getting all the buzz in pop culture world, the singing sensation who could be the next Susan Boyle. Lin Yu Chun brought the house last Friday on Taiwan's version of "American Idol." Listen as he -- yes, he -- belts out Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You." I mean, he's better than Whitney. Is it just me? That's kind of amazing -- 800,000 people have watched that video on YouTube.

And that brings us finally to the "Punchline" tonight. This is courtesy of Jimmy Fallon. He is poking fun at America's celebrity mom Kate Gosselin of "Jon & Kate Plus 8" fame. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY FALLON, HOST, "LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY FALLON": Jon told "People' magazine that Kate is an absentee parent. But Kate's told "People" that she loves her children very much, which is nice, because every child needs to hear that from their mom's lawyer.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Jimmy Fallon, everybody.

And that's the "Mash-Up" tonight.

Coming up: President Obama and Russian President Medvedev and that historic treaty they signed in Prague. But will the road to a nuclear-free world hit a big roadblock in Tehran in?

When we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Tonight, the historic nuclear arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia has been signed and now awaits approval in the U.S. Senate and Russian parliament.

But even as Presidents Obama and Medvedev celebrated today in the Czech Republic, they issued a new warning to a nation clearly not interested in coming clean with its own nuclear intentions. That is, of course, Iran.

CNN's Nic Robertson is starting us off tonight from Prague.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): With the red carpet rolled out, President Obama fairly bounded off his plane into Central European sunshine, his limo bouncing cautiously over the cobbles of Prague, carrying him to an historic meeting with Russian President Medvedev, signing a nuclear weapons reduction deal.

OBAMA: Today is an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation, and for U.S.-Russia relations.

ROBERTSON: He's calling it a reset in relations. So, are the Russians.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): This is a win-win situation.

ROBERTSON: Losers, North Korea and Iran, particularly Iran. Obama got what he wanted, a powerful ally, stop Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.

MEDVEDEV (through translator): Iran is not responding to the many constructive proposals that have been made and we cannot turn a blind eye to this. Therefore I do not rule out the possibility of the Security Council of the United Nations will have to review this issue once again.

ROBERTSON: The deal cut long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles by one-third, a maximum of 700 nuclear weapons deployed at any one time, but only a beginning. And there seemed no doubt they will be back for more.

All right? Thank you very much, everybody. MEDVEDEV (through translator): Thank you, sir. Next time.

ROBERTSON: Nic Robertson, CNN, Prague, the Czech Republic.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Today's agreement is part of a broader U.S. nuclear strategy in which the U.S. Won't use its arsenal against non-nuclear states that comply with nonproliferation agreements and will try to pressure Iran with help both longtime allies and unlikely partners like China.

With me tonight to hash out whether the strategy could work is former Assistant Secretary of State Jamie Rubin, who is now an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs also former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle, now a resident fellow with the American Enterprise Institute.

Welcome to both of you.

Richard, let me start with you here.

The administration hopes this new nuclear strategy will tighten the screws on Iran, further isolate Iran from the international community. I know you do not think that is true. Explain why.

RICHARD PERLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, I wish it were true. It would obviously be helpful.

But there's no logical connection between an agreement to reduce the American and Russian arsenals and a decision, which is what is needed, to put such pressure on Iran that Iran will actually abandon its nuclear weapons program. I don't believe that's going to happen.

I don't think the president has any commitment from Mr. Putin or any other Russian that that's going to happen. So, I'm afraid, if the administration thinks of this as a way of dealing with Iran, they're going to be severely disappointed.

BROWN: We have certainly seen no signs from Iran that there is any movement or any willingness to be flexible here.

JAMIE RUBIN, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: First of all, there is no great options respect to Iran. The Bush administration was obviously terribly bedeviled by Iran as well.

And I think the idea here is to unite the world against those countries that are outside the norms, outside the mainstream. And I think this treaty, along with other statements, other actions the United States has taken, is likely to increase the pressure on Iran through a new Security Council resolution. That's a step forward.

It isn't, as Richard said, likely to yield an immediate response from Iran, on the contrary. But I do think it's important to punish those countries who violate these norms. And so having a Security Council resolution that imposes significant consequences on Iran is the right move, while we should have our eyes open that it's not likely to make Iran give up the program it values so much.

BROWN: And to that point, Richard, if it is a step forward, doesn't that alone make it worthwhile?

PERLE: Well, I'm not at all convinced it is a step forward.

And Jamie's rather lukewarm prognosis should be quite telling. Look, the fact is that Iran is moving ahead with its nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration didn't come to grips with it. This administration is not coming to grips with it. And unless there is a radical change in policy, Iran is going to become a nuclear weapons state.

And that's very troubling on almost every dimension.

BROWN: Jamie...

PERLE: So, we need a strategy to do something about it, and this isn't it.

BROWN: Let me ask you, President Obama hosting this summit, 47 world leaders participating to talk about nuclear weapons.

We just learned tonight that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided not to attend now, obviously at a time of great tension between the U.S. and Israel. Explain to us what's going on here.

RUBIN: Well, a meeting of the world designed to deal with nuclear proliferation isn't a great place for Israel to be. They have an unacknowledged nuclear weapons program of some size and significance.

And since the goals of the United States are to put the pressure on outliers like Iran, rather than Israel, I think it's just as well that Israel isn't going to be there, because when the Arab countries in the region are looking out at what they face, and we're working with them to try to deal with the potential of a nuclear Iran, Israel is a complicating factor.

So, I think it will help us unite the world against Iran and not have to explain the very complicated situation that because of Israel's threat it faces from Arab neighbors, et cetera, we don't expect them to give up their nuclear weapons until there's peace in the Middle East. That's more complicated than the world needs right now.

We need the world focused on Iran. So, from my standpoint, it's just as well.

BROWN: Gentlemen, we have got to tend it there.

Richard Perle and Jamie Rubin, as always, thank you very much for being with us. Appreciate it.

We are going to look at this issue from a different, perhaps more disturbing, view, the threat of terrorists getting ahold of loose nuclear weapons. New York's top cop going to be with us right after the break to talk about that -- when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In the wake of today's historic nuclear weapons reduction agreement, we want to look at a threat that wasn't reduced today, an unpredictable group of terrorists getting hold of a stockpile of unprotected nuclear material and wiping out an entire city in just seconds. Could this really happen?

A new film from the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" gives this nightmare scenario. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the first millionth-of-a-second, the fireball is 500 feet across. Within 10 seconds, it would grow to over one mile.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The temperature would rise to 20 million degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than the surface of the sun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tens of square blocks would just be melted, would just be evaporated.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything would be vaporized.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Earlier tonight, I spoke with New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Michael Levy, the author of "On Nuclear Terrorism."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Michael, commissioner, welcome to both of you.

Michael, let me start with you.

The clip we just showed people is an exaggerated view of what might happen, but it's not probably what we are likely to ever see in our lifetimes, we hope, right?

MICHAEL LEVI, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: We hope.

It's the kind of result that could come from a nuclear strike from a nuclear power like Russia, the sort of thing that's being addressed in the arms treaty that people are looking at. From a terrorist group, which tends to occupy a lot of other people's minds, you would see either a smaller blast, but still something that could kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people, or people also talk about a dirty bomb, which would spread radioactive material using conventional explosives, not killing people through the radiation, but contaminating large areas and putting them off-limits.

BROWN: Right. OK. But you might potentially see a much smaller version of a nuclear explosion?

LEVI: A much smaller version of something very large. You're still talking about something on the scale of Hiroshima.

BROWN: Wow. OK. So, that is terrifying.

And, to that point, Commissioner, if any city, I guess, has to be prepared for this, it's New York City. To what extent -- do dirty bombs, the potential of some kind of nuclear attack, to what extent does that keep you up at night?

RAYMOND KELLY, NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: Believe me, we're very much concerned about that.

The portability of a nuclear device is something that we have to worry about. We rely, to a large extent, on all of our counterterrorism efforts on intelligence. But we also have a program called Securing the Cities, which has been funded through the Department of Homeland Security, in which we are in the process, because this is a several-year program, of setting up a ring of state- of-the-art radiation detectors several miles away from New York City to give us advanced warning, if that sort of material is on the way into the city.

BROWN: So, explain. Elaborate on that a little bit. So, there are now detectors like on the outskirts of New York City that would theoretically tell us when something is coming into our neck of the woods?

KELLY: There are portable detectors.

And we, the NYPD, is actually administering this program for the federal government. So, we have distributed and trained thousands of radiation detectors. Now, the goal of this program is to ultimately have state-of-the-art detectors several miles away from New York City, a more sophisticated type than just the belt-worn pagers, which, by the way, are pretty good.

BROWN: Michael, I think people do have in their head sort of this vision of some guy in his garage building something, potentially. Is that realistic, that -- you know hopefully, what the commissioner is talking about, we would be protected from it or we would be able to detect it. But is that kind of thing going on?

LEVI: I don't think it's that easy, but it's certainly not as difficult as we would like it to be.

Look, the hardest part of pulling off an honest-to-goodness nuclear attack would be getting your hands on the nuclear materials in the first place. And that's the place where we have the most leverage in trying to defend against an attack. And that's what we're looking at and cooperating with countries around the world.

But we need other lines of defense, even if they're not perfect. And I wouldn't expect that things like rings of radiation detectors and handheld pagers and whatnot would be perfect, but they can defend us against some sorts of attacks. And it's these pieces together that can make us more secure.

BROWN: What do you, Commissioner, see as the greatest danger? Is it this? I mean, is it in your view what we're talking about here, a terrorist getting their hands on a dirty bomb? Or what -- if you can be as specific as you can, what's the greatest danger?

KELLY: Well, we know that Osama bin Laden has talked about getting nuclear weapons to attack the United States. Obviously, we have got to be concerned about al Qaeda central. And then you have got to be concerned about the surrogates that are around the world.

As Michael said, there's a lot of material out there. And we know that Russia -- or with the fall of the Soviet Union, lots of portable nuclear weapons just simply were not accounted for.

BROWN: And, finally, to both of you, are we protecting the right places? Or do you think, strategy wise, that we're putting our eye and our efforts where they need to be?

LEVI: We're protecting some of the right places, but we as the United States don't have the capability to protect all the places.

BROWN: Right.

LEVI: We need to do this cooperatively. In particular, when it comes to Russia, we need to make sure that there are good controls on their tactical nuclear weapons, their smaller bombs.

When it comes to Pakistan, you need stability, you need the right procedures and technologies in place there. There are a variety of things around the world that need to be done, but we can't do them by ourselves.

BROWN: And, finally, Commissioner, do you think we have the right focus right now?

KELLY: Well, I wish it wasn't so, but New York is at the top of the terrorist target organization. That's the consensus of the intelligence community. And I think the Securing the Cities program is certainly a step in the right direction. But there are no guarantees.

I think, you know, other places in the country certainly need to be protected as well. And we're moving in that direction as a country, but we have a lot more to do.

BROWN: Commission Ray Kelly, Michael Levi, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

KELLY: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: And when we come back: Citibank says it is sorry, but is that enough? Best-selling author Michael Lewis weighs in on avoiding the next big financial meltdown -- right after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Two former Citicorp execs at the helm when the bank lost billions want you to know that they are sorry. Citi, of course, was just one of several banks that gambled it all in the subprime mortgage market and helped bring our economy to its knees.

Well, today, in a joint appearance before Congress, former CEO Chuck Prince and Citi adviser and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin testified that they just didn't understand the risks. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES PRINCE, FORMER CITIGROUP CEO: Let me start by saying I'm sorry. I'm sorry that the financial crisis has had such a devastating impact on our country. I'm sorry for the millions of people, average Americans, who have lost their homes.

And I'm sorry that our management team, starting with me, like so many others, could not see the unprecedented market collapse that lay before us.

ROBERT RUBIN, FORMER U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: We all bear responsibility for not recognizing this. And I deeply regret that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Author Michael Lewis has probably dug deeper into the culture of Wall Street risk-taking than almost anybody. He has already written one legendary book on the suggest, "Liar's Poker." And his latest is "The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine." It's already number one on "The New York Times" bestseller list.

And he's joining us right now.

Michael, great to have you here.

MICHAEL LEWIS, AUTHOR, "THE BIG SHORT: INSIDE THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE": Oh, well, thanks for having me.

BROWN: So, I want to get into the book in just a second. But let me just ask you about what we just heard. You had these two extremely well-paid executives who some would argue ran that company into the ground apologizing now, or at least taking some responsibility for it. What do you think?

LEWIS: Yes. It's the first I have heard of that.

And it's -- it's better than -- it's better than not apologizing.

(LAUGHTER)

LEWIS: But I think that one of the really curious things about this little episode in financial history is that -- that even the people who were really wrong about what was going on in the financial system didn't understand it themselves got rich. And I think that they like this danger now in the evaluation of what happened in trying to blame individuals. While there are plenty of individuals who did a lot of wrong things, essentially all these people were paid not to understand the risks. They didn't have any incentive to understand the risks. So just pillaring a few executives is not going to fix the problem.

BROWN: And you hear them say that the people who were involved in making these bad deals now, you know, there were all these factors here. The credit ratings were good. The housing prices went down. Nobody told us this was going to be a bad debt. Do you think even now they really understand what happened?

LEWIS: Well, it's been interesting to me to watch. Since the crisis began to unfold, the pose of the people who were at the top of the system, and not just the people who ran the big Wall Street firms, but also people in the Fed and the treasury, has been that we're not culpable, we're victims in this kind of tsunami washed over us that no one saw coming. And it was -- it's spoken of almost as a natural disaster, you know, when it wasn't, it was a man-made disaster.

BROWN: But let's go to some of the people, because this tees up perfectly your book.

LEWIS: How did that happen?

BROWN: It does.

LEWIS: I don't know how that happened.

BROWN: You thought that through. "The Big Short" is about a few unusual characters who did understand what was happening, who predicted the crisis and who made a ton of money betting against everybody else. What did they know that everybody else didn't?

LEWIS: Yes, that's sort of the question that animated me in the very beginning of working on this book. In that here there wasn't that many people, a dozen, 15 investors who set themselves up essentially in opposition to the entire financial system. And what became clear to me is in each case, none of them knew each other. They were all operating as sort of sane men in an insane world and trying to figure out how on earth the system got itself so contorted so that it was doing these crazy things. And in each case it was something different that led to see, to take the set of facts that were out there in the world and to arrange them into a more accurate picture of reality. And I think that one of the sort of lessons of the story is the incredible degree of conformity and sort of group think inside the financial system, that it didn't tolerate a diversity of views as a healthy market would

BROWN: But there were also no consequences for bad behavior of any sort.

LEWIS: That's why, yes.

BROWN: I mean, so -- so how do you -- when -- and in many ways, that still seems to be the case. How do you sort of scare people into doing the right thing when they are so unbelievably well rewarded for doing the wrong thing?

LEWIS: Yes, this is the point, right? I mean, if you can do, if you can get just as rich making bad decisions as you could making good ones, why make the good ones? Why go to the trouble? And that's sort of the lesson for the last five years. But your language is interesting.

I think that if you try to scare people into doing it, it's not going to work. That sort of implies, take the existing system and just lay on it a bigger police force that will run around and terrify people. The problem is that traders even now are rewarded for taking risks that in the short-term makes sense but in the long do not. This is not a problem just the last four or five years. That the seeds of this catastrophe go back 30. So you're talking about really profound wrenching change that needs to happen on Wall Street.

BROWN: But let me ask you to not go back 30 years, but go back to when you wrote about liars -- when you wrote "Liar's Poker" about Wall Street in the '80s, and sort of the legendary excess of that era. Talk to me about what's different from then to now, what you think of change the most.

LEWIS: Well, one of the odd things is that Wall Street on the surface has become much more socialized, much better behaved. I mean, "Liar's Poker" was filled, was kind of an animal house behind it. And it was (INAUDIBLE). The surface behavior was outrageous. The financial behavior was actually much less outrageous. I mean, there's a story in this book I've written about a single trader at Morgan Stanley making a single bet that cost the firm $9.4 billion. And nobody -- and nobody knows his name. There were examples of traders back in the '80s losing a couple hundred million dollars and ending up on the front page of the "Wall Street Journal."

BROWN: That's amazing. It really is.

LEWIS: The scope of things has changed quite dramatically.

BROWN: And I read, too, and investigating the people behind the subprime crash, you also found out that "Liar's Poker" had inspired many of them to go on Wall Street in the first place.

LEWIS: Yes. You know, it really was sobering to define. When I was talking to people who actually got their firm in trouble, a lot of them were willing to talk to me but that they said "Liar's Poker" is why they got into the business in the first place. And I really did -- some part of me did think actually because I knew I didn't know what I was doing when I was getting paid to give financial advice that this is the catastrophe I would have created if I would have been allowed to run a Wall Street firm.

BROWN: I mean, what's your take? Do you think that the real part of the problem that you get out in this book is truly being addressed in any serious way? LEWIS: Not yet. My take is this, that both the Bush and the Obama administrations took the positions that the banks couldn't be nationalized and they couldn't be run into bankruptcy, and the creditors couldn't take hits. So the strategy is essentially to gift money to them until they're out of their problems and back on their feet.

And so having adopted that strategy, I suspect that the thinking is, although nobody will say this, is we can't actually address, we can't attack them with reforms, attack their revenues with reforms. And we need them, we need them to make lots of money and get out of their hole. So I think that's part of the reason reform has been delayed. Another part of the reason, though, is that essentially restore it to strength. The firms themselves are fighting the reforms that need to be enacted. And this is -- that's outrageous.

I mean it is amazing to me that these firms essentially -- they would not exist had it not been for the government intervention, that they're even at the -- that they're at the bargaining table talking about what should be done about them. I don't even think they should have a voice.

BROWN: Great to have you here, Michael Lewis. Appreciate it.

LEWIS: Thank you.

BROWN: And coming up, "M2," our brand new segment with two of our best, Mary Matalin and Roland Martin. And then a little bit later, Tiger at the Masters. He has his best opening day ever, but the real buzz all about that ad when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Time again for our new segment, "M2," that stands for Matalin and Martin, our powerhouse team of Mary Matalin and Roland Martin. They're going to be here with your unique and always entertaining takes on the day's most talked about stories. They're in New Orleans. Again tonight, guys, what have you got?

MARY MATALIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Hey, Campbell, all of my peeps are down here in New Orleans for the big Southern Leadership Republican Conference. And guess what they're not talking about.

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Bondage clubs?

MATALIN: Some of them are. Not all of them are. Did you visit any while you were here? You've been here all week.

MARTIN: No, I bought -- if you are in New Orleans, trust me, I'm quite sure some of those Republicans will be in one of those clubs. But first of all, bad week, the last couple of weeks for Michael Steele.

MATALIN: I know. Private times.

MARTIN: Yes. MATALIN: Yes, well, that's what they're not talking about, because only us in our little orbit are talking about Michael Steele. He's fine. He's not going anywhere. He's made some missteps, but he's doing OK.

MARTIN: He cleaned house this week. You know, chief of staff resigned. He brought a new person in. Of course, they hey fired the young lady last week with the young eagles.

MATALIN: But things were made. Responsibility was taken.

MARTIN: So taking responsibility, so it seems that he's trying to right the ship. He probably recognized that he was taking a lot of heat and frankly, unnecessarily.

MATALIN: But you know what? A lot of pundits are popping off about during the work that Dan Bowls (ph) or Jonathan Martin and "Politico" did to understand the make of the committee. It's 168 people, they voted him in. Only they can vote him out.

MARTIN: Two-thirds.

MATALIN: And so, he is there. We're a couple of months away from a big election and what no one in that election is going to go to the voting booth saying anything other than we're going to vote for a Republican. We don't care about Michael Steele. We don't like this health care. We don't like these Democrats.

MARTIN: Vote Republican and Democrat, but obviously though, you have to be concerned when it comes to raising money when you have donors who are saying we're going to lay back. Tony Perkins is saying don't give to the RNC, but they're going to give to some Republicans anyway.

MATALIN: Right. It's fungible. It's very fungible. Plus --

MARTIN: Fungible, what does that mean?

MATALIN: Meaning, it's -- while you can't take money out of politics, see I should ask you questions about bondage. He had -- the RNC had a record March. They raised $11 million. So if some -- if donors -- donors don't go away. They go to another committee. There's three other committees.

MARTIN: And plus, he made the point. Look, Rudy Giuliani this week who was obviously backing Steele saying that the guy shouldn't go anywhere. I think it was Giuliani. He went down to Florida. He went down to Florida to campaign on the behalf of Rubio who was running against Charlie Crist.

And, Mary, I'm sorry. I've got to be kicked out of Rudy Giuliani talking about who's a really strong Republican, a strong conservative. I'm going, oh, let's see, Mr. Gay marriage, Mr. Pro choice, trying to talk about who the real Republican? Come on.

MATALIN: Who's a real Democrat? MARTIN: (INAUDIBLE).

MATALIN: The tax cheater or -- there's all kinds of Republicans who are representing all kinds of different views. I'm a libertarian. Most of them, all of them are constitutionalists and federalists. It's very good for Marco to have Giuliani down there.

MARTIN: You're making my point. You're making my point, though, that there are different people who are in both parties. There are people who are liberal, who are moderate, who are conservative. You talk about being libertarian. And the problem I have on both parties is when people try to say oh, no, this is what it means to be a real Democrat, you must be far left, or a real Republican you must be far right. No, it depends upon, frankly, what the makeup of the district --

MATALIN: Correct.

MARTIN: Or your state.

MATALIN: Correct. But I want to say to your Blue Dogs, come on home. Come on home, Blue Dogs. They are conservatives. They belong in the conservative party.

(CROSSTALK)

MARTIN: First of all, (INAUDIBLE).

I'm used to it. But again, I don't mind either way. Because of some issues, frankly, I might lean liberal. Others I might lean conservative. I don't buy this nonsense of ideology the way I look at people. But I have a problem when people want to weed out people who disagree with them in both parties.

MATALIN: Right.

MARTIN: You need different views in both parties.

MATALIN: No weeding out. We're just weeding in.

MARTIN: Yes.

MATALIN: And I'll say again, come on over, Blue Dogs.

MARTIN: Right. Yes, right.

MATALIN: Come on back. We're going to have a lot of Blue Dogs come November.

MARTIN: And I'm sure Olympia Snowe and Collins and Voinovich, people are saying come on with the Democratic Party because Republicans don't want you.

MATALIN: No. No, no, no, no.

I want to get out of politics because we are in the city of food. Look at this food.

MARTIN: Yes.

MATALIN: look at this fried chicken.

MARTIN: I can't look at it.

MATALIN: I know. You'd rather have Giacomo's fried chicken.

MARTIN: I can't look at it.

MATALIN: KFC, the other chicken champs. New sandwich (ph), 540 calories for two pieces of chicken and lots of cheese, and I don't know. Let's look at there -- I don't exactly what's on it. But here in their commercial what's on it, in it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's up with chicken sandwiches?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Big bun, pure chicken. It takes two to fill me up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Give me the chicken.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Finally.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello, chicken.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Someone was listening.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They've got two of everything. Two pieces of cheese, two pieces of bacon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And two pieces of chicken.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So long, bun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN: According to KFC, they said that 18 to 29-year-olds, they ate their sandwiches and felt that they wanted more to eat. Now, 540 calories, but something like 1,600 milligrams or whatever the heck of sodium or anything else. High fat content as well. I mean, in this age of folks with high blood pressure and stroking out and diabetes, do we really need a sandwich packed with that much salt and fat?

MATALIN: Do you really need me, your mama or the government to tell you how much fat and salt you can have? If you have a health condition that precludes you having salt, don't get one of these. By the way, 540 calories, you can have three of those and still stay under that kind of diet.

MARTIN: Sure.

MATALIN: There's plenty of protein. I'm not --

MARTIN: You can have lots of protein, low calorie count, but you could go into a diabetic coma because of the --

MATALIN: Why should I be denied? I'm a salt freak. This is one of my marital fights. I put salt on everything.

MARTIN: OK.

MATALIN: I like salt. Why do I have to be denied something I love and crave because somebody out there is too stupid to eat salt when they shouldn't?

MARTIN: I don't think it's denying, but I do believe though that you have to have responsibility when we are an absolute obese nation. I mean, you look at this country. Now, Mary, you could eat anything and you won't gain weight. But this is an obese nation. You walk down the street, you're like oh, my God.

Am I going to lie now?

MATALIN: We are fat because the government's not doing something?

MARTIN: No, no, no.

MATALIN: Because we don't take personal responsibility.

MARTIN: This is not the government, this is KFC.

MATALIN: Oh, oh, OK.

MARTIN: This is not the government. All right, Campbell, look, Americans enjoy that sandwich, but there's just way too much salt. And I would not touch particularly.

MATALIN: And going back to Giacomo's.

MARTIN: Campbell back to you.

BROWN: Thanks very much, guys. When we come back, Tiger Woods wowing the crowd at the Masters. We have the latest on his amazing first round. And what about that ad? All of that coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: "LARRY KING LIVE" starts in just a few minutes. Larry, what do you have for us tonight?

LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": What a day. Campbell, Tiger tees off at the Masters a sensational day. In fact, the best first day he's ever had at that tournament. And we're going to go live to Augusta to gauge reaction.

Stephen A. Smith and John Sally (ph) will sound off on Tiger's return. Jim Gray and others who were there will give us first hand reports. And then Dr. Laura Schlessinger is here to talk about bullying. It's all next on "LARRY KING LIVE" -- Campbell.

BROWN: All right, Larry. We'll see you in just a few minutes.

And when we come back, we're going to tee Larry up a little bit to talk about the Masters as well and how Tiger did today right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tiger, what did today mean? What did it mean to you?

TIGER WOODS, GOLFER: It meant I'm two shots off the lead. That's what it means.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing beyond that?

WOODS: I'm here to play a golf tournament.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: He is back. That was Tiger Woods just moments ago. He returned to competitive play today for the first time since his sex scandal. The four-time Masters champ was greeted by cheers from enthusiastic fans. So is he in it to win it after an embarrassing and devastating personal downfall and a five-month absence from the game? And what is with that Nike ad featuring the voice of Tiger's deceased father?

Joining us live right now from Augusta, "USA Today" columnist Christine Brennan. Christine, the question I think everybody was asking is could he possibly keep his focus after all that has happened and perform at the level that people expect from Tiger Woods? And he did today, didn't he?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, "USA TODAY" COLUMNIST: He absolutely did. I am very surprised. I was out there, Campbell, for the first seven holes and then came back in, and it looked like nothing had changed. I have to tell you that. It was extraordinary. He played great.

Now, let's say that a lot of golfers are playing great. There's a lot of low scores here. And Tiger said by looking at the leader board and seeing all the low scores, he was encouraged and wanted to shoot low as well, and he felt comfortable and confident. But going into this, I don't think any of us really thought that. And for him to shoot a 68 and it's the lowest round he's ever had for the first round of the Masters. So in 16 Masters, this is best first round. Who ever would have thought we would see that thing?

BROWN: No kidding. Let me ask you also, Christine. Everybody's talking about this new Nike ad that features Tiger Woods and the voice of his dead father. You asked him about that, and I want people to take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOICE OF CHRISTINE BRENNAN, "USA TODAY" COLUMNIST: Tiger, as you know, in addition to this being a big day in golf for you, your Nike ad did start airing and there's been a lot of conversation about it. I'm curious since this private matter that you said you don't want to speak about. Why then would you have an ad come out about that issue?

TIGER WOODS, PROFESSIONAL GOLFER: Well, I think it's very apropos. I think that's what my dad would say. And it's amazing how it -- how my dad can speak to me from different ways. Even when he's long gone, he's still helping me. And I think any son who has lost a father who meant so much in their life, I think they would understand the spot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: What did you think about his answer?

BRENNAN: Well, I'm a daughter who's lost a father and I have no idea really what he's talking about in reference to my question. I certainly understand about your dad's or your mom's advice in your head. That happens to all of us who have lost a parent.

But my question was about the fact that he has pounded the media. Campbell, as you well know, he has talked time and again in every one of his statements or Q&A sessions, about how this is a private matter, I don't want to talk about these issues, it's in the police report, leave my family alone. And then what does he do? He takes this scandal --

BROWN: Right.

BRENNAN: And -- or Nike takes the scandal, but obviously with Tiger's blessing, and they are putting it on the air to make money for Tiger and Nike.

BROWN: Yes, a lot of people --

BRENNAN: I -- I think we have to say what it is. Yes, let's just call it what it is, yes.

BROWN: Before we run out of time, I have to ask you about this, the hypocritical comment that Augusta chairman Billy Payne made yesterday when he called Tiger a bad role model for kids. I almost fell off my chair. As in somebody who wasn't allowing women to join their club, I guess, maybe it's just me. I know you also asked him specifically about this, Christine, what did he tell you?

BRENNAN: Well, I asked about for what Augusta National's responsibility is, Campbell, to encourage women to get in the game, which is a growth industry for the sport. And he said they give a lot of money to men's and women's golf and that's the answer. But yes, there's no woman member to Augusta National. There's been an African- American member for 20 years, a man, but never a woman. And the good news here is, if you take -- the good take away is that with the conversation we're having about it, I think it's going to make it another issue to discuss. And I think that's important for Augusta National, for all of us in journalism.

BROWN: All right. Well, we will see about that. I'm glad you're optimistic. Christine, appreciate it as always. Christine Brennan for us tonight. Thanks a lot.

BRENNAN: Thanks, Campbell.

BROWN: "LARRY KING LIVE" starts in just a few moments. But up next, why is just about everybody having to say they're sorry these days? We'll show you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Finally tonight, today's big apology from the top players at Citigroup sparked a discussion around our newsroom about all the apologies we have heard from famous people of all kinds lately. Saying sorry used to be the hardest word, not anymore.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MUSIC: I'm sorry, so sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me start by saying I'm sorry.

MUSIC: That I was such a fool.

TIGER WOODS, PROFESSIONAL GOLFER: I'm deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior I engaged in.

AKIO TOYODA, TOYOTA EXECUTIVE: I am deeply sorry for any accident that Toyota drivers have experienced.

MUSIC: Who's sorry now?

JOHN EDWARDS, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I made a very serious mistake.

GOV. MARK SANFORD (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: All I can say is that I apologize.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm very sorry.

DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST: My wife Regina, she has been horribly hurt by my behavior.

SEN. JOHN ENSIGN (R), NEVADA: To all of them, especially my wife, I'm truly sorry.

MUSIC: I'm glad that you're sorry now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: So, lots of sorries, but do they make a difference? Or is it only what you do next that counts? We want to know what you think. Post your comments or our Facebook page or find me at on twitter@CNN/Campbell. That's it for us. Thanks for joining us, everybody.

"LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.